Yeah, I have a 580 Gtx and a Core I7 3.4 @ 4.4 and I cannot achive more than 30 fps. Xplane render whole sky, and with HDR and antialiasing graphic card dies. I tried an Aereosoft detailed airport and the fps fall at 8-9 fps!! No way to get Xplane working with addons, neither sli/crossfire is supported.

Try turning World Detail Distance down a notch. That makes a big difference in XPlane. Also try turning shadows to Overlay or Static, and turn the clouds slider down to about 20%. Start out with low object, tree and road densities, and HDR off. When you get a stable frame rate you can start turning things up. It definitely possible to get decent frame rates of your PC, as I can get it to reach 60fps and my machines not as good as yours. You just have to be quite conservative with the settings I mentioned.

Tom,this kind of mess xplane and fsx, fs9... made me experiment for years... sometimes going to bed with my eyes broken and seeing CFG lines in my dreams, instead of enjoying the simulation of flight, is exactly why i fell in love with FLIGHT!When testing xp10 last week I used that button for maximum performance because I don't really mind having empty roads (but I do like to have roads for VFR..., airplanes at the airports, etc... I did get good Fps, but then, there was that problem with xplane's FM... It simply doesn't feel like flying, I don't know :-( And that strange cloud coverage, the poor rendition of METAR data... Well....The Zero recenty released is a masterpiece in graphics terms but than, thx to the "exquisite" FM in xplane you can end-up with weirdiness like HERE starting at minute 4:51At least in FLIGHT, albeit the stupid comments of Austin on his April fools day... I don't have this... He should really fix it :-|

Try turning World Detail Distance down a notch. That makes a big difference in XPlane. Also try turning shadows to Overlay or Static, and turn the clouds slider down to about 20%. Start out with low object, tree and road densities, and HDR off. When you get a stable frame rate you can start turning things up. It definitely possible to get decent frame rates of your PC, as I can get it to reach 60fps and my machines not as good as yours. You just have to be quite conservative with the settings I mentioned.

Yes I agree. That max performance button in XP makes everything look yucky. I haven't been particularly impressed with the flight modelling (in the aircraft I've tried - default and Carenado). They all have a weird banking tendency and require lots of aileron trim to keep them wings level, and torque seems to affect roll rather than yaw as it would in r/l. However at the moment I find Flight too restricting, there's not enough aircraft to keep me interested and the area is too small. Maybe when Alaska is out that'll change. At the moment I'm trying out Prepar3d which seems a nice improvement to FSX on the stability front, with all the features we know and love.

Try turning World Detail Distance down a notch. That makes a big difference in XPlane. Also try turning shadows to Overlay or Static, and turn the clouds slider down to about 20%. Start out with low object, tree and road densities, and HDR off. When you get a stable frame rate you can start turning things up. It definitely possible to get decent frame rates of your PC, as I can get it to reach 60fps and my machines not as good as yours. You just have to be quite conservative with the settings I mentioned.

You're right.On my system, an I2500K with 16 GB RAM and Nvidia GTX 560, XP-10 runs quite well and with nice graphics (also at 1920*1080), after a bit of tweaking of the graphic parameters. The best thing is just starting with low settings and then raising them a bit each step until you find a good compromise. In my case it is more fluid than FSX.A.

I keep going back and having another look at that Zero, I'll probably end up getting it. I have a weakness for these older planes.Anyway I know this is the MSFlight forum have fun guys. cya