X-plane 10.40 New Weather Engine?

[Humpty 751]

If I still had the hackintosh i would have got the 10.40. 

 

I really want to see performance without increasing my hardware cost.

[tonywob 4,768]

 

 

I really want to see performance without increasing my hardware cost.

 

There is a slight performance boost, but nothing amazing. I've always found the Mac version performs better than windows.

[Humpty 751]

@tony

 

 Dont rub it in by saying  the mac version performs better than windows

 

That's a placebo effect

[jcomm 5,890]

And some will tell you the Linux one is even better :-)

[Humpty 751]

@jcomm

 

 That would be me  

[alulekk 3]

There is a slight performance boost, but nothing amazing. I've always found the Mac version performs better than windows.

 

Interesting - I've found the opposite.  

The NVIDIA drivers for the latest GPU's seem to game better on my Windows 8.1 install than my Yosemite install.

[CyberMike 18]

MAC drivers are by far outdated, usually 1-2 years behind. Linux is fastest by around 20% to Windows and 25% or more to Mac, at least with Nvidia.

 

Funny those Mac users all are sure to have the best os...

[alulekk 3]

 

 

MAC drivers are by far outdated, usually 1-2 years behind

 

 

Are we sure about that?

NVIDIA is constantly releasing new Web Driver versions for Mac - That's what makes the latest GPU's work at all in Yosemite.

[mdavis 10]

Apples and oranges.  You can't really compare computers that run different types of mobos and OS's.  Too many variables.  Even if a Mac and a PC run the same CPU frequency, there is so much difference in just the hardware that comparing OS's is not valid.  There are so many background apps that most are not aware of.  The video drivers are different.  The GPU specs are different and the bus connecting the GPU to the mobo and RAM are different.

 

What you can say is that one computer gives better framerates than another assuming identical weather, identical aircraft and locations and identical weather.  If one is faster than another, there are far more variables affecting the relative speeds than anyone can reasonably eliminate.

 

And to keep this even slightly on topic, weather engine performance is also related to internet connection speeds as well as cloud bitmaps and settings of course in addition to basic code efficiency.

[alulekk 3]

Apples and oranges.  You can't really compare computers that run different types of mobos and OS's.  Too many variables.  Even if a Mac and a PC run the same CPU frequency, there is so much difference in just the hardware that comparing OS's is not valid.  There are so many background apps that most are not aware of.  The video drivers are different.  The GPU specs are different and the bus connecting the GPU to the mobo and RAM are different.

 

What you can say is that one computer gives better framerates than another assuming identical weather, identical aircraft and locations and identical weather.  If one is faster than another, there are far more variables affecting the relative speeds than anyone can reasonably eliminate.

 

And to keep this even slightly on topic, weather engine performance is also related to internet connection speeds as well as cloud bitmaps and settings of course in addition to basic code efficiency.

 

On a Hackintosh (my setup) the Mac & PC installations are running identical hardware (same machine)

 

Same story for anyone with a Mac running the install on Bootcamp.  Plenty to compare in those scenarios.

[mdavis 10]

I'm not a programmer at the assembler level, but I suspect that the software that enables emulation would be a factor as well.  But that's about as close as you can get.  You can never eliminate all the variables.

 

The real questions is how well does it run, regardless of what pipes it must run through to get the job done.  I don't like attempts to compare one with another with the purpose of "proving" one is "better" unless it's a level playing field.

[alulekk 3]

I'm not a programmer at the assembler level, but I suspect that the software that enables emulation would be a factor as well.  But that's about as close as you can get.  You can never eliminate all the variables.

 

The real questions is how well does it run, regardless of what pipes it must run through to get the job done.  I don't like attempts to compare one with another with the purpose of "proving" one is "better" unless it's a level playing field.

 

Huh?  Emulation?

 

The Mac vs Win comparisons on running X-Plane (at least what I'm talking about) are running the exact same hardware and native Windows and Mac installs for each (no emulation).  Each OS on it's own identical SSD.

[mdavis 10]

So you then have two versions of XP, one loaded on each SSD?  There will be differences in the basic XP code to accommodate each OS.  No argument here, just saying there are variables.  The code may be more efficient for Mac than Windows or vs., the drivers for your video card may be separate, one for each OS?

 

But it's a good platform to try and make comparisons.  I would suggest that a comparison between 10.35 and 10.40 would best be done on the same OS rather than comparing 10.35 on Windows and 10.40 on Mac.  Depends on what you're comparing.  I hope 10.40 does help those with framerate problems.

[alexcolka 183]

Following suggestions, turning off threaded optimization in nvidia control panel with the latest drivers was like magic for me, no more frame rate problems (I'm posting the same in tips and tricks he he).

[jcomm 5,890]

Following suggestions, turning off threaded optimization in nvidia control panel with the latest drivers was like magic for me, no more frame rate problems (I'm posting the same in tips and tricks he he).

Alex, was that on Windows or MAC ?