I stopped waiting and asking for performance figures because I think it's rather useless. It ALL depends on your specific hardware and setup.

 

It's not useless, because it doesn't really depend only on your hardware. Prepar3D 2.0 is supposedly much more optimised, which means that at the same settings with FSX (with obviously all those shadows off), it should perform better than FSX on DirectX 11 systems. Yet we have no idea how big the performance boost is going to be.

 

And I'm not too hopeful because I've seen people who are saying they get 20-25 FPS, and even one instance where someone was getting 10-12 FPS. In Microsoft Flight I got 60 FPS with my mid-range system, and that had dynamic lighting and shadows too.

I searched for new screenshots, but it looks like the one`s already mentioned are the only ones.

And what makes me skeptical: All screenshots that can be found are showing only 3rd party add-on`s. An d in most cases only /mainly aircraft related, not scenery (except showing ORBX).

I'm hoping the reason that scenery really doesn't look different in any meaningful way has to do with at the idea that scenery wasn't developed to take advantage of the new core engine, perhaps even ORBX scenery.  I'm assuming some attributes may look different/better independent of the programming to create it, but that perhaps there is also some way to exploit new features in a scenery SDK that may not show up until new scenery is developed using a V2 SDK.

 

 

And I'm not too hopeful because I've seen people who are saying they get 20-25 FPS, and even one instance where someone was getting 10-12 FPS. In Microsoft Flight I got 60 FPS with my mid-range system, and that had dynamic lighting and shadows too.

 

Part of the problem is that you are not comparing apples to apples here. The thing is, the slider and options range has increased in P3D2. There's going to be a BIG differences between the max settings in P3D2 and FSX/P3D1 . . . and I expect that a LOT of users are initially going to rant about how they cannot run P3D2 on max settings, when they could run FSX on max.

 

As far as Flight goes, there was no ATC, no Flight Planner, and no AI Traffic . . . which all put a load on the CPU (and which have a major impact on FPS).

And I'm not too hopeful because I've seen people who are saying they get 20-25 FPS, and even one instance where someone was getting 10-12 FPS.

 

Which proves the point that it is useless... B) ^_^ You don't know which settings were used by those who got 20-25 and and by the one who got 10-12. It's impossible to make sense out of fps's which are posted on a forum without knowing every detail of the hardware and every detail of the software. Since P3D can be tried for FREE for 60 days, it's best if 'everyone' buys and installs it to find out how it performs on their PC.

 

 

And I'm not too hopeful because I've seen people who are saying they get 20-25 FPS, and even one instance where someone was getting 10-12 FPS. In Microsoft Flight I got 60 FPS with my mid-range system, and that had dynamic lighting and shadows too.

 

I'm with you on that.  We'll know very soon though.  If most of the alleged improvements are more theoretical than real the rush to move to P3D won't be so urgent.  It could also be that new add on scenery, weather, etc will not really blossom for P3D until new SDK's are used to develop those add ons.  FSX runs really well right now for most folks here.  If bloom truly has no impact I would probably migrate quickly as I really like the bloom effect.  That, combined w/ the improved shadow effects would make it compelling enough, but if performance is marginal, well then, not so compelling.

Performance is the key!!!!!

 

We can get fantastic graphics, but whats the use, if it does not perform well, here we go tweeking again, up that tree, start here about frame hits, blurries,stutters, let wait and see.!!!

 

What does it bring to the table!!!

As far as Flight goes, there was no ATC, no Flight Planner, and no AI Traffic . . . which all put a load on the CPU (and which have a major impact on FPS).

 

But that's exactly what you said, ATC, AI and flight planning all depend on the CPU. If you had those in Flight too, there wouldn't be a difference in FPS because it was GPU-limited. The autogen, and lighting and the shadows all ran on the GPU.

 

Prepar3D 2.0 seems to do the same (put all the workload on the GPU), so I can't understand why it cannot hit 60 FPS even with dynamic lighting and shadows.

But that's exactly what you said, ATC, AI and flight planning all depend on the CPU. If you had those in Flight too, there wouldn't be a difference in FPS because it was GPU-limited. The autogen, and lighting and the shadows all ran on the GPU.

 

Prepar3D 2.0 seems to do the same (put all the workload on the GPU), so I can't understand why it cannot hit 60 FPS even with dynamic lighting and shadows.

 

X-Plane 10 (and yes, even the 64-bit version) still has issues with AI traffic resulting in a major hit on FPS . . . the more AI traffic you add, the lower your FPS.  Just because you're taking a load off the CPU for graphics doesn't mean that the CPU will be able to handle things like AI traffic and Flight dynamics and weather and ATC any better.  Moving more to the GPU will fee up the CPU's a bit . . . but people shouldn't expect a miracle.

X-Plane 10 (and yes, even the 64-bit version) still has issues with AI traffic resulting in a major hit on FPS . . . the more AI traffic you add, the lower your FPS.  Just because you're taking a load off the CPU for graphics doesn't mean that the CPU will be able to handle things like AI traffic and Flight dynamics and weather and ATC any better.  Moving more to the GPU will fee up the CPU's a bit . . . but people shouldn't expect a miracle.

 

If the GPU is taking most of the graphics workload in X-Plane (I have no idea how that one works), then if AI causes a huge performance hit, it's badly optimised, because that means it needs more calculations than the graphics, and you become CPU-limited.

X-Plane 10 (and yes, even the 64-bit version) still has issues with AI traffic resulting in a major hit on FPS . . . the more AI traffic you add, the lower your FPS.  Just because you're taking a load off the CPU for graphics doesn't mean that the CPU will be able to handle things like AI traffic and Flight dynamics and weather and ATC any better.  Moving more to the GPU will fee up the CPU's a bit . . . but people shouldn't expect a miracle.

 

the AI in xplane is totally different than fsx/ fs9. there is 20 limit airplane in xplane i believe and alot of things are calculated in xplane thats not calculated in fs9/fsx. 

Some preview pics from Carenado:

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.554577237952428.1073741883.129839447092878&type=1

Some preview pics from Carenado:

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.554577237952428.1073741883.129839447092878&type=1

 

Great screenshots! Thanks for sharing.

Impressive!!!

If the GPU is taking most of the graphics workload in X-Plane (I have no idea how that one works), then if AI causes a huge performance hit, it's badly optimised, because that means it needs more calculations than the graphics, and you become CPU-limited.

 

  AI aircraft in xplane, strangely, uses the fully computed flight model the same as the plane you are flying.

 

  IMHO a big waste of resources as no one cares how accurately modeled the flight model of AI is, just that it doesnt look stupid when taking off and landing.

  AI aircraft in xplane, strangely, uses the fully computed flight model the same as the plane you are flying.

 

  IMHO a big waste of resources as no one cares how accurately modeled the flight model of AI is, just that it doesnt look stupid when taking off and landing.

 

Really? That's just a huge waste of resources. No wonder the performance hit is huge. Calculating a complex flight model for each AI aircraft will choke the CPU.