Dang...B9 is superb for FPS generation!

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

I've been flying tonight, near about Clear Water, Florida...doing touch and goes, from airport to airport...over some very intense auto-gen.

 

I am going to sit in the bush, when B10 comes along..and let all you folks, be the guinea pigs on that release.  I'm hanging back, until I read that there was no degradation in any performance, seen in B9.  Oh yeah....oh ........yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

 

 

Back to Florida....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[rparson99 32]

Very nice...what are your graphic settings..and what processor and card are you running?

[caaront 109]

What is B9?

[Richard Sennett 2,499]

Beta version 9 - they really need to get this sky issue sorted out - its terrible - being a flight simulator ths should not be an issue to begin with imo 

[basementflyguy 156]

Beta version 9 - they really need to get this sky issue sorted out - its terrible - being a flight simulator ths should not be an issue to begin with imo 

 

Agreed, Rich. Can't figure out why that's so hard to fix.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Very nice...what are your graphic settings..and what processor and card are you running?

All Graphic Sliders in XP 11 Beta (9), set to MAX, except for Anti-Aliasing set to: FXAA-2X

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

My CPU/GPU is the following:  

 

CPU: i7 975 Extreme overclocked to 4.3 GHz via BIOS.   This is a 4-core proc which I always run in Hyper-Threading Mode  (HT).

 

System Memory: 12 GB's Triple Slot (total max for the Motherboard) of Crucial Systems; DDR-3 running at:1600MHz high speed, low latency.

Motherboard Chipset:  Intel X58

 

GPU: EVGA GTX 1070 FTW, with no overclock in place

What is B9?

As Rich pointed out,  XP11 Beta (v9).

[Desaix 235]

Beta version 9 - they really need to get this sky issue sorted out - its terrible - being a flight simulator ths should not be an issue to begin with imo 

+1

 

Was doing a direct comparison yesterday between XP10 and XP11, same photoreal, same scenery, same OSM overlay and what really disturbed me in XP11 was the circle bands in sky at sunset. How the hell they can stand with such a mid '80s graphic even in a beta? I know they're working on it but after 9 betas it should have been addressed already.

 

Anyway another plus of XP10, beside FPS which were average +20/30 roughly same settings, was the longer range view of objects. In Xp11 it looks like even at maximum objects setting there's a shorter range of exclusion, I got that annoying effect of objects fading in and out in plain sight.

[Sethos 4,333]

Beta version 9 - they really need to get this sky issue sorted out - its terrible - being a flight simulator ths should not be an issue to begin with imo 

 

They seem to drag their feet sorting some of the visual issues. I even heard talk of the release-candidate slowly closing in. I sincerely hope they don't plan on releasing it officially like this. No moon or sky with HDR enabled, sky and moon banding, repeating water textures, those are some pretty big issues, visually. 

[ricka47 611]

Beta version 9 - they really need to get this sky issue sorted out - its terrible - being a flight simulator ths should not be an issue to begin with imo 

 That really hurts the immersive factor that is so good in other areas.

[soaring_penguin 428]

I would think that, assuming it is indeed not so difficult to fix, then it would require tuning all the time due to changes on the engine.

Then it makes sense to leave it as is until everything else is in, then fix it for once.

 

It is beta, and it is on their radar. I am happy with that. If I don't like something, I report is as a bug.

And if you want the stable product: everybody has access to X-Plane 10.

 

Commenting: it is easy to fix, they should do it now, without knowing their workflow, does not make sense.

Commenting: it hurts the immersive factor is something else, this is an obervation.

 

Now I turn my rant modus off, my apologizes to the other posters.

Jan

[Paraffin 2,197]

Anyway another plus of XP10, beside FPS which were average +20/30 roughly same settings, was the longer range view of objects. In Xp11 it looks like even at maximum objects setting there's a shorter range of exclusion, I got that annoying effect of objects fading in and out in plain sight.

 

Are you sure you're comparing at the same settings, including weather? One of the big changes in XP11 is the built-in haze which affects visibility. Weather plugins like XEinviro will do that too, with varying visibility ranges. I'm still seeing objects in the far distance just like I did in XP10, as long as the weather is clear enough. 

[Desaix 235]

I have to investigate more, that was my impression. They were not the OSM data to fade out but the custom scenery objects, so maybe there are different LOD treatment between XP10 and XP11. But the effect was noticeable at MAX setting and quite evident at Heavy setting for objects. I will check more because being a converted scenery maybe they need explicitely written the ATTR_LOD in the obj file.

 

Visibility was set to 100 NM in XP11 with clear weather and in XP10 clear weather.

 

Not that I complain for FPS, in XP11 I had still above 45 in that scenery with tons of objects and without the counter I could not realize any difference between 45 and 70 of XP10.

[Paraffin 2,197]

Yeah, I'd suspect something related to custom scenery then, if default OSM streets and autogen are still visible at long distances. Right now I'm using almost no custom scenery, keeping my XP11 installation pretty close to vanilla except for the HD mesh, so I haven't noticed it.

[rparson99 32]

Thank you for the reference Sesquashtoo!