Any tips for increasing FPS in XP11?

[Fi5kuS 57]

So I took the plunge and bought XP11, updated to SkyMaxx 4 along with real world weather connector. 

 

So for I only installed these + IXEG 737 and Aerosoft EGLL Heathrow just to do some testing.

 

Also running quite medium settings except number of object (I need this on maximum or else the ground looks like a desert). Still, with an I7 OCed to 4.5 ghz and a GTX 970, I am only getting around 17 FPS. I've tried turning off threaded optimization, but that doesnt make any difference for me at all.

 

Is my system really that bad for XP11, or is it anything I can to to tweak it?

 

Thanks! :smile:

[RuiMC 9]

Setting power management to maximum performance, at nvidia control panel configuration, made FPS jump from 16-20 to 28-35 in my case (GTX1070 w/ 8GB VRAM). All XP11 settings are one notche bellow maximum. No SkyMaxx 4 here.

 

The weakness of your hardware may be the GTX 970. Not sure, though. Laminar recommends GTX 1070 for X-PLANE 11, and I guess it's because of the VRAM capacity of 8GB.

 

FPS are not yet optimized in the beta version yet, so wait for the first X-PLANE 11 release, when out of beta, to see what happens after FPS are optimized.

[FLAPS15 8]

So I took the plunge and bought XP11, updated to SkyMaxx 4 along with real world weather connector.

So for I only installed these + IXEG 737 and Aerosoft EGLL Heathrow just to do some testing.

Also running quite medium settings except number of object (I need this on maximum or else the ground looks like a desert). Still, with an I7 OCed to 4.5 ghz and a GTX 970, I am only getting around 17 FPS. I've tried turning off threaded optimization, but that doesnt make any difference for me at all.

Is my system really that bad for XP11, or is it anything I can to to tweak it?

Thanks
 

 

Got say my system is identical to yours and I get the same performance, better with default aircraft and no clouds, I think it will be a case of if I continue with this platform I will have to upgrade the PC. But at this time I am undecied what do I am waiting the next Beta to see if any improvements have been made to the rendering etc...not just the tire friction! XP 11 is very nice but does require some good horse power especially when you want to run a good payware aircraft..like the IEXG

 

cheers 

[alpha12125 213]

So I took the plunge and bought XP11, updated to SkyMaxx 4 along with real world weather connector. 

 

So for I only installed these + IXEG 737 and Aerosoft EGLL Heathrow just to do some testing.

 

Also running quite medium settings except number of object (I need this on maximum or else the ground looks like a desert). Still, with an I7 OCed to 4.5 ghz and a GTX 970, I am only getting around 17 FPS. I've tried turning off threaded optimization, but that doesnt make any difference for me at all.

 

Is my system really that bad for XP11, or is it anything I can to to tweak it?

 

Thanks! :smile:

well i would lower all settings to minimum to get a base value

 

i always suggest this thread, allthough xp10 still holds value in xp11: 

 

http://developer.x-plane.com/2007/04/cpu-or-gpu/

 

its a great tool to find out what is your bottleneck. reduce objects and see if you fps increase. If yes then your cpu is the bottleneck, if not then your gpu is your bottleneck and some other option may need to be reduced.

[Jimm 437]

Not trying to be the center of attention here but if you check out my specs, I am running a laptop, with XP11 and have my settings about in the middle of the road, to achieve around 30fps, which is average and sufficient for running XP.  When you also consider that XP11 is beta, there is still much to be worked out before final release, so as a baseline comparison, whatever you get right now, shouldn't be worse on final release.  Also consider that depending where you are in the world can affect your fps.  For example, I frequently fly out of the LA basin, and there, my frames are mid 20s but once I am at altitude and beyond the city limits, the frames increase.

 

One last word though, XP runs a little different than the likes of FSX and P3D, so if you are migrating from either one of those, keep in mind that as long as your sim is running smooth and your cpu & gpu usage percentages are low, then everything is fine.

[CFIJose 5,485]

SMP v3 was hard on my fps while I was using XP10. I had to settle for freeware clouds with better performance.

 

If you use manual weather and set the visibility to 10, you should see an increase in fps. I have a gtx 970 and XP11 runs & looks better than XP 10.

[Mountain Man 142]

I would recommend following the online manual:

 

http://x-plane.com/manuals/desktop/#configuringtherenderingoptions

 

Nice thing about X-Plane 11 is that the settings menu is considerably less dense than X-Plane 10, so tuning for optimal performance is much easier now even though we have less granular control of the settings.

 

----------

 

Not trying to be the center of attention here but if you check out my specs, I am running a laptop, with XP11 and have my settings about in the middle of the road, to achieve around 30fps, which is average and sufficient for running XP.

 

I agree.  My desktop PC is not exactly bleeding edge -- a 3.8GHz quadcore CPU, 8GB RAM, and a GTX 760 GPU -- but I have gotten what I consider excellent performance in X-Plane 11, meaning around 25FPS at KSEA and up to 40FPS in more rural areas.  I have my settings between mid-range and a notch below maximum, except reflections which is on the lowest setting (reflections can be a real performance hog).  I'm hoping I may be able to bump things up slightly once the sim has been fully optimized.

[Paraffin 2,197]

What is your monitor resolution? That's a major factor in achievable frame rates.

 

I'm running a similar setup to yours -- i7 6700 4.0 GHz, 32 Gig RAM, GTX 970 video. I have the visual effects slider in XP11 set to High/HDR and world objects at Max.

 

My monitor resolution is 1920x1200 and even when running a weather plugin like SkyMaxx Pro or XEnviro I'm getting an easy 40 fps in a window, just slightly lower than that full screen. Never lower than 30 fps. I also have a fairly stripped-down computer without a lot of stuff running in the background.

 

The plane model is also a factor. Look at the difference in frame rates when I load two different planes at the same place and time, one simple, the other with more complex systems:

 

Default C172 - 48 fps

Carenado Pilatus PC-12 - 35 fps

 

That's a pretty huge difference right there. I don't own the  IXEG 737 so I can't compare, but I suspect it's not especially light on the frame rates compared to more basic models.

 

I do think the GTX970 isn't an ideal GPU at this point, and I'm waiting to see prices for the 1080ti as the next upgrade. You'll definitely want something like that if you're running an extreme monitor res like 4k.

[richie894 45]

 

 

So for I only installed these + IXEG 737 and Aerosoft EGLL Heathrow just to do some testing.

 

 

I would recommend trying another (smaller) airport and seeing how it performs. I hear that Aerosoft EGLL for X-Plane is not much better in performance than the Aerosoft EGLL for P3D. So sub 20 FPS around the airport may not be that unusual.

[rjack1282 315]

The "draw shadows on terrain" checkbox and reflection slider have a big impact on my system (GTX980).  I am leaving those off/minimum until further optimized.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

So I took the plunge and bought XP11, updated to SkyMaxx 4 along with real world weather connector.

 

So for I only installed these + IXEG 737 and Aerosoft EGLL Heathrow just to do some testing.

 

Also running quite medium settings except number of object (I need this on maximum or else the ground looks like a desert). Still, with an I7 OCed to 4.5 ghz and a GTX 970, I am only getting around 17 FPS. I've tried turning off threaded optimization, but that doesnt make any difference for me at all.

 

Is my system really that bad for XP11, or is it anything I can to to tweak it?

 

Thanks

 

 

Got say my system is identical to yours and I get the same performance, better with default aircraft and no clouds, I think it will be a case of if I continue with this platform I will have to upgrade the PC. But at this time I am undecied what do I am waiting the next Beta to see if any improvements have been made to the rendering etc...not just the tire friction! XP 11 is very nice but does require some good horse power especially when you want to run a good payware aircraft..like the IEXG

 

cheers 

I have a pretty  powerful system, and as you, run between 17-33 FPS.  P3D/FSX at about 35-37 constant, and AF2 at a constant 120, with everything at Ultra. I run all my sims at max, full right settings, and the above FPS per sim base, is what I work with, and accept, as a result of my aggressive in-sim feature settings.

 

I will say, that even at 17 FPS in XP11, the animation is not chunk, but smooth enough to be actually usable, so I don't sweat my low-side 17 FPS in that regard.  I am too, curious as to what that 17 will rise to, when XP11 is FPS optimized at some later date.  That XP 11 '17' is usually showing up, when XEnviro is painting a heavy cloud scape, and or, along with rain, snow, etc.  Clear sky, or near abouts, usually keeps me at 27-33 FPS.

[Colonel X 1,428]

The "draw shadows on terrain" checkbox and reflection slider have a big impact on my system (GTX980).  I am leaving those off/minimum until further optimized.

 

These are two key settings for good performance. Shadows are a killer when you are running max. objects (shadows are also CPU bound). Reflections minimum is also a thankful tradeoff, as the difference is absolutely negligible.

 

When tuning for FPS, check the frametimes (they're in the counter) to see if you're limited by CPU or GPU. Then tweak accordingly (both must be equal or lower than 0.033 for 30fps). When you're tuning CPU load, run in 1280 x 720, VSYNC off, no AA, clear sky, fixed visibility, and see how many objects (and other CPU bound features, not much left other than shadows in XP11 settings menu, Ai planes are one example) your system can take at a large airport (I use KLAX RW7L) and your desired aircraft. Maximum objects (no shadows) should be no issue with a 4+ Ghz i7 (at least in Laminar ac's like the Cessna or 737). Then raise render mode, resolution and AA step by step to see how much fillrate your GPU can provide. You'll have to repeat the last step with all possible weather situations if you want to achieve a simulator that's running 30 fps (sealed off with enabled VSYNC [set by nv control panel; half refresh rate]) in ALL situations.

 

On a 4790k @ 4.6Ghz and 980ti, it is possible at 1280 x 720 - using HDR+SSAO and 8x AA, X-Plane's highest image quality output - Using SkyMaxx Pro 4 (factory coverage distance) in X-Plane 11. For some people it's impossible to think about running in a low resolution. But when you have a display that is optimized for 720p output (like any standard HDTV), the results are absolutely great. I use a 55" Sony W905, and there is absolutely no point in running at 1080p if you consider the trade offs. The image quality is outstanding at 720p.

[Fi5kuS 57]

Thanks for the tips everyone!

 

- I am currently using a ultra wide monitor running 2560 x 1080 resolution, and dont think I can lower that without suffering weird distortions. 

 

- I agree that the IXEG and Aerosoft EGLL (both of which are not optimized for XP11) are good for testing, but I seem to obtain similar FPS in the default cessna 172. If I remove all clouds and drop object shadows, I manage to squeeze out some more FPS giving me just above 30. 

 

- Night time, even with exact settings as daytime, yields 8-10 more FPS for my sake. Maybe this has to do with drawing shadows etc that reduced the GPU load.

 

- As for my specs, I am guessing that the GTX 970 with only 4 GB VRAM is the bottleneck here...

[Colonel X 1,428]

 

 

I am currently using a ultra wide monitor running 2560 x 1080 resolution, and dont think I can lower that without suffering weird distortions. 

 

That is indeed a native resolution that's hard to upsample to.

 

 

 

Night time, even with exact settings as daytime, yields 8-10 more FPS for my sake. Maybe this has to do with drawing shadows etc that reduced the GPU load.

 

Yes that is shadows, everything else should remain the same at day/night.

 

 

 

As for my specs, I am guessing that the GTX 970 with only 4 GB VRAM is the bottleneck here...

 

Make sure not to overload you VRAM by testing with medium texture res.

 

 

 

I agree that the IXEG and Aerosoft EGLL (both of which are not optimized for XP11) are good for testing, but I seem to obtain similar FPS in the default cessna 172. If I remove all clouds and drop object shadows, I manage to squeeze out some more FPS giving me just above 30. 

 

I would definitly test at a Laminar/Gateway airport.

[ben_der 0]

Keep in mind that your 970 GTX has 4GB Vram but out of those 4GB only 3.5GB are actually usable without killing FPS.

Something with the last 500MB of Vram being adressed differently.
Depending on your X-Plane settings and Plugins you might hit those last 500MBs of VRam which will drop FPS significantly.

I know because I have a 970 GTX myself but just a regular 1920x1080 Monitor and occassionaly hit those last 500MBs of VRam while tuning X-Plane settings.

 

If you use maximum Resolution Textures without the Compression, try switching the Texture Compression on or switch to a lower Texture Resolution setting.

The Draw Shadows on Terrain costs a lot of Frames as frontendrob already mentioned.