Don't know ... but this PA31T has worse FPS than the B777/B744 PMDG and/or FSLabs A320. My FPS is locked at 30 and with PMDG and FSLABS pretty much maintain 28/29 all the way and only at airports like EDDF and EGLL (Aerosoft) I will see a drop to low 21/23s but the Cheyenne just startup with 21/23 and while flying into ORBX LOWI it drops to below 20 FPS.

My specs are more than decent and my FSX/P3D setup runs very smooth. No need to tweak or change anything else. The proof is that no other aircraft in my hanger has this hit on FPS.

Don't know ... something somewhere just doesn't feel right because I own a lot of Carenado aeries and this one is just a bummer.

 

Could it be a higher polygon count than the other aircraft?

Also believe it has a relation with high polygon.
In the past I bought Carenado C-90, good image good performance, then bought Carenado B-200 good images and bad performance, FPS killer, on occasion NGX 737 achieved much better performance, so I bought Phenom 100, very beautiful but for me Father of all FPS killers.
The B-200 image files are twice the size of C-90s.
In X-Plane 11 aircraft Carenado famous killers FPS

João Alfredo

Really don't know what's going on with the Carenado aircraft lately - there must be a way to revive the FPS? They make such great aircraft and I've just counted and I have 18 aircraft between them and Alabeo and they don't come cheap. Unfortunately there are little or no updates after a month or two and if it isn't fixed by then, then the next development has priority. Seeing that I had a King200 rating in my younger years, I just love the turboprop aircraft and I was waiting for the Cheyenne with great anticipation.

 Come on Carenado - give us a version with a lower polygon count and make this bird flyable without the need to buy a super computer. Maybe lower that 4 x 16.7 MB texture files and/or lower the size of the 280 MB Common Files

PS: Such a pity that RealAir Simulations had to close ... that DUKE Turbo still one of my favs and the FPS are a breeze.

Take a look at the size of the interior model. It is up to 128 mb. Most other releases 30 mb or less. I really don't see much benefit from this increase either. And I don't notice any frame drops on the exterior views. Exterior models are still 30 mb or less. Compare exterior and interior models frame rate performance and .mdl file size.

The real strain on my system is the graphics card which runs at near 100%, dramatically raising GPU temps on this one, and of course drags the cpu down lowering fps and causing stutters and even freezes.

I  have been a fan of Carenado/Alabeo for a long time, but I think they are catering to a customer base with graphics cards that are more advanced than I am currently willing to invest in. I suspect they have lost me as a customer and supporter. Not to mention their consistently "buggy" initial releases.

What Graphic cards are you guys using?

Jesse

I have sent a support ticket to Carenado about this. They have said they will look at the size of the interior model. Send in your tickets guys. See if we can get this fixed.

Dave.

Submitted.

Their "lite" version is much better on FPS, I see no difference in visuals so I always fly the "lite". Make sure you have the latest update v1.2.

On 5/13/2017 at 5:33 AM, MartinRex007 said:

Make sure you have the latest update v1.2.

I have v1.2 and the LITE version is better, but still worst than any PMDG aircraft  ........... and in P3D it is shimmering shimmering all the way. Don't know, I'm disappointed.

 

Well, if you could imagine my disappointment when the PA31T CHEYENNE II was launched and the horrific FPS compared to any other 'HEAVY' aircraft in my library (PMDG, Aerosoft, FSLabs) then you should see my face with this aircraft and trying to fly it with Dynamic Lights on in P3D4 ................. and that with Win7 x64, 1080Ti, 32GB RAM

This time around, I'm really really disappointed and I don't know what else to do but to uninstall and park it the $39.95 hangar and let the gras grow through it. Don't know. Maybe I need a NASA super computer. Who knows? 

My GPU is light years behind yours, (GTX 680, I think).  I do have 32GB of Ram  and Windows 7x64 and good SSDs in Raid.  But I am getting a solid and smooth 30 FPS with v4 and the full version of the Cheyenne.  I have loaded all the ORBX that is currently available for v4, have some relatively high settings on my graphics, and am using dynamic lighting, shadows, reflections, etc.., run with TrackIR and my old PFC serial controls must run both PFC and FSUIPC simultaneously. 

I do have the Devil's Canyon Broadwell CPU, however.  With a decent CPU your numbers should be much better than what you are getting.  What CPU are you running?