Hi,Yesterday I installed the global version of XP10 and flew a bit round, Schiphol area.I'm running XP10 on a 6 Core i7-980Xtreme at 3.6 Ghz, 12GB RAM, an NV GTX570 and WIN7-X64 at 1920x1200As far as I can tell I have used more or less the default graphic settings (no HDR and AA/AS both to 4x)So far I'm getting 10-15 fps flying the default Baron cockpit view.Is this the performance I should expect using the default graphic settings?

Your hardware is more than capable of running XP10 at reasonably high settings at very high framerates.Before anything, make sure you have updated X Plane using the updater/installer.Can you post a screenshot of your settings page?

I get around 20-25 fps on my Athlon X3 445 3.5 ghz with a new HD 6750 2 GB card , but the moment I am up in the air my fps drops. All this was after updating but I have re installed it and checking. And your system has a good GFX card as the support people have emailed saying that you need at least a 6850 or 560ti or higher to achieve good play rates.

Hello !Did you test X-Plane with a better operating system ?http://forum.avsim.net/topic/362799-x-plane-10-performance-comparison-window-vs-linux/Happy flying.

Your hardware is more than capable of running XP10 at reasonably high settings at very high framerates. Before anything, make sure you have updated X Plane using the updater/installer. Can you post a screenshot of your settings page?

I have version 10.03R2 and About screen says it is up-to-date.Somehow I can't take a screenshot of the settings (black screenshot)So I'll write it down:Resolutions:Compress On, Full Screen, Textures High, 1920x1200, No FPS lockStuff To Draw1st Colum: All checked2nd Column: All Unchecked3rd Colum: Populated/Tons/Tons/Siberia4th Column: Very high/High/Overlay/DefaultSpecial EffectsEverything checked, except HDR4AA / 4ASClouds 50%Special Viewing OptionsAll default, nothing changed.

Try turning your clouds down to 20% and try it. Then report back.With the settings your showing, performance should be better. Im running a 2600K (overclocked) and with pretty much the same settings you have, and im getting about 25-30fps at KSEA.Rob

Try running the updater again. I think we're up to 10.04rc1

There is a new updater out, so the old updater no longer works. Beta 7 gave me a huge frame rate jump on my 9800GTX+, to the point that I can play with close to max settings. However someone has said that 10.04 RC 1 broke the FPS and it went back to crap, can anyone confirm this. I still haven't updated to RC 1, and if this is true I'm not gonna.

Hello !Did you test X-Plane with a better operating system ?http://forum.avsim.net/topic/362799-x-plane-10-performance-comparison-window-vs-linux/Happy flying.

Mdmax, I have found a lot of your posts informative, you make good contributions to xplane users but suggesting someone might change operation systems because of xplane performance is a bit out of left field..

Jason, I was going to respond to this yesterday, decided to just leave it alone, but now that you have, I will.I did test Ubuntu 11.1 64 bit extensively under a dual boot situation with Windows 7 (as I have already stated in another post here), and there was no performance difference at all. In fact, Windows 7 visually looked better, and there were things that just didn't work right in the Linux environment in XPX, like some of my home cockpit addons. So, I totally agree, telling someone to switch to a operating system that is in fact inferior to the Windows environment for gaming "is a bit out of left field".Linux / Ubuntu is great for what it is, and I do like messing around with it, but it is not a "great" gaming system environment.....yet.GlenEdit: Before someone responds, I'll add that I do own 1 Linux based laptop, a Windows laptop, an iPhone and 2 Android tablets, to go along with my gaming rig, so I am well versed in operating systems, and not a Windows ######, it's just superior for gaming.And, to the op, on the system in my signature, with almost all settings to max, no ai, and no HDR, I average anywhere from mid 20's to as high as 60's -70 fps, this being with the "reduced" cloud textures, and depending on real weather cloud coverage. These numbers are using addons such as the F33A, or the Duchess.

Except that XPX in linux is not inferior to windows.

There's no difference in performance, I was getting the same numbers from both within a few fps, under the same situations. The problem is, some things just don't work as they should under the Linux environment, and the visuals were better in Windows, so in that respect it is "Inferior". Vanilla set-up, they were equal in performance, one being no better than the other. So the quoted statement is false, XPX does not perform better in Linux.Glen

xplane has always outperformed windows on my linux installation. I haven't used windows for a long time now so I wouldn't know the latest comparisons. I do know however that many users are reporting as high as double the FPS in Linux.What you are saying is because it doesn't for you everyone else is wrong.

Nope, just stating well tested current facts, that's all. One thing I have a problem with, is people giving information based on old or untried testing. Does the person that made the statement even run a dual boot testing system. I did, and after much testing found no benefit to running XPX in the Linux environment at all, there were just too many things that didn't work properly, so why waste anymore time. I don't know why you see this as a personal attack, it isn't, just stating facts. If you don't like them, I can't help you there.Glen

Here's some screen shots from my system with my rendering settings. I can't get it to show fps when in full screen, so I've moved out of full screen and am running across my three monitors which gives a resolution of 3840x1024, I normally run at 4020x1024 full screen. Weather was set to overcast to give cloud coverage, no AI, no HDR as you can see from the settings. My ATI 6970 graphic settings are default. I'm flying towards Toronto, Ontario with OSM data I edited, and ran it through OSM2XP, thank you Ben. Please excuse the untextured Rogers Center and CN Tower, there from Google Warehouse and have a million faces, not talented enough to texture them. Hope it gives you something to work with. As you can see, 33 fps under just about the worst conditions you can throw at it, heavy cloud, urban setting, minus the ai and HDR. When I got to the shore line the fps dipped to mid 20's.GlenEdit: Comparison shot, as close as I could get, with same rendering settings, but CAVOK weather. The overcast conditions seem to hit my system for about 7 fps, not too bad.My apologies for the big shots, but I wanted the op to see close to what I see.