why can't i get good performance

[moss1 11]

Hi everyone,

This is more of a inquiry / rant to see if I'm doing anything wrong here..

I have a new Windows7 64bit system with i7 3770 running at 4.4ghz, I had a Nvidia GTX560ti 2Gb card. I just went and dropped over $500.00 on a GTX670 4GB video card. I also run 16gigs ram and Nvidia inspector ..setup with nicks suggestions, which does help, but still not satisfied...yet.

I see others using xplane 10 almost cranked out with great performance. If I even try to use shadows on aircraft, hdr, I get 27 to 32fps, but not smooth at all if there is any scenery involved EX KLGA or KPHL etc.... I have tweaked my system to most recent suggestions. I run 32bit Vers. 10.11 as I am waiting until Devs update to 64bit.

I can run FSX with NGX for example at 24FPS with addon scenery so so, but xplane won't allow me to enjoy without stutters etc... am I missing something here? if you need more specifics, let me know and I'm happy to list. I just feel something is a miss.

I've spent a lot of money and yet users with the 2500K or 2600K seem to get to have bliss...Did I waste my time getting the latest greatest in what I thought was a good cpu in the 3770K? Just want your input so maybe I can get to the bottom of this once and for all. I'm sick and tired of testing and just want to enjoy some flying time on my system. Thanks in advance to everyone.

Rant off........

 

Best, Jeff

[FIVE-BY-FIVE 453]

when I went from 10.11 to 10.20b, it was a huge difference in performance....try it out! you get both versions after the update: 32bit and 64bit

[Muskoka 104]

As stated above for sure, the 64bit will be much better with the system you have. I run with most settings to the max, except no HDR, no Shadows and clouds at 67%. They will cripple the best of systems. If you want to run with those on, your going to have to turn down stuff like roads, buildings, and most importantly your AA settings. I can't stand the jaggies myself, so I turn off the things that impact it the most. I find more shimmering with the HDR on as well, my system looks way better with it off. Other folks like the look, your going to have to experiment.

 

Xplane is no different that the other sims, clouds and shadows are going to have a big impact, if you run with higher AA. HDR cuts my fps by almost half depending on the situation, thus no HDR for me, and my system is no slouch. If your just flying around sightseeing at 100kt's your probably fine, anything quicker where the system has to keep up, your going to be turning things down.

 

Rural flying in Xplane I have seen my fps as high as 150+, with clear skies. Fly over Toronto in clear skies with the same settings and I might be in the teens, low 20's. It's still a balancing act with the settings.

 

Glen

[FloB 34]

Hi Jeff,

 

first of all: leave everything in the NVIDIA settings at default / app controlled. Messing with the driver settings doesn't do any good in XP10.

 

Make sure that no antivir or anything like it interferes with XP10 and XP10 runs with admin rights. Disable hyperthreading in your bios.

 

After that, please post a screen of your rendering settings and do a test flight at default KSEA and check FPS (runway before takeoff / midflight / approach).

This will allow at least some fair comparision of performance.

 

Cheers

Flo

(WIN7-64 / 2600k / GTX670)

[Pascal_LSGC 298]

Hi,

Today's best computers can't have every setting cranked up in heavy scenery areas. You'll have to make choices. The most taxing settings are: global shadows, hdr, clouds. In beta versions, world distance details is also better scaled, it can help. And for sure 64bits helps a lot, the first release candidate for it shouldn't be too long to come out.

 

I can give you some tips:

I noticed that HDR in itself isn't especially heavy in itself with recent GPUs. But: with HDR on, the world distance details shows objects at a much higher distance. In fact, exactly two steps higher. That means that "extreme" (or whatever the name) without HDR is the exact equivalent of "medium" with HDR !

So, whenever you set HDR on, always go down two steps with world distance details.

 

Another thing with HDR: highest antialiasing looks good but is very hard on the system. And low AA settings don't look very good. If you need perfect AA, choose no HDR (and switch it on at night). If you prefer the nice vibrant lighting it provides, and don't mind some shimmering, go for it.

 

Pascal

[Muskoka 104]

I just feel something is a miss.

 

Jeff, nothing is really amis. If you run with HDR, Shadows and other settings at higher values in a densely populated area, XPX IS going to have a tough time. Your fps will be low, and the sim will not be smooth. As I stated before, XPX is no different that other sims, you have to compromise somewhere.

 

Edit:

 

Agreed Pascal, HDR looks nice (at times), but to look nice it's needs at least 4x "something" AA, and then the fps and smoothness tank, even on a GTX670 4gb. So is HDR worth the sacrifice of other high settings, not in my books. Like I said before, if all you ever do is low and slow, and I mean very slow, then give it a go, otherwise it's going to kill performance, and the visual benefits then become moot.

 

Another thing as far as settings go. Without HDR, I run at 16x AA, with AF at 1x or 16x (makes no visual difference) everything is very crisp and clear, no shimmering, and very high frame rates in 95% of situations, and it's smooth. Turn HDR on, and even at 4x AA my fps are cut in half, there is shimmering, and the overall look is nowhere near as crisp and clear. I can turn the AA down but then it looks much worse. You could also turn a lot of other settings down, but why would anyone want to do that. HDR, is simply not all it's hyped up to be. Can it look nice, sure, but at the expense of what. It's great for taking screen shots, not everyday flying with high settings overall.

 

Actually, neither are the shadow effects. You still get these horrible jagged edges on shadows inside and out of the aircraft, not realistic looking at all. Just being honest guys / gals.

 

Glen

 

Jeff, try turning HDR and Shadows off, crank up everything else, and report back with your findings. It will look great, be very crisp and clear, and most important, smooth.

[moss1 11]

Thanks for your input everyone. I feel a little better about this now. It has been bothering me for some time, however I just didn't know what to think. I will look into some of your advice and reply here. Of course it's Monday, so it may be a few days until I get a chance. Thanks again.

 

 

Best, Jeff

[Muskoka 104]

Yes, do that Jeff. I'm lucky I guess, I can sit and test for 24 hours if I like (which I do), benefits of "early" retirement. Plus, I have a high end machine, so I can put it through it's paces. I think some try to offer help or suggestions, and don't have the hardware to really make fair assessments. ^_^ Not saying that's happening here, but is a common occurrence in the flight simulation communities.

 

Glen

[alfletcher 5]

Also try to limit the visibility range to max 15 miles. For me it makes a nice boost in frame rate (±15 fps).

+

[Mountain Man 142]

The general advice for tuning game performance is to drop everything to minimum and then raise one slider at a time until you figure out which one tanks your performance. Otherwise it can feel a bit like chasing your tail.

 

I noticed that HDR in itself isn't especially heavy in itself with recent GPUs. But: with HDR on, the world distance details shows objects at a much higher distance. In fact, exactly two steps higher. That means that "extreme" (or whatever the name) without HDR is the exact equivalent of "medium" with HDR !

So, whenever you set HDR on, always go down two steps with world distance details.

 

I never realized this. That's good to know.

[Muskoka 104]

I never realized this. That's good to know.

 

Just tested Pascals theory, 3 times, rebooting in between tests.

 

Same flight, sitting at RW 15, CYXU, no weather, daytime setting, same Rendering settings except "World Detail Distance" and "HDR". Default C172 in 3d cockpit. HDR off, AA set at 4x. HDR on, AA set at 4x.

 

No HDR - World Detail Distance at Very High = 107 fps.

 

HDR on - World Detail Distance at Very High = 32 fps., exact same view / settings, same everything.

 

HDR on - World Detail Distance at Medium = 33 fps., exact same view / settings, same everything.

 

The theory does not hold true on my "high end" system (if I did I would admit it, I'm not trying to hide or fudge anything here). Would like to see others results / experiences? HDR is still a frame rate killer. Nothing wrong with 32 fps either, all my other settings are very high, but that is with no other ai aircraft, no clouds / real weather, no shadows, and sitting static. Whats going to happen when I start to move, and really tax the system with everything else.

 

Glen

[BimmerCop 332]

 

Just tested Pascals theory, 3 times, rebooting in between tests.

 

Same flight, sitting at RW 15, CYXU, no weather, daytime setting, same Rendering settings except "World Detail Distance" and "HDR". Default C172 in 3d cockpit. HDR off, AA set at 4x. HDR on, AA set at 4x.

 

No HDR - World Detail Distance at Very High = 107 fps.

 

HDR on - World Detail Distance at Very High = 32 fps., exact same view / settings, same everything.

 

HDR on - World Detail Distance at Medium = 33 fps., exact same view / settings, same everything.

 

The theory does not hold true on my "high end" system (if I did I would admit it, I'm not trying to hide or fudge anything here). Would like to see others results / experiences? HDR is still a frame rate killer. Nothing wrong with 32 fps either, all my other settings are very high, but that is with no other ai aircraft, no clouds / real weather, no shadows, and sitting static. Whats going to happen when I start to move, and really tax the system with everything else.

 

Glen

 

Interesting... Glen, my system is a bit higher end than yours, so I will be doing some tests as well, for comparison.

 

How about you make a post with guidelines on what basic settings to use as a baseline? This way it will be an apples to apples comparison, with just different hardware being the difference.

 

Make that post and I will test later this evening. I just came home after working since 7pm last night and I need some Zzzzzzzzz... Nite nite guys or should I say, day day. Hahahaha

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[FloB 34]

This leads to nothing but confusion. Real comparision of hardware would require at least to have the same OS / drivers, clean machine, same screensize (pixels), same XP version, all plugins disabled, default scenery, default airplane, same overall XP-settings (not only same rendering settings).

 

During XP10 run I heard so many people tell this or that would boost / kill performance and in most cases the effect turned out to be limited to their specific setup or even beeing only in their imagination - because they don't do real benchmarks.

 

All we can say is that a GTX 670 + and a 2600k + is a really good system for XP10 and there is nothing wrong with it. Noone can may out XP10 and have a smooth flight in NYC (and that will be the case for at least 3 more years).

 

Stop staring at your FPS;)

[Muskoka 104]

Good Idea Efrain, will post my findings in a new thread. Time to open some eyes, perhaps even my own. :huh:

 

Glen

[Mountain Man 142]

Stop staring at your FPS;)

 

Good advice.