Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kneighbour

X-Plane 11 - perhaps hold off a bit

Recommended Posts

 

These were the first three of Ben's known bugs:

 

Known Bugs 

  • Low frame rate – we are still optimizing rendering; please do not report low framerate unless you see < 5 fps on low settings.
  • If the visibility seems too low, set the visibility higher in Weather Customize screen.
  • Setting up networking configurations may crash the sim. (XPD-6857, 6864)
  •  
  • They seem to constitute 80% of the complaints I am seeing on these boards and are being addressed by the devs.
  •  
  • John

 

Sure. My post was more along the lines of - if you are on the fence, wait a bit longer. Some of the bugs seem to be fairly serious (ie my hardware setup issues). Frankly, I don't think it should be released even as a beta as I found bugs within minutes of loading the program. As a developer myself that would have been my option - a beta is meant to iron out the last minute or hard to find bugs. It should be a field test more than anything. But like so much in X-Plane (and I guess other platforms), there is little time for proper testing anymore. Not that I am complaining - not much point in doing that. I am sure they will get there.

Not just five monitors, his sig lists the main monitor as 4k. 

 

I can understand why people want to do this. On the other hand, complaining about not getting high enough frame rates running a rig like that, isn't going to draw much sympathy about achievable frame rates.

 

Personally I think 4k monitors are nuts right now, considering what's needed in flight sims and games to push those pixels. But that doesn't stop the monitor companies from pushing them, or the enthusiasts from buying them. It's not just flight sims. The game boards are filled with people complaining that they can't get 60fps with the latest AAA PC game on their 4k monitors.

Well, you might understand a bit more if you knew my system is my work machine. I use it for developing software, and in THAT situation a 4K monitor makes total sense. As do the 5 (and sometimes 6) monitors. And I would have more if my desk could fit them.

 

I only use one monitor (with XP10, hopefully more with XP11) with XP, and that not at full 4K. Usually only 2560  x whatever. But you might be interested to know that at full 4K, the framerates are only slightly lower than at 1920. Barely 5fps. I was surprised myself. But I still don't use 4K as I don't like switching between normal work resolution and one specific for XP. The extra monitors (when in XP) are to hold the flight planner, approach plates, etc. No big deal - I have multiple video cards so very little extra processing needed.


I7-6700k 32 gig RAM, NVIDIA GTX-980 TI 6G RAM, GTX-460, Saitek X55 throttle, Combat rudder pedals, CH Eclipse yoke,TrackIR 5, 5 monitors (main is 40" 4k), Corsair K95 RGB k/b, Win 7 x64. X-Plane XP 11.1+

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i notice you have 2 graphic card installed. just to test some stuff out have you considered unplugging the 460 just to see how xplane runs?

 

second question is what add ons do you have installed on xplane 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i notice you have 2 graphic card installed. just to test some stuff out have you considered unplugging the 460 just to see how xplane runs?

 

second question is what add ons do you have installed on xplane 10

yes, have performed probably every single combination/variation known to man. Multiple computers, totally different hardware. About the only constant is Windows 7.


I7-6700k 32 gig RAM, NVIDIA GTX-980 TI 6G RAM, GTX-460, Saitek X55 throttle, Combat rudder pedals, CH Eclipse yoke,TrackIR 5, 5 monitors (main is 40" 4k), Corsair K95 RGB k/b, Win 7 x64. X-Plane XP 11.1+

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been an X-Plane user for years and fully expect to upgrade to XP 11, so I recently bought the full XP11 version. I know it is a beta, but it has so many obvious bugs I really wish I had waited a bit longer.

 

I have a CH Yoke and rudder pedals and an X-55 throttle. All very standard and known to XP11. It took me AGES to calibrate them. The system crashed 99% of the time after I calibrated an axis. Multiple reboots of XP allowed me to at last calibrate the hardware (I think, I am too wary to go back into those screens).

 

After a few hours spent getting it to load and with a few basic commands in the system, I flew the default Cessna around my home scenery. Pretty awful. While the framerates were about normal (30 or so), the screen was jerky and looked little different to XP10. By this time I was sick and tired of all the crashes, so perhaps I was just worn out. But was not impressed. Also had HUGE weather vaning effects - practically could not take off. Actually took off over the grass as could not keep the plane lined up. XP10 had the same problem quite often. Totally unrealistic and I had hoped that they had fixed this.

 

Anyway - I have just seen so many glowing reports of XP11 I thought I would throw in a contrary viewpoint. If you are on the fence, I would wait a bit longer. One thing I did like - you can simply drag a lot of stuff from XP10 across and it will work. All the scenery seems to work just fine. I understand the aircraft do not. The GUI interface is nice (in some ways), but frankly I don't really care. The old menu system worked just fine and the new one is only incrementally better. No big deal. What I would have loved to see is a good fault trapping system (ie no more CTD) or weird fatal errors. That and the framerates issues are really the only 2 things I care about.

 

It is so hard to get a decent experience in XP10 (and now XP11, I guess) that fully most of my flight sessions is spent tweaking and monitoring the framerate. The rest of the time I am just on the edge of my seat waiting for an error to happen. In hindsight, and having done hundreds (if not thousands) of flights, a CTD is not that common at all. But it is always there in the back of your mind. But the framerate issue is there 100% of the time, every flight.

 

Ok, rant over. I know it is a beta and am going to wait for the full release before I try anything again. I am pretty confident that things will settle down, so take my comments in the spirit they were meant.

BETA, BETA, BETA, BETA, BETA, BETA ! Do you know what a beta is ?

 

Maybe you need to buy new rudder pedals ! I've never had a problem with weather vaning unless there is a 20+ cross wind.


AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D, 6800XT, Ram - 32GB, 32" 4K Monitor, WIN 11, XP-12 !

Eric Escobar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BETA, BETA, BETA, BETA, BETA, BETA ! Do you know what a beta is ?

 

Maybe you need to buy new rudder pedals ! I've never had a problem with weather vaning unless there is a 20+ cross wind.

Well, my first thought was that you have failed to read my posts. But then, we are all busy people, so let me repeat myself by saying that I am a software developer and have been for many decades. I know what a beta is better than most, I dare say.

 

Your comment about my rudder pedals is puzzling. Not sure what your experience with weather-vaning has to do with it at all. Also not sure what rudder pedals has to do with it either. It has been a well known problem in XP 10 for ages. In fact I seem to recall seeing a post on one of the forums this very day on the subject. In his case a recalibration of the rudder hardware in-flight fixed his problem.


I7-6700k 32 gig RAM, NVIDIA GTX-980 TI 6G RAM, GTX-460, Saitek X55 throttle, Combat rudder pedals, CH Eclipse yoke,TrackIR 5, 5 monitors (main is 40" 4k), Corsair K95 RGB k/b, Win 7 x64. X-Plane XP 11.1+

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JFWIW XP11 runs smoother than XP10 given the higher default settings that are somehow "forced".

 

I used to tune down or totally clear cars on roads, and the cloud density was set to never more than 20%. In XP11 I get very acceptable performance even with the default settings for these items, defined by the complexity slider, and at higher graphics settins ( HDR + ).


Main Simulation Rig:

Ryzen 5600x, 32GB RAM, Nvidia RTX 3060 Ti, 1 TB & 500 GB M.2 nvme drives, Win11.

Glider pilot since October 1980...

Avid simmer since 1992...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant believe we are comparing a loaded FSX/P3D to Default X-Plane. Sorry to say, but a loaded P3D demolishes X-Plane visually but gets you the same performance. Dont you guys see a problem with that? I mean yeah, default P3D doesnt look as nice, but it runs at over 80 FPS. I dont see a 50 FPS drop worth of visual gain in XP11 to warrant such poor performance. 

  • Upvote 1

Let me guess.... you want 64bit. 

Josh Daniels-Johannson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a somewhat misleading title and seems to stem from a misunderstanding of how LR generally work.

 

This is not meant for the OP, but remember, it is a beta, and a very early one at that. Users should expect lots of problems and the idea is that users report their issues to LR so they get fixed (Posting for solutions here isn't going to help LR find the problem). If you're not willing to to do this or are looking for a stable simulator then stick to XP10 until 11 matures :-)

 

Trying to use this as your main sim is asking for trouble, it took XP10 some time even after v10.0 to become good enough, and this is no different than XP11. If you are sensitive to bugs and don't want to offer feedback and bug reports then simply avoid the beta and wait till it's stable. 


I cant believe we are comparing a loaded FSX/P3D to Default X-Plane. Sorry to say, but a loaded P3D demolishes X-Plane visually but gets you the same performance. 

 

As they say, beauty is the eye of the beholder.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

 


Sorry to say, but a loaded P3D demolishes X-Plane visually

 

Well...

 

 


As they say, beauty is the eye of the beholder.

 

...indeed it is because as I see it now the graphics of X-Plane beta out of the box, with no addons at all, demolishes P3D, with all possible addons. Not in every aspect, of course (CLOUDS!) but I thoroughly and actually enjoy the X-Plane graphics more than the P3D ones. No comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, my first thought was that you have failed to read my posts. But then, we are all busy people, so let me repeat myself by saying that I am a software developer and have been for many decades. I know what a beta is better than most, I dare say.

 

 

Sure you're an expert, but with a much powerful PC than mine having worse performance must switch on warning. Either you're requesting too much in term of photoreal + w2xp density + SMP extended range for clouds + payware aircraft such as Carenado  + payware scenery like EGLL or there is some problem in your configuration. For example I cannot even imagine to set 8X AA + 16X filter unless I want 10 FPS with default Cesna. 

 

Regarding crashes, I only had some when I mess with lot of plugins (like reloadX + WT + RTH +...) when testing scenery changes but I think this is pretending too much because reloading scenery on the run dozain of times we don't know what effetcts can cause.

 

And well...about the fully loaded PR3D demolishing anything ...the world is fun because of the many point of views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


I am a programmer myself, and none of my software EVER does this and it puzzles me greatly from a technical perspective

 

As a fellow programmer of 20 years, I find that very hard to believe ;-)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

 


As far as I know, a "classic" movie camera takes 24 "photos" per second, and everything between two of these photos (frames) is lost. It is your brain that fills the gaps, be it a movie or be it a video game.

 

You certainly can perceive more than 24 frames per second. Just try it out on whatever game you like. 24 is the approximate threshold where you perceive fluent motion at all, i.e. everything below 24 may be perceived as stuttering (or requires extra effort from your brain to smooth it out -> motion sickness or headache), everything above 24 becomes even smoother motion. In video games, you strive for 60 fps, because you usually sit closer to the screen and you manipulate what's going on, i.e. you perceive yourself as being (at least partially) part of the image, which requires more smoothness to keep up the illusion (even more so with VR). However, your brain can obviously adapt pretty well, that's why a constant (lower) framerate for instance of 30 fps is better than a framerate fluctuating between 40 and 60.

For flightsimming, 30 fps is usually enough since although movement is rapid you do not need to (and depending on the plane simply cannot) abruptly turn (as for instance required in first person shooters). That said, 60 fps certainly improves the feeling of 'being there' especially with regard to the simulated head movement within the virtual flightdeck, where abrupt movement does indeed occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


I've never had a problem with weather vaning unless there is a 20+ cross wind.


 

Eric,

 

XP10, and now 11, deals miserably with even a slight 5 knot wind, not necessarily true x-wind component!  It's a ridiculous aspect of x-plane ground physics or whatsoever that I look forward to see addressed by LR... And yes, I'm tired of opening tickets about it :-)

 

It's just another "torque bug", I believe.... Seen a few "justifications", but couldn't understand a single one....  Too much writing, to few making sense...


Main Simulation Rig:

Ryzen 5600x, 32GB RAM, Nvidia RTX 3060 Ti, 1 TB & 500 GB M.2 nvme drives, Win11.

Glider pilot since October 1980...

Avid simmer since 1992...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


You certainly can perceive more than 24 frames per second.

 

I have not said that you can't perceive more than 24 FPS. In fact I agree with you that high FPS feel smoother.

 

I answered to kneighbours comparison between analogue and digital:

 

 

The problem is the movie system is analog. ie each frame is an incremental change from the one before and your eye tracks and records that. ie you might be filming a person walking - it records every small movement in the whole scene. Digital images on a screen are not like that

 

Even in an analogue movie, "every small movement" is NOT recorded. Each frame is a snapshot, and the data between the snapshots is lost. That's why the movie industry is experimenting with 48 FPS now ("The Hobbit" as the most known example), because it's smoother.


Mario Donick .:. vFlyteAir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not said that you can't perceive more than 24 FPS. In fact I agree with you that high FPS feel smoother.

 

I answered to kneighbours comparison between analogue and digital:

 

 

Even in an analogue movie, "every small movement" is NOT recorded. Each frame is a snapshot, and the data between the snapshots is lost. That's why the movie industry is experimenting with 48 FPS now ("The Hobbit" as the most known example), because it's smoother.

As I said - I am no expert on this stuff, and perhaps I explained it poorly (or perhaps even incorrectly). There are discussions on this very topic in these forums (or perhaps on the org). Suffice to say it is a poor comparison to compare video screen refresh rates with analogue movie screen refresh rates.

Eric,

 

XP10, and now 11, deals miserably with even a slight 5 knot wind, not necessarily true x-wind component!  It's a ridiculous aspect of x-plane ground physics or whatsoever that I look forward to see addressed by LR... And yes, I'm tired of opening tickets about it :-)

 

It's just another "torque bug", I believe.... Seen a few "justifications", but couldn't understand a single one....  Too much writing, to few making sense...

This is a weird one to be sure. It is like the 'pulling to the left on taxi/takeoff' issue. On my system I have had both issues from time to time, both without any reason I can discern. It usually goes away for some unknown reason.

 

One recent occurrence was in XP 10 with the IXEG 737. Had been flying it no problems for weeks. Then on one landing and taxi in I simply gave up. Could not keep it on the taxi way at all. Full right rudder and full right nosewheel tiller would not do it. Ridiculous. The 737 acted like a 172 with a 90 knot crosswind. And this was with normal winds ie 15kts on the nose (or something like that). Anyway, I must believe that LR knows about the problem as many users seem to suffer from it from time to time. Perhaps it is only with the wind at a specific angle or something, so usually you are ok, then if it just happens to be 18.5kts at 192 degrees, then WHAM! Who knows.


I7-6700k 32 gig RAM, NVIDIA GTX-980 TI 6G RAM, GTX-460, Saitek X55 throttle, Combat rudder pedals, CH Eclipse yoke,TrackIR 5, 5 monitors (main is 40" 4k), Corsair K95 RGB k/b, Win 7 x64. X-Plane XP 11.1+

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...