Frame Rate Help, this can't be right

[billandjillmeier 0]

x plane 11, world objects, texture quality, visual effects all set to HIGH, reflections off, antialiasing lowest setting, number of models 2 or 3, visibility 40 miles, no clouds, Seattle, cessna 172, I7 2700 overclocked to 5ghz, Nvidia GTX 1070 with 8G VRAM overclocked, 8G RAM, Nvidia parameters set to use the 3d application, power management mode prefer maximum performance, threaded optimization OFF, 3 monitors all set to full screen simulator and default monitor resolution, Windows 10 64 bit, I'm getting a paltry 16 to 18 FPS. I can get good frame rates with only one monitor enabled. I must be missing something. I have spent about 2 hours searching posts. No magic bullets. Surely frame rates should be at least above the minimum 19 with my hardware. What is it??? Or does xplane 11 really only work with one monitor? 

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

42 minutes ago, billandjillmeier said:

x plane 11, world objects, texture quality, visual effects all set to HIGH, reflections off, antialiasing lowest setting, number of models 2 or 3, visibility 40 miles, no clouds, Seattle, cessna 172, I7 2700 overclocked to 5ghz, Nvidia GTX 1070 with 8G VRAM overclocked, 8G RAM, Nvidia parameters set to use the 3d application, power management mode prefer maximum performance, threaded optimization OFF, 3 monitors all set to full screen simulator and default monitor resolution, Windows 10 64 bit, I'm getting a paltry 16 to 18 FPS. I can get good frame rates with only one monitor enabled. I must be missing something. I have spent about 2 hours searching posts. No magic bullets. Surely frame rates should be at least above the minimum 19 with my hardware. What is it??? Or does xplane 11 really only work with one monitor? 

Xplane loads all in at the start.  I'd just sit at the airport, and watch your busy lights on your drive(s).  I run high end ortho..and so, it actually takes 3-5 minutes with XP11 showing only about 8 FPS, before it finishes loading, and pops (the FPS reading) up to 28-to infinity.  Give your XP 11 time to load fully into memory. Do a coffee/bathroom run...:)

[billandjillmeier 0]

Thank you for the reply. I have flown for about an hour in the Seattle area and the frame rates do not improve much until I leave the heavily populated area. It increases, but not much. I stay below the 19 FPS threshold.

[Murmur 3,941]

Maybe with 3 monitors your GPU becomes the bottleneck in X-Plane. Have you tried decreasing anti aliasing?

[billandjillmeier 0]

Yes, I have turned off antialiasing. It helps. But still I can't get up above 19 fps in high density city areas. I know the three monitors are a huge resource hog, but I was hoping that a  64 bit application with 8G of Vram and 8G of RAM would be good enough to stay above 24. That's my goal, 24fps.

[Colonel X 1,428]

Try running the displays in a lower (custom) resolution. It's def. the fillrate that's holding you back. Depending on your monitors scaling quality, you may still get a very good image. Use AA to counter jaggies. If these are 1080p displays, try running them in 1280x720 or 1600 x 900 each instead. 

There's just no way a 1070 will drive three displays with full resolution in X-Plane with HDR, you'll have to face that.

[strider1 575]

Xplane autogen will eat cpu frames !

[Paraffin 2,197]

20 minutes ago, strider1 said:

Xplane autogen will eat cpu frames !

Maybe if you're running more than one monitor? I'm using a single 1920x1200 monitor on a GTX970 card, and I can run with world object detail at Max.

The things that hit my system the hardest are world shadows on (I leave them off) and reflections (off too). And then cloud density after that. Also plane models -- when talking about frame rates, it's important to refer to the default C172 as a base line. Some of these plane models will add an additional heavy frame rate hit on top of that.

[CarlosF 1,234]

I have 2 monitors and when I tried to setup the second one in XP, my frames droped. I suggest use one monitor

[billandjillmeier 0]

I am running one monitor at 1920x1200 and two monitors at 1600x1200. I will try to run at a lower resolution and see what happens. I can't run with just one monitor, there is no realism to that. I did state that I am using the C172 as a baseline. Shadows and reflections are off. If the 1070 can't run three monitors, then what will? Will going to a haswell processor and motherboard help versus the sandybridge. My bus speed is 100, maybe I should increase the motherboard bus speed and lower the cpu multiplier. 

[Colonel X 1,428]

10 hours ago, billandjillmeier said:

I am running one monitor at 1920x1200 and two monitors at 1600x1200. I will try to run at a lower resolution and see what happens. I can't run with just one monitor, there is no realism to that. I did state that I am using the C172 as a baseline. Shadows and reflections are off. If the 1070 can't run three monitors, then what will? Will going to a haswell processor and motherboard help versus the sandybridge. My bus speed is 100, maybe I should increase the motherboard bus speed and lower the cpu multiplier. 

The GPU is responsible for the resolution. Upgrading the CPU (while it will def. help in other areas, rendering more objects ect.) won't help you here. Decreasing resolution and/or visual effects (medium will be really fast) is the way to achieve good performance on your 1070. Test with low world detail to really focus on GPU performance, then raise world details later to load the CPU.

No card on the market can run your three displays at full res. with HDR and weather enabled at 30FPS - not even a 1080ti (which would be much closer to it nevertheless).

[strider1 575]

23 hours ago, Paraffin said:

Maybe if you're running more than one monitor? I'm using a single 1920x1200 monitor on a GTX970 card, and I can run with world object detail at Max.

The things that hit my system the hardest are world shadows on (I leave them off) and reflections (off too). And then cloud density after that. Also plane models -- when talking about frame rates, it's important to refer to the default C172 as a base line. Some of these plane models will add an additional heavy frame rate hit on top of that.

It's probably my 4K monitor !

[ryanbatc 12,774]

23 hours ago, Paraffin said:

Maybe if you're running more than one monitor? I'm using a single 1920x1200 monitor on a GTX970 card, and I can run with world object detail at Max.

The things that hit my system the hardest are world shadows on (I leave them off) and reflections (off too). And then cloud density after that. Also plane models -- when talking about frame rates, it's important to refer to the default C172 as a base line. Some of these plane models will add an additional heavy frame rate hit on top of that.

I'm not so sure.  I run single monitor and though it really depends where you fly, max autogen in LA (socal) where I fly, crushes fps.  I'm at 1080P only.  Max autogen in my hometown of Duluth isn't so bad... I can do about 30 fps with payware.  LAX is about 15 with payware.

[Guest]

What are your frame times for CPU and GPU? Just watch those (you can also make XP visualize it in a graph via the data output settings) and you'll know whether your CPU or your GPU holds back the sim. If your CPU timing is higher than your GPU timing, it's the CPU - turn down the CPU relevant settings (world objects, reflections, shadows) then. If your GPU timing is higher, it's the GPU, therefore in that case turn down the graphics settings (AA, Effects, Textures) until you're satisfied.

There's really no magic with XP11 in that regard. Just monitor the frame times, play with the sliders accordingly, monitor frame times again, repeat until you've found your personal best balance between visuals and performance!

[Paraffin 2,197]

15 hours ago, ryanbatcund said:

I'm not so sure.  I run single monitor and though it really depends where you fly, max autogen in LA (socal) where I fly, crushes fps.  I'm at 1080P only.  Max autogen in my hometown of Duluth isn't so bad... I can do about 30 fps with payware.  LAX is about 15 with payware.

I'm getting much better performance on a system with the same video card as you, at roughly the same resolution on a single monitor. The difference is my CPU and tons more RAM (32 GB). Also I'm not using any orthoscenery, which puts an additional load on the system.

So I suspect one big bottleneck in your system is that 8 GB of system RAM, which is the minimum spec listed for XP11. The recommended spec by Laminar is 16-24 GB or more. The "more" part really helps if you have anything else running in the background like a flight planner, web browser, etc. I'd look to boost your RAM as a first step. RAM is cheap these days.

You and I both need better video cards though.