Because thats what most cards are marketed with, and what users - and humble salesperson - can more easily "understand". And the text says it: "capable". For the devs, this ensures, that if people buy a card with DX capabilities of this evel, then the card can do that in OpenGL too.

Ahhh I see, thanks for clarifying Andras. Makes sense.Cheers Rhydian

that sounds promising. I was already giving up on XPX again after experiencing as low as 5 fps in clouds with 40% setting on a 4 GHz 6core i7. still worries me that the XPX developer can not come up with a product that provides acceptable fps out of the box

40% ? With 10.04 beta 4 ?Why? I must say in the current version 15% looks (IMHO) much more realistic and gives a much better performance.

Folks, update your versions of XPX! Something's been tweaked in the 'clouds' department!Like Bob just said, I don't own it (yet), but I'm reading as much as I can in the meantime.JJ

40% ? With 10.04 beta 4 ?Why? I must say in the current version 15% looks (IMHO) much more realistic and gives a much better performance.

40% would be impossible for me. I usually run clouds at 10% so I can use more objects. The screen shots I posted have clouds at 10%.Glen

40% clouds with a GTX 470????Asking a bit much from your graphics card, aren't ya, "eagle"?

I posted my latest settings here, getting very pleasing results:http://xplane10.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/xpx-10-04-beta-4-settings-and-fps/At 21% the clouds still look cool and inside them it's much more transparent, and I'm seeing about 15fps inside them.Alas I have had to switch off hdr during the day, but I hardly miss it, ESP as the effects are more obvious at night where it's easier on fps.I'm finding that you have to revisit your settings after every update, just in case some new improvement can be taken advantage of. Doesn't take long to revisit.

Being insane, I immediately tried to see what it looked like with clouds at 100%I estimate frames at about 5Fps (graphics card still not interested at all in the proceedings) but interestingly enough, while the clouds were very definitely more detailed, I actually found them slightly less realistic than at lower levels. Some of the larger cloud layers looked like they were made of zillions of tiny little balls of a hundred almost imperceptibly different shades cleverly pretending to be a cloud. :blink:I would say that sometimes there can definitely be too much of a good thing.Edit: I remember what it reminded me of. A pointillist painting.

Edited February 21, 201214 yr by HiFlyer'

I suspect people will have to post their settings and what version of the beta they are using before any Xplane forum gurus will be able to offer help with possible cloud problems. The reduced texture clouds sound interesting, though.

Latest beta (10.04 beta 4) with HDR and clouds at 40%.If one can't enjoy a stutter-free experience with a turbo-nutter graphics card at just 40 % then LR might want to rethink that slider. ;)It's important to set expectations even with the best of today's hardware.

Latest beta (10.04 beta 4) with HDR and clouds at 40%.If one can't enjoy a stutter-free experience with a turbo-nutter graphics card at just 40 % then LR might want to rethink that slider. ;)It's important to set expectations even with the best of today's hardware.

The GTX 470 is a "turbo nutter" graphics card???The 560 (pretty much considered the standard today) beats it in every test.

The GTX 470 is a "turbo nutter" graphics card???The 560 (pretty much considered the standard today) beats it in every test.

Hi there, you're quite correct but I don't believe I said I had a GTX470; I am running a GTX580.David

Hi there, you're quite correct but I don't believe I said I had a GTX470; I am running a GTX580.David

Ah, apologies. I thought you were talking about "fly_like_an_eagle" whose post is found here...http://forum.avsim.net/topic/363225-big-improvement-with-replacement-clouds/page__view__findpost__p__2266212Keep in mind, even the top graphics cards of 2005 couldn't run FSX stutter free.

Indeed... anyway I will swallow my pride lose the HDR, and drop the clouds down to 20%. I seriously thought my card would have fared better!Cheers, David

Hehe, that 580 is a good card. I think the pcie2 is the bottleneck, 3 should be a lot better, in addition to any tweaks from laminar and being realistic with cloud settings. I've got a 560 like Goran, perf is ok, but am looking forward to an upgrade PC by July ish, a fat Nvidia Kepler & Ivy Bridge setup, hopefully good value.

Absolutely, I will upgrade mine when PCI-E 3 is introduced. This hobby is just like any other; a big hole that we throw money into! ;-)

Ha, yes! But it's relatively cheap. We just had a guy in to quote on a louvre roof for our outdoor area, TWENTY FIVE GRAND!! You gotta be joking. So we'll go our cheaper option and spend the $22k saving on an SLI :-)