Disappointed with XPX and XPXI, unfortunately!

[Piotr007 164]

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?

[jymp 168]

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.

[Piotr007 164]

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.

[jymp 168]

So far, you are right sir.      

 

 

[GoranM 3,762]

Turning into another FSX vs X Plane thread

[Piotr007 164]

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...

[GoranM 3,762]

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.

[Piotr007 164]

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.

[GoranM 3,762]

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

[Glenn_C 135]

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.

[Piotr007 164]

21 minutes ago, Glenn_C said:

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.

So maybe suggesting Xenviro is better for Airliners? I saw nice videos with Xenviro. But when I saw everything was 2D I gave up on it. But if they add 3d HD clouds Xenviro could rule just as ASNext of AS2016 rules in FSX and P3D.

[Lenny777 299]

REX is purportedly coming to XP11 so  if you want volumetric clouds they're coming.  I have both REX Overdrive and ACTIVESKY 2016 for P3D. Stopped using SMaxx4 because I agree to get the level of a good look you suffer significant fps hits. Plus, I always get the sense its trying to create an environment without succeeding (cotton ball clouds etc.) As I stated, the first step would be to install the cloud and sky set 2.0 HD clouds. I actually use these with ENvX - who knows of the compatibility or not but it looks real good and feels like a genuine environment not a made up one like SMP4.

 

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/18213-xp10-clouds-hd-v20/

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/36067-better-sky/

[wb5okj 26]

One other thing that may be a consideration is having a web browser open while simming. I am running Windows 10 Professional on my new computer, Task manager tells me the I7 6850K cpu is running at 4.36 Ghrz. If I open Firefox, (my favorite browser), the cpu goes crazy, from 4.36 it starts cycling down to as low as 1.8 Ghrz, and fps in X-Plane 11 starts jumping all over the place. It does the same thing with Chrome, which I use for some work specific things. I have to use MS Edge now I I open a browser. I fly out of KPWA so scenery is light, I get around 60 fps most of the time, with one of these browsers open I get down to 40 and as low as 30 fps. I don't know if this is just specific to my rig but would be interested if anyone else has these browser problems. I jus don't use Firefox or Chrome if I have X-Plane 11 or 10 up. May be something to think about or look into.

[Colonel X 1,428]

Really tired of people complaining about performance when their system is able to run XP11 perfectly at high settings... 

[Guest Mik75]

5 hours ago, Piotr007 said:

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.

You definitely have to turn down "Cloud Area Covered"! Maximum setting is way too much. Try something around 10,000 sq km, that's a realistic setting. I get good results with my 1070 in XP11 with this setting. Overall, xEnviro (which I use in XPX), performs much better. 

And as others stated before, turn the shadows in XPX down to "3D on aircraft". Objects to draw should all be set in middle positions in XPX (objects "tons", streets "tons", trees "filled in", cars "siberian winter", these settings work very nicely for me). 

Reasonable settings are very important. Then the sim will be silky smooth.