Hehe, we see this very regularly when an update to X-Plane comes out.

 

People are seeing all sorts of things (framerate better/worse, clouds nicer/horrible, autogen better/worse). The mind is easily tricked, and i bet that you could get away with shipping an "update" that really does nothing, but has people believe that a ton of things improved, if only the list of fixes is impressive enough.

 

This is especially prevalent if you have been away from the simulator for a while, and you remember things differently.

 

Jan

And can you tell us, why you are so excited about the old AutoGen? The new AutoGen wasn´t even installed in Beta 1 due to a bug in the installer.

Well you see old chap ... autogen used to incur a framerate hit for me. Currently autogen whether it be new or old is not incurring that fps hit; surely a cause for much celebration in my hangar at least! 

 

At no point in my original post did I say *new* autogen.  *Something* has changed on my system; between 10.45 and the beta that allows me to use the extreme *old* autogen setting in 10.50b1.

 

The mind is easily tricked, and i bet that you could get away with shipping an "update" that really does nothing, but has people believe that a ton of things improved, if only the list of fixes is impressive enough.

 

Numbers are there Janov you old salt you.

I'm not pulling perceptions out of my behind because I'm seeing the increase using XPlane's own framerate counter . Obviously it's the result of the mix of my hardware, how I tweak my settings (I'm an inveterate tweaker) and the beta.

 

Merely  sharing my excitement. One would think that as I've used X-Plane since version 5 that I'd know better by now wouldn't one?

MY FPS is wonderful! Only using default scenery but roads to extreme and objects to extreme, clouds 44% and getting 30 - 45 in built up areas. Autogen works really well as far as frame rate goes ... well around my home town anyhow.

 

This is with or without HDR? I can well get > 30 fps in built up areas, as long as HDR is unticked. HDR and high antialiasing, while looking much superior, draw fps under 20, though - not uncommon for weaker systems, as I learned.

 

Kind regards, Michael

Kris

 

Hey Kris, would you mind sharing your Computer specs?

HDR is on, but my card is only an AMD 7800 series with 2Gb. 

 

OS - Win10 64 Bit | CPU - Intel i7- 4790K @ 4GHz | MOBO ASRock Z97X Fatality | RAM - 16 GB @ 3100 | Video AMD Radeon 7850 2 GB | X-Plane 10 - always the latest beta + stable| Js - Saitek X52 Pro + throttle + rudder pedals | TrackIR5 Pro 

 

 

http://imgur.com/93d6OYa

http://imgur.com/g9J0tei

http://imgur.com/o2uBlgm

 

I fly mostly Helicopters + GA .. so I'm always looking for a balance of graphics and performance with a preference to performance; especially in a chopper.

 

Cloud's are the killer still for me ... weather here is clearing up and I'm currently showing 50 fps around the airfield in Toowoomba City. If I seed artificially with clouds overcast and broken cumulus it heads to the 25 - 28 at 44% clouds :(.

If you are not already using them, SkyMaxx clouds generally have superior performance to default...

Thank you Kris, I appreciate that 

 

 

Janov, on 18 Jun 2016 - 09:28 AM, said:

The mind is easily tricked, and i bet that you could get away with shipping an "update" that really does nothing, but has people believe that a ton of things improved, if only the list of fixes is impressive enough.
 
Numbers are there Janov you old salt you.
I'm not pulling perceptions out of my behind because I'm seeing the increase using XPlane's own framerate counter . Obviously it's the result of the mix of my hardware, how I tweak my settings (I'm an inveterate tweaker) and the beta.
 
Merely  sharing my excitement. One would think that as I've used X-Plane since version 5 that I'd know better by now wouldn't one?

 

Indeed, party pooper! With this beta I've noticed molten gold seeping out of my usb port, booyah!  

If you are not already using them, SkyMaxx clouds generally have superior performance to default...

 

Yeah, I run SkyMaxx Pro on my stable .. I can't set the Autogen at the same levels on stable 10.45 though.

 

 

Thank you Kris, I appreciate that 

 

 

You're welcome Elaine

Indeed, party pooper! With this beta I've noticed molten gold seeping out of my usb port, booyah!  

 

Hehe, indeed the quest for framerates does remind me of a gold rush. Whenever someone says the magic "my frames have increased with this new beta!" there is a flurry of excitement and quests for tweaks and rendering setups. Nothing wrong with that, but it´s just like "there is gold in them mountains!" :smile:

 

However, accurate framerate comparison is a true scientific endevour. As soon as you have clouds in the picture, for example, you need to run about 50 successive tests to average out the effect of different cloud positions. Same with AI traffic, for example. People report that the frames get great with entering and exiting a menu - but don´t realize that the AI car traffic gets nuked and slowly respawns over a few minutes, dropping framerates in the process.

 

If you look at true framerate tests, they run the exact same scenario a few times - because even then you will get minute differences from run to run. And I wouldn´t bet an old pair of socks on the accuracy of X-Plane´s built in framerate counter....

 

Jan

 

 

Hehe, indeed the quest for framerates does remind me of a gold rush.

 

Speaking of that, I will be building a new system probably within the next week, and I intend to spend whatever's necessary. All in the chase for the magic FPS. Right now, I'm dithering between a 6700 CPU like everyone else, or going for a 5930k to go with a 1080 gtx........

 

Also thinking about either 32 or 64 gigs of ram.....

 

Decisions.....

Hehe, indeed the quest for framerates does remind me of a gold rush. Whenever someone says the magic "my frames have increased with this new beta!" there is a flurry of excitement and quests for tweaks and rendering setups. Nothing wrong with that, but it´s just like "there is gold in them mountains!"

 

Hehe, actually it was more like this;

 

User A - Beta made my fps go down

 

User B - Me too

 

User C - Mine went up 

 

User D - Now lookee here youse unwashed plebians of the lower order! According to science and an over-developed sense of superiority ('coz I know just about every-flippin'-thing there is to know nudge-nudge 'ere we 'ave a right one 'ere sparky!); I propose that User C is being unreasonably excitable cor-bless-is curly-bollocks and it's my mission in life to make sure 'ee knowsit    

Cloud's are the killer still for me ... weather here is clearing up and I'm currently showing 50 fps around the airfield in Toowoomba City. If I seed artificially with clouds overcast and broken cumulus it heads to the 25 - 28 at 44% clouds .

 

44% clouds is probably a lot higher than you need for decent-looking clouds. That setting is a bit counter-intuitive, because (as I understand it), it sets the number of "puffs" that define cloud shapes, and not the overall coverage of clouds. Someone correct me if I'm wrong about that.

 

Anyway, clouds can still look great even at low settings. I usually run it at 10% to 20% and the clouds look fine with SkyMaxx Pro 3 or the default clouds. You should be able to get much better FPS if you start at 10% and work your way up from there. 

 

 

Anyway, clouds can still look great even at low settings. I usually run it at 10% to 20% and the clouds look fine with SkyMaxx Pro 3 or the default clouds. You should be able to get much better FPS if you start at 10% and work your way up from there. 

 

Thanks Paraffin, I'll give that a shot.

I could have sworn cloud puffs was ignored by Skymaxx, but I can't remember where I read that.