Piotr007

Disappointed with XPX and XPXI, unfortunately!

Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

I am new to X-plane X and 11. Unfortunately I am very disappointed with the performance I get in these sims.

The biggest culprit are the clouds. As soon I load them the Sim drops 10's of FPS down making it unplayable. The drop comes instantly.

I thought a weather addon might be the solution as I read many positive comments about it. I bought Skymaxx Pro V4 because I do not like X-enviro 2D blankets. But found afterwards that Skymaxx Pro V4 was nothing good at all. It adds according to me nothing at all!!

 

I am a FSX veteran and I adore ActiveSkyNext very much. Such clouds I expect after all these years in X-plane as well!! Such superb weather! But there is simply nothing to find.

I have to live with it I know:'(.

 

But what is the issue on the performance????

My Specs:

CPU: i7 6700K @ 4.6ghz

GPU: MSI 1080GTX 8GB GDDR5

RAM: Corsair Dominator 32GB DDR4 3000mhz

HDD: 1.5TB WD Green Caviar 7200RPM (installed XPX and XPXI on this)

SSD: 480GB (FSX is on this)

 

An extra note: I have w2xp sceneries installed. But these do not impact the performance as such. Before cloud generation I get 30-40 fps, there after I get around 14-20 fps. Ridiculous (as the clouds are crappier than FSX ASN icw. REX texture direct). This is insane.

 

As soon as clouds are rendered into the sim the performance drops like a brick in X-plane! Please explain it to me!

I thought this sim might be the future, but I am slowly turning away from it again.

 

Helpful tips are welcome. I am willing to give the sim a chance. Perhaps I am missing something with those damn clouds???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I don't get why you are against xEnviro 2d clouds when REX is built around them, and so is the cloud system in Flight Sim series since always.

Default clouds killing fps are a thing indeed, that's why few keep them :( 
When you say Skymaxx pro adds nothing, what do you mean specifically?

You could try lowering the draw distance of the clouds to see if fps improve as a start

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely not normal. I have a 1070 and even with default clouds I get nice smooth performance. In XP10 we were able to change the density and I had it at the lower end, but not sure this can be changed in XP11 (but they know clouds are an issue and have some fixes to go in, so it will get fixed)

Also, have you tried this 

This is the only thing I can think of at the moment

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, tonywob said:

Definitely not normal. I have a 1070 and even with default clouds I get nice smooth performance. In XP10 we were able to change the density and I had it at the lower end, but not sure this can be changed in XP11 (but they know clouds are an issue and have some fixes to go in, so it will get fixed)

Also, have you tried this 

This is the only thing I can think of at the moment

 

I turned of threaded optimization. But I have to see if this is the Holy Grail for the cloud rendering issue. I am sceptic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it hard to believe the sim would be "unplayable" on that system. It runs quite nicely on my 4770K @ 4.5 GHz and GTX 970 4 GB.
Also, what do you mean Skymaxx adds "nothing at all"? If you saw no difference, maybe it wasn't installed correctly? I have this add-on, and I think it makes the clouds look much better (brighter and more "puffy"), and it also improves performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely not normal operations.    xEnviro does have a bug itself in that it does too many fill calls with the current cloud set.   It's why I had to download the low rez temporary fix until they fix the problem on their end but they are waiting for the XP11 RTM.   I don't have any experience with SkyMaxx PRO but be mindful of your AA settings in the sim.    If you want a ton of clouds you cannot run with 8x everything in your AA settings.  You have to tone it down.    The same thing happened in FSX/P3D with cloud rendering.   To much anti-aliasing and you murder your system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a better cloud set for XP11. Look on the Xplane forum. In combination with Xenviro shouldn't be a single performance problem with your system. But if you like going back to micromanaging in P3D/FSX just so you don't get VASs you're welcome to do so. For the amount of time you put into playing around with P3D/FSX settings you should proportionately exercise less in XP11 because of its 64 bit processes and the lack of memory problems.

 

i7-4790, ZOTAC 1080Extreme, 8GB, 16 GB RAM.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your system should run both versions just fine on highest AA settings. 

few tips: 

- Turn Threaded optimization off in nVidia control panel!

- when setting up weather, keep visibility realistic. 100 miles sounds nice, but will kill any system. Anything between 20 and 40 is more realistic, and with the haze effect in XP11 it looks very nice. I can not comment on SMP settings as I do not own it, but when setup wrong, I read that it can bring down performance on any system.

- shadows on scenery is heavy on resources, try reducing (or in x-plane 11, disable) this.

Most important: have fun, and don't add too much to the sim at the same time, X-Plane is completely different to setup and maintain then FSX and P3D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jh71 said:

- shadows on scenery is heavy on resources, try reducing (or in x-plane 11, disable) this.

Oh yeah it does!  Like.. big time major.   It looks great but makes pretty much every flight on my system a slide show.  With them off 30+ FPS always.    

20-40 miles seems a little shallow.  The human eye can see about 75 miles at Cruise altitude irl.   That's about where mine is set.   I shall have to look into this better clouds!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Kuragiman said:

20-40 miles seems a little shallow.  The human eye can see about 75 miles at Cruise altitude irl.   That's about where mine is set.   I shall have to look into this better clouds!

I fly VFR, at those altitudes, this 25 miles is most of the time sufficient. But I believe once going over a certain height (I don't know how it is calculated) the visibility will go up, and the number of objects will decrease with height due to the LOD, so higher visibility will have less impact on cruise altitude. The smart thing to do for Laminar would be to play with those 2, and probably that is what they do.  (Again, not sure, as generally I don't fly airliners).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 14 fps in XPX. I don't know what to do? I have turned off threaded optimization in Nvidia config. manager. I check my PC resources and they are not fully used.

Does anyone have a clue why this is? One of the culprits could be HDR? But HDR makes XPX so nice. It has to be ON!

3 hours ago, jh71 said:

your system should run both versions just fine on highest AA settings. 

few tips: 

- Turn Threaded optimization off in nVidia control panel!

- when setting up weather, keep visibility realistic. 100 miles sounds nice, but will kill any system. Anything between 20 and 40 is more realistic, and with the haze effect in XP11 it looks very nice. I can not comment on SMP settings as I do not own it, but when setup wrong, I read that it can bring down performance on any system.

- shadows on scenery is heavy on resources, try reducing (or in x-plane 11, disable) this.

Most important: have fun, and don't add too much to the sim at the same time, X-Plane is completely different to setup and maintain then FSX and P3D.

I installed 32GB RAM and have a MSI Geforce 1080 GTX 8GB GDDR5 card just for XPX, XI and entire simming. I have an overclocked 6700K, and I do not see all the resources consumed?

So the real question is what the heck makes it always go slow!

 

Ridiculous I tested it!!!

When TURNING OFF Skymaxx Pro V4 plugin I gain 30 FPS!!

 

14 to 44 FPS!! So what on earth is this problem with the plugin! I have everything maxed out! But these clouds ruin everything..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, GoranM said:

What were your settings on Skymaxx?

I think it is not too much asked to have it Real as it gets right? But the FPS hit of Skymaxx Pro V4 is just insane. It makes 20 to 30 fps change in sim.

Naamloos.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might want to turn down "Cloud Area Covered".  A plug in like Skymaxx, which has adjustable levels of cloud, WILL affect performance depending on your sliders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Might want to turn down "Cloud Area Covered".  A plug in like Skymaxx, which has adjustable levels of cloud, WILL affect performance depending on your sliders.

Alright I will look into that. Thanks.

 

EDIT:

 

I have a question about the clouds though, something causes to change the clouds. Sometimes it swaps overcast to loose clouds and then to overcast again. I do not know what is causing this. Besides it adds a 2 second lag when doing...

Is this normal XPX behaviour?

Clouds 1.jpg

Clouds 2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still trying the demo and trying to give XP 11 the benefit of the doubt being beta software, this 12th update has been a little better, if I disable shadows on objects and no clouds at all can now get around 20 FPS, (no, disabling Threaded Optimization does nothing) which is better than the 15 dropping to 2 to 5, if it can be optimized to get 25 to 30 FPS +, with shadows on objects enabled I'd be happy with it. One thing at KSEA in the demo, the runways are super sloped at the ends, hope that will be fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jymp said:

Still trying the demo and trying to give XP 11 the benefit of the doubt being beta software, this 12th update has been a little better, if I disable shadows on objects and no clouds at all can now get around 20 FPS, (no, disabling Threaded Optimization does nothing) which is better than the 15 dropping to 2 to 5, if it can be optimized to get 25 to 30 FPS +, with shadows on objects enabled I'd be happy with it. One thing at KSEA in the demo, the runways are super sloped at the ends, hope that will be fixed.

So calling XPX and XP11 a good successor of FSX 32bit is not true I guess.

I thought I could move to X-plane 10 because it is for so many years on the market. But I see no difference in performance compared to FSX other than the OOM issue is not present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GoranM said:

If you think a flight sim being in active development is not as good as a 13 year old flight sim, with no advances, then I'd say you're not looking anywhere near deep enough at what XP11 has to offer, and you would be far more suited to FSX and it's constant tweaking of the cfg file and whatever else needs tweaking.  XP11 has so much more to offer than FSX.  64 bit, particles and PBR to name just a couple.  But let's not turn this into ANOTHER FSX vs X Plane thread.  If you don't like X Plane, please, feel free to go back to 13 year old FSX.

You are right about it that FSX is Old and far outdated. But how can someone enjoy X-plane 10, when dealing with lag and issues because of cloud rendering?

There has to be some problem. As it stands now with performance I am relucant to buy JarDesign A330 as it was my next step. But I guess my FPS would drop into single digits...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much depends on performance.  Coming from FSX, you would be very familiar with this.  What's your hardware?  What are your render settings at?  Are you meeting the minimum required specs?  The very first slider on your very first screenshot shows cloud coverage set to maximum.  Even with a water cooled, top spec machine, I wouldn't set that slider to maximum.  You will find many people here willing to help you squeeze out better performance, but starting a comparison between X plane and FSX, with FSX being your preferred choice, will get you very little help.  You'll simply be told to head back to FSX and enjoy.  I remember when FSX came out, only a select few brave people, with top of the line PC's, even considered setting all their sliders to max.  And when they did, slideshow city.  Particularly with Light Bloom.  That would drag FSX down to 2-3 fps on a decent rig.  And that's just light bloom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GoranM said:

So much depends on performance.  Coming from FSX, you would be very familiar with this.  What's your hardware?  What are your render settings at?  Are you meeting the minimum required specs?  The very first slider on your very first screenshot shows cloud coverage set to maximum.  Even with a water cooled, top spec machine, I wouldn't set that slider to maximum.  You will find many people here willing to help you squeeze out better performance, but starting a comparison between X plane and FSX, with FSX being your preferred choice, will get you very little help.  You'll simply be told to head back to FSX and enjoy.

Alrighty then,

I did not mean to hurt people's feelings, merely trying to enjoy X-plane 10 and its successor 11.

I will post my settings for rendering and hardware SPecs in a few moments. I really like what I see in XPX, but it has to do with performance really. Sorry for my comparison to FSX, it was uncalled for I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need for apologies.  If you want help, just ask for it.  It's all in the wording.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Piotr007 said:

You are right about it that FSX is Old and far outdated. But how can someone enjoy X-plane 10, when dealing with lag and issues because of cloud rendering?

There has to be some problem. As it stands now with performance I am relucant to buy JarDesign A330 as it was my next step. But I guess my FPS would drop into single digits...

XP11 still needs tuning.

The JAR A330 does not eat up that many frames. For example I have an i6700K and GTX1080 and 32GB ram 1920x1080 32" monitor. In XP10.51 I get +/-  60fps in the JAR A330 at Aerosoft EHAM and using Ortho4XP scenery. In XP11 with more or less the exact same settings I only get 35 / 40 fps. So you see XP11 still needs a bit of work ;-) As far as SkyMaxx 4.0 is concerned I have it but don't use it that much as it does not look that good and uses far to much GPU / CPU. SkyMaxx is great for low and slow flights with GA aircraft but for airliners not that great in my opinion.

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