5 degree descent at 100 knots.

 

172s are dogs. You cut the power and you are slowing down unless you are diving like a fighter jet.

 

All these power issues started with pb4. Before that it was all perfect. They must be tinkering with the overall flight mode or engine modeling.

 

Yeah, Austin did some pretty sweeping changes to the flight- and engine (propeller) model, and is probably not done yet. I have conversed with him on some of those changes, especially the drag and I believe that those changes are for the better, in general. Even if they seem to "break" airplanes that used to work before.

 

Eventually the airplanes (even the default Laminar ones) will have to be adjusted to this new model, and of course it is possible that we will find some stuff wrong with it in the process...

 

I can say that he is especially open to feedback and reports at this time - but they have to be backed by some good evidence, either in the form of scientific proof, official documentation, real-life videos or plausible first-hand experience.

 

Jan

5 degree descent at 100 knots.

 

172s are dogs. You cut the power and you are slowing down unless you are diving like a fighter jet.

 

All these power issues started with pb4. Before that it was all perfect. They must be tinkering with the overall flight mode or engine modeling.

Just did a test with the default 172. RPM 1300, VS 500 feet per min, 80 KIAS, Flaps-0. Seems ok ?

I have Garmin G5 attitude indicator installed last year. My 172 does descent at 0 degrees pitch attitude 80 kts ~500fps. Straight and level flight 3-5 degrees positive pitch attitude 

Strange, threaded optimization off?

Yup, its off.

Just did a test with the default 172. RPM 1300, VS 500 feet per min, 80 KIAS, Flaps-0. Seems ok ?

 

With the default 172 on descent to a field I get down to as low as 900 RPM at 65 knots IAS and 500 ft/min descent rate. That's cutting the power at about 100 ft above ground level.

Yup, its off.

 

I would chock it up to beta performance then though your GPU is not doing you any favors.

Deleted the preferences folder but nothing changed. This is what I'm dealing with since I upgraded past pb3.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxSY8_GqeXs&feature=youtu.be

 

You can see my frame rates just fluctuating almost like a stop watch. At the time of this video recording, I turned all my graphic settings to low. Here are my PC specs:

 

i7 4790k 4.0 GHz processor

16 gb of Ram

GTX 650 ti

 

Now I know my graphics card needs replacing but it was fine running pb3 with medium to high settings with Real Weather Connector and Skymaxx Pro. Now my frame rates are all messed up :/

Your cpu is kosher, as well as the amount of ram you have, but that gpu is a little long in the tooth for XP11 performance.  I do have a question though, did you update SkyMaxx recently?  Also, and this is not meant to offend, but your video only highlights the data output and we can't see what is going on in the sim, as far as scenery and weather complexity.  Framerates on my new system will do the same, but not as often, so the key here is to concentrate more on the timings of the cpu and gpu, which I see on your system, the cpu will lag and then the gpu will as well.  I believe, and this goes for everyone, that a better understanding of the timings and how they relate to specific XP settings, would be an immense help to the community.  I'd seen a write-up not long ago from someone who explained a bit of it, but all I took from it was how to understand the numbers and what they mean.  The numbers are milliseconds of time taken to calculate and draw a frame, so if the numbers are low, then your frames should be higher, and the opposite is true for higher numbers.

 

Your stance on PB3 is valid, but it was an early beta release and as the new ones emerged, more was being implemented for testing.  As I have said before, introducing 3rd party add-ons into a beta isn't going to give you reliable results, because the important point to be made is that XP11 is still in beta.  I am sure there is a lot more to worked out, with some of it possibly spilling over to the 3rd party developers to update their own products.  In your own personal case though, that gpu could be more to blame for the "roller coaster" frame timings you are getting.  What I am seeing on my rig right now, are timings that stay generally close to each other, and this is what you ultimately want for performance.

Guys.

 

I have problems with latest beta. When I startup a plane it generates smoke like a total madness.

 

After few reloads the smoke goes away!

Does anyone know why this happens?

 

A 2nd strange issue is that I had ctd's after installing XPX right after XP11. Next time I started up there were no issues luckily.

 

Did anyone encounter this perhaps?

Your cpu is kosher, as well as the amount of ram you have, but that gpu is a little long in the tooth for XP11 performance.  I do have a question though, did you update SkyMaxx recently?  Also, and this is not meant to offend, but your video only highlights the data output and we can't see what is going on in the sim, as far as scenery and weather complexity.  Framerates on my new system will do the same, but not as often, so the key here is to concentrate more on the timings of the cpu and gpu, which I see on your system, the cpu will lag and then the gpu will as well.  I believe, and this goes for everyone, that a better understanding of the timings and how they relate to specific XP settings, would be an immense help to the community.  I'd seen a write-up not long ago from someone who explained a bit of it, but all I took from it was how to understand the numbers and what they mean.  The numbers are milliseconds of time taken to calculate and draw a frame, so if the numbers are low, then your frames should be higher, and the opposite is true for higher numbers.

 

Your stance on PB3 is valid, but it was an early beta release and as the new ones emerged, more was being implemented for testing.  As I have said before, introducing 3rd party add-ons into a beta isn't going to give you reliable results, because the important point to be made is that XP11 is still in beta.  I am sure there is a lot more to worked out, with some of it possibly spilling over to the 3rd party developers to update their own products.  In your own personal case though, that gpu could be more to blame for the "roller coaster" frame timings you are getting.  What I am seeing on my rig right now, are timings that stay generally close to each other, and this is what you ultimately want for performance.

 

Yeah I'm buying a new GPU when I get my tax refund check back. I did end up uninstalling Skymaxx Pro and Real Weather Connector and that seemed to be the culprit. Did a test flight earlier in the Cessna and frames are smooth! Funny though, even though I uninstalled Skymaxx and Real Weather Connector, they still show up in the plugins menu and I had to manually disable them. For now, I can only fly with clear skies to give me that smooth frame rates.

The final release. Just saw it at Aerosoft.com. 6 April 2017.

http://www.aerosoft.com/en/fsxp3d/pre-order/1813/xplane-11?c=800

 

3 minutes ago, Sebjo89 said:

The final release. Just saw it at Aerosoft.com. 6 April 2017.

http://www.aerosoft.com/en/fsxp3d/pre-order/1813/xplane-11?c=800

 

Since this is in pre-order status, the date can change at any time, so i wouldn't put too much stock in what anyone but LR says.  If there is legitimacy to the date, it would coincide with the discussions about the Steam release, which would put that earlier than the boxed version.

steam says march 30th, aero soft always seems to be a week late on when a new product is released from other developers