maximum Resolution Textures without the Compression, try switching the Texture Compression on or switch to a lower Texture Resolution

 

Max res is an absolute no-go with 4GB VRAM. Vanilla X-Plane 11 requires 6GB for compressed max textures alone.

On 1/4/2017 at 5:38 AM, Fi5kuS said:

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!

Hi

 

just got this from Nvidia: (hope this help)

 

 Shailendra: Hi, my name is Shailendra. How may I help you? 
 ME: hello 
 ME: i have a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080
 ME: i am trying to find the best setup for using software call X-plane 11 
 ME: where can i fin this (in a form of Nvidia Inspector details for instance) 
 Shailendra: Please change the below setting in NVIDIA Control Panel and check the issue.
Open the NVIDIA control panel-------->3D settings------->Manage 3D settings-------->Program setting------Select the xplane .exe file or add the .exe file ------->power management mode. If it is set to "Adaptive" now change it to "Prefer maximum performance"

Open "NVIDIA Control Panel" > "3D Settings" > "Manage 3D Settings" > "Global Settings"
Please set to these below settings and click on "apply"

• Power management mode – prefer maximum performance
• Ambient Occlusion – Off
• Triple buffering – off
• Threaded optimization - ON
• Vertical Sync – Adaptive 
 ME: does NVidia support the software called NVidia Inspector 2.13 
 Shailendra: No, NVIDIA doesn't have software like NVIDIA Inspector.
NVIDIA Inspector is a third party software 
 ME: ok 

As has already been mentioned, screen resolution is a significant factor, particularly with a GTX 970 - I wish all forum users would say what screen resolution they use as it would put things much more into perspective. I suspect a lot of people using the 970 and getting frame rates above 30 are using a standard HD display (1920x1080) or they're running at fairly low settings. After a lot of tweaking, I could get 25-30 FPS with moderate settings using my 970 card with a 2560x1440 display. I think you just have to accept that 4GB of VRAM (especially when the final 500MB is much slower) is not going to make the most of XP11.

1 hour ago, vortex681 said:

As has already been mentioned, screen resolution is a significant factor, particularly with a GTX 970 - I wish all forum users would say what screen resolution they use as it would put things much more into perspective.

Agreed, I started adding that to my system spec in the sig below, after I realized how many people were running much higher res up to 4k and complaining about the frame rate.

We're in an odd period of hardware development, where the monitor manufacturers are making product that outstrips the ability of the current GPU cards to drive them. Not so much for AAA games, but definitely with flight sims if you start ramping all the eye candy sliders to the right. Knowing what monitor resolution someone is using is a big help in diagnosing frame rate issues. I know huge screens and high res is nice, but some people are just asking too much of the hardware.
 

Quote

After a lot of tweaking, I could get 25-30 FPS with moderate settings using my 970 card with a 2560x1440 display. I suspect a lot of people using the 970 and getting frame rates above 30 are using a standard HD display (1920x1080) or they're running at fairly low settings.

Right, and just for comparison, I'm running 1920 x 1200 and getting an average of 40 fps. As a standardized comparison that's easy for anyone to reproduce, here are my settings, and the frame rate I get loading the default C172 at 10nm approach to KSEA runway 16L, both with and without clouds:

Visual Effects - High(HDR)
Texture Quality - High
Antialiasing - 2x SSAA+FXAA
No shadows on scenery

Number of World Objects - Maximum
Reflection Detail - Minimal
Draw parked aircraft
Lateral field of view 60 degrees

Frame rates with default C172, loaded on 10nm approach to KSEA runway 16L, visibility set to 25 miles in both cases:

42 fps with Scattered Clouds (default preset, no weather plugin)

53 fps with clear skies

Since I very often fly with at least some clouds, I call that a 40 fps average in the default C172, dropping closer to the low 30's with more complex aircraft. So, not bad for a GTX970, but then my monitor res isn't that high.
 

Quote

I think you just have to accept that 4GB of VRAM (especially when the final 500MB is much slower) is not going to make the most of XP11.

If I'm not mistaken, the slower 500MB of VRAM isn't even touched with an application like XP11. So we're effectively using just 3.5MB VRAM cards. I'll be getting a 1080 series at some point, but right now I'm happy with my frame rate, and it would only let me turn on ground object shadows and higher textures. I can wait until the prices drop a little on those cards.

Just want to add that the tweak to disable extended DSFs is a huge FPS booster.

Google it and you'll find the line of code to enter into the settings.txt.

I have a real hard time seeing the differences as well, especially in XP11's typical conditions (i.e. horizon haze).