X-Plane 10 FPS / Performance

[GoranM 3,764]

Only 100fps?The way you say it makes me feel like I have a crap system. Are you getting this only in Seattle? What happens in other areas outside Seattle?

[Tom Wright 438]

100fps is MORE than adequate! You only need about 25-30fps for a smooth experience. I doubt you'd even be able notice any more than that if you weren't looking at the numbers.

[Kosta 122]

No no no wait a sec... only 100 fps with no scenery at all, all lowest settings, basically nothing... yeah, I expect more than 100...I tested in first airport you drop in, don't know which one that was, then I saw there is Seattle, and I tried EGLL, but there was no scenery there. EGLL was a bit higher, but nothing significant.

100fps is MORE than adequate! You only need about 25-30fps for a smooth experience. I doubt you'd even be able notice any more than that if you weren't looking at the numbers.

Come on, don't pretend that you don't understand: 30fps is enough yes, but you will not get 30fps when you add scenery, aircraft addon, AI... as a basic sim it's OK. But what happens when you, like into FSX, put an addon in?And yeah, I can see the difference between 30fps and 60fps, even without comparing directly. Edited January 9, 2012 by Kosta

[woweezowee 10]

I have a lot of scenery carried over from version 9. KSEA is very hard on FPS. If you can make it there (KSEA), you can make it anywhere ;)).

[GoranM 3,764]

Word Not Allowed,X Plane doesn't work like FSX. FPS don't start dropping like they do in FSX with extra add ons.When you start adding in scenery and aircraft, X Plane allocates resources for each area. Your CPU is more than adequate. As is your graphics card and your memory. You shouldn't have any problems staying above 25-30 fps with upper level settings worldwide.Hope this helps

[Kosta 122]

Alright, that I didn't know. If it's really like that, and with time, if PMDG comes aboard, we'll know. With very high settings and HDR on, I float around 20fps, but I can push it down to 10...Thanks a lot for the clarification, that helps to understand, but right now no real way to test.I also noticed that both GPU and CPU weren't chugging with 100% usage.

Edited January 9, 2012 by Kosta

[Longranger 148]

No no no wait a sec... only 100 fps with no scenery at all, all lowest settings, basically nothing... yeah, I expect more than 100...I tested in first airport you drop in, don't know which one that was, then I saw there is Seattle, and I tried EGLL, but there was no scenery there. EGLL was a bit higher, but nothing significant.

You think to much about FSX. X-Plane works differently. As an example: Your overclocking probably hurts. FSX was based on the performance of one core with one thread. X-Plane uses as many cores and as many threads as you have and it uses the GPU.

[woweezowee 10]

HDR is all but optimized yet. Can't use it with more than 20FPS myself, even if dialing down lots of other stuff. Definately a case of "waiting for optimizations beeing done - hopefully soon".

[rburke3608 0]

I have an i7 2600, 3.4 GHz 4 core processor and an AMD HD 6950 2 gig video card, 8 gig system RAM. I purchased my machine in January of 2010 so my processor is 1st gen i7 2600. I use HDR at FXAA setting. Trees filled in, objects mega tons, roads tons, number of cars Siberian Winter, World draw distance medium, shadow detail overlay, water detail at default, Extreme Res!, and under Aircraft and Situations I set the number of aircraft at 01 which is just me I guess. The slider doesn't go to 00.I don't do ATC and like low and slow barnstorming approach to flying across the virtual landscape so each time I start a session I down load actual weather from that part of the country and fly landscape and weather. The northwest has lots of cloudy days and I played with the cloud settings a lot. The newest Beta just has one slider for Cloud Detail and I set it at 22%. If I go 23% I lose 8 - 10 fps when there is interesting cloud cover.So with all of the above settings and clouds at 22% The low end of my fps runs 27 - 32 with the highs in the mid to high 40s. I guess I don't mind being the only plane in the sky but putting more aircraft out there really tanks my fps. The clouds still look pretty good at 22%. Having a video card with 2 gig VRAM I think helps a lot and I am really interested in the new AMD and NVIDIA cards with 3 gig VRAM.I do use a Trackir 5 and that doesn't seem to have any affect on frame rates. Also, I can push Anisotropic filter to 16 (insane) with no affect at all on frame rate. I went with the least value and 16 and frame rates stayed the same. I cannot push the HDR antialiasing past FXAA as that takes me right down to 19 fps which I think is the default cellar. I did try Gamebooster 3 in Advanced System Care 5 and there was no net increase in frame rates. Also Vsync got messed up and there was considerable tearing. When I got out of Game Booster 3 the problem was resolved.Hope this helps.

[60North 120]

For more FPS friendly AI aircraft, try these AI packs I made.http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showcat=145M

[Tomaz Drnovsek 440]

X Plane doesn't work like FSX. FPS don't start dropping like they do in FSX with extra add ons.

Ok, that's a new one. I also didn't know that. So, if ORBX and PMDG would do addons for Xplane, flying in PNW with 737NGX would get you pretty much the same FPS as default? Because one of the things that put me off XPX is FPS (based on what people with better computers than mine say).

[GoranM 3,764]

No. It doesn't quite work that way.Without going into detail, in X Plane, you can model a 1 million+ polygon mesh and still get 30, 40, 50 fps. I know, because I've done it with a 1.3 million polygon mesh. What drags the fps down is textures and normal maps, UNLESS you have a graphics card with enough VRAM that can handle the textures. By all accounts, you could have an airport scenery with 500 000 polygons and an aircraft approaching it with another 500 000 polygons and still get decent fps, as long as the textures and normal maps are used efficiently. X Plane uses the resources in the PC more efficiently. What is dragging most peoples fps to a crawl is the graphics intense areas, such as HDR, volumetric lighting, AA, etc...

[Mountain Man 142]

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.

"Only" 100fps? As long as you're above 30 then X-Plane will run fine. Super high frame rates aren't good for much more than bragging.

[TedG 1]

Howdy,I thought I would chime in here now that I finally got the XPX demo (10.03r1) sorted out and working.Intel Core2 Quad Q8300@2.5GHzASUS GTX550 1Gb Ti Direct CuASUS P5P41TD board4Gb RAM (3.5 enabled via USERVA switch option on boot)WIN XP 32b SP3With my somewhat ghetto system (in comparison with these high-end i7 etc 64b monsters) I am quite pleased to see that with the below settings in the worst possible case scenario (KSEA) my frames are happily parked between 22-30fps rising to a steady 30-35fps once away from the airport. I have shut off the AI/ATC as I would never use it.The sim looks great actually. If you folks with higher spec systems cannot achieve the above-seriously-take the repeated advice to shut everything off in rendering and bring it back one bit at a time. I found my logjam is in the objects and roads area where taking it higher makes the load time way excessive....and while seeing the Northern Lights is coolish it was also heavily sapping frames.I am not remotely concerned regarding add-on performance as my experience with XP9 thus far has shown that no matter what I throw at it the frames never really got affected (one exception being a minor hit with a high-res photo scenery...and it was quite minor).I am looking forward to seeing the sim mature and cannot wait for my favorite XP add-on devs to update my payware for XPX. Never mind upcoming releases :(**edit**Once I get the full install I'll tweak it a wee bit more mainly for AA and then as with XP9 turn off the FPS counter and forget about it.Also...it took me a whopping 3 minutes to set up my Stick/HOTAS. I must have missed the hard bit :(**further edit**One additional little teeny item folks forget about is XP-whatever is supporting flight sim enthusiasts across 3....THREE...operating systems concurrently which is a huge technical achievement on its own.

[GoranM 3,764]

TedI'd bump the Lateral FOV to about 70. You get a better view of the panel that way.