Hi!First post in the XP forum. I own the full version of XP9 but never used it that much as I always tended to prefer using FSX. For a change, I downloaded the XP10 demo to try it out, and am quite impressed. I like the shadowing and the clouds. I'm not enormously fond of the new scenery but it might grow on me! One thing i'm struggling a little with is getting an acceptable frame rate. Coming from FSX, which has always been known to be a dog when it comes to performance, I expected XP10 to be very zippy and quick, but this doesn't seem to be the case. In the demo area of Seattle i'm struggling to get 20fps at times. System spec is not exactly slow: Core i7 920 @ 4.0GHz, 4Gb RAM, EVGA superclocked GTX 560 Ti on Windows 7 Pro x64. First I turned off AI, which helped a bit. I turned the clouds down to 20% and the shadowing down to 'Aircraft 3D only', and objects, trees and roads are on 'Tons', airport detail is 'default' and road traffic is 'Siberian winter'. Generally FPS is around 20fps, however near airports and in flight moving the viewpoint to a particular area (I haven't managed to figure out a pattern as to which areas looking at lowers the fps) it can be as low as 13fps.Any help would be appreciated!Thanks!Tom

Same here for me. Pretty hardcore system, and looking into KSEA airport, I'm getting not over 40fps with these settings. I was kinda expecting more. Too much? Picture quality is, compared to FSX, below what I'd call sharp and clean. And this is without some addon scenery or good addon aircraft. Also jaggies on the aircraft are not welcome... but, the performance drops massively if I add more AA.Am I doing something wrong?

Edited January 9, 201214 yr by Kosta

@TomCheck "World Detail distance" in you rendering settings and if its other then low, change it, that one right there made a hole lot of difference in my case.Edit: Word Not Allowed, I see that you have it 'Very High', try low.Carlos

Edited January 9, 201214 yr by zPirata

Tried - abit better, but a world of difference. I'm not talking here 5fps difference - if I load up my fully loaded FSX with ORBX, NGX, addon airport, super high antialiasing, I'm pulling those frames.So, I was expecting more frames from the sim in it's default status.

another one is texture resolution. try very high (compressed) or high (uncompressed). at extreme, definately also use compressed. Otherwise it is too likely you will CTD because you hit the virtual memory maximum. also you put less stress on your system, it has to deal with less data and therefore will run faster.p.s.: most heavy are HDR and global shadows.

Edited January 9, 201214 yr by woweezowee

another one is texture resolution. try very high (compressed) or high (uncompressed). at extreme, definately also use compressed. Otherwise it is too likely you will CTD because you hit the virtual memory maximum. also you put less stress on your system, it has to deal with less data and therefore will run faster.p.s.: most heavy are HDR and global shadows.

Just tried setting lower res, also compressed. Not much of a FPS change.I turned off global shadows to static - 42fps situation went up to 48fpsI'd be the first in row to buy XP if it was the sim that is going to deliver!Lemme show you something (not at all trying to bash XP, just can't believe if that's it!):

we're looking at an unfinished, unpolished x-plane in that screenshot right now. I have issues myself, not beeing able to use HDR because of performance. New users better should wait for at least version 10.2, not get frustrated with the Betas. It happens to us oldtimers, too. :(

also this post and table might be of help for you: http://www.x-plane.com/blog/2011/12/tips-for-better-frame-rates-pt-1/

we're looking at an unfinished, unpolished x-plane in that screenshot right now. I have issues myself, not beeing able to use HDR because of performance. New users better should wait for at least version 10.2, not get frustrated with the Betas. It happens to us oldtimers, too. :(

Alright, I'll come back when I see some later build to check it out - hopefully Demo is going to reflect it.And btw. FSX, when completely naked, gives me around 300fps I think (as far as I can remember) - XP10 when naked 120fps. Just apples to apples comparison.

Edited January 9, 201214 yr by Kosta

usually it is like that. the demo might not be immediately always be the latest version, but they do keep it updated for sure. you see: X-plane version 9 had something like 30 beta versions and several Release Candidates (also AFTER the DVDs were shipped). That's why you don't see us panicing here too much. A little bit of patience is the key.

I'd be perfectly happy with the FPS you're seeing Word Not Allowed! I'm following the advice in that link to the blog, and have turned everything right down as low as they'll go, and now FPS is stable at 60 but understandably everything looks hideous! I'll put each one up one by one and see where I get to!

usually it is like that. the demo might not be immediately always be the latest version, but they do keep it updated for sure. you see: X-plane version 9 had something like 30 beta versions and several Release Candidates (also AFTER the DVDs were shipped). That's why you don't see us panicing here too much. A little bit of patience is the key.

I completely get you. I'm a patient guy, I can wait - was just coming here to inform myself, looking at a viable alternative to FSX.

I'd be perfectly happy with the FPS you're seeing Word Not Allowed! I'm following the advice in that link to the blog, and have turned everything right down as low as they'll go, and now FPS is stable at 60 but understandably everything looks hideous! I'll put each one up one by one and see where I get to!

Yes, but our computers are also somewhat different, don't forget that.

 

Alright, I'll come back when I see some later build to check it out - hopefully Demo is going to reflect it.And btw. FSX, when completely naked, gives me around 300fps I think (as far as I can remember) - XP10 when naked 120fps. Just apples to apples comparison.

apples with oranges...Reduce the cloud settings to ~25, visually not much of a difference but framerate increases.At current build, the cloud slider (and clouds in general) seems to be not yet perfectly balanced.Regards,Heiko

KostaI think I saw somewhere that forcing a different screen resolution has an effect on fps. Change it to match windows screen res.Also, try turning off volumetric fog and pixel lighting and put a check mark in compress textures to save vram and then experimenting with those

KostaI think I saw somewhere that forcing a different screen resolution has an effect on fps. Change it to match windows screen res.Also, try turning off volumetric fog and pixel lighting and put a check mark in compress textures to save vram and then experimenting with those

Thanks Goran, I went along and reset everything with a button to lowest and still was kicking only in the area of 100fps. Also did a test with full screen matched.