Will273

New Machine for X Plane 11?

Recommended Posts

I'm thinking about getting a computer for X Plane 11 only and no add-ons...just the defaults as they are. XForce has one for $1,600. it's an intel 6 core i5 9600 overclocked to 4.8....intel Z390 chipset motherboard....16 GB DDR-4 3200 MHZ RAM supports up to 64GB...NVidia RTX 2060 6GB GDDR 6 and 700 watt power Supply. I'd like to be able to run X Plane 11 at medium to high settings...with or without HDR and be able to fly into , out of KJFK or over NYC using downloaded real weather in nasty cloudy conditions and get somewhere around 40 FPS. I can do that now in X Plane 10 and would like to do it in X Plane 11 if that computer would be fast enough. Please let me know what you think...thanks! Oh...One reason I'm interested in X Force is they're close and they  build their computers just for X Plane and their tech support.

Share this post


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

My current PC runs on an 8700K at 4.7GHz, and I can run it with high settings with almost 40+fps in even demanding payware airports with heavy cloud cover. I think your PC will be able to run default X-Plane 11 just fine. My only advise will be get dual channel RAM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ninerwhiskey9W said:

My current PC runs on an 8700K at 4.7GHz, and I can run it with high settings with almost 40+fps in even demanding payware airports with heavy cloud cover. I think your PC will be able to run default X-Plane 11 just fine. My only advise will be get dual channel RAM.

That's good to hear and I'll look into dual channel ram. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get two 8GB modules for dual channel. I'd also recommend getting a 1080 GPU instead just for the extra 2GB VRAM. XP eats VRAM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What monitor resolution will you use? Big difference between aiming for 40 fps on 1080p vs. 4k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly you got to stretch the budget further, if you can. Aim for a top of the line CPU, noctua cooler and Nvidia graphics GPU. Overclock the CPU to 5ghz. You will thank me when you're coming in to land at the Big Apple and the place is buzzing with Ai traffic, cars, trucks and airport animations...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm running XP11.34 on a  i3-8100 with an old GTX960 card and 12gig DDR4 ram, I'm flying the Zibo 737, IXEG 737, Les Saab 340, JARA330(which is resource hungry), Ramzess B77-200LR and numerous Carenado aircraft. For weather I use Active Sky. I am not experiencing any stutters,lag or CTD. I think it's just a matter of getting the right interactions between parts - bigger doesn't necessarily mean best.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Greazer said:

Honestly you got to stretch the budget further, if you can. Aim for a top of the line CPU, noctua cooler and Nvidia graphics GPU. Overclock the CPU to 5ghz. You will thank me when you're coming in to land at the Big Apple and the place is buzzing with Ai traffic, cars, trucks and airport animations...

LOL...I hear you loud and clear! There's another computer that's twice as much and I've been eyeing that too...around $3,000...problem with that is I'd never leave the house...I'd be crying tears of joy 24 hours a day. I don't remember what the specs were but I know I wouldn't have to ask if it would run this or that...probably along the lines of a Cray Main Frame. I do have a NVidia GTX 1080 on the computer I have now...maybe I could see if they'd switch it out. Yea back to what you were talking about...those graphics...oh those graphics! Are you running something along the lines of what you suggested? Thanks...I'm seriously thinking along those lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, JustanotherPilot said:

I'm running XP11.34 on a  i3-8100 with an old GTX960 card and 12gig DDR4 ram, I'm flying the Zibo 737, IXEG 737, Les Saab 340, JARA330(which is resource hungry), Ramzess B77-200LR and numerous Carenado aircraft. For weather I use Active Sky. I am not experiencing any stutters,lag or CTD. I think it's just a matter of getting the right interactions between parts - bigger doesn't necessarily mean best.

Steve

Hi Steve. Can I ask what your rendering settings are...texture wise? I have an intel i5 6300 and an NVidia GTX 1080 card and 16 GBs RAM...at medium settings and textures at high I'm getting 40 - 50 FPS at KJFK with real weather using FS GRW...just did a test and it's very cloudy...ceilings 2,500 ft and rain....just did this 10 minutes ago....default King Air C90....X Plane 10 though. Tried the Carenado Baron 58 and got around 30 - 40 FPS but get stutters when I pan around the cockpit...no stutters with the defaults. Tried the very high textures but got some stutters in the King Air when panning and looking around in the cockpit...Carenado's Baron is worse but got good FPS with both. Thanks.

Edited by Will273

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Paraffin said:

What monitor resolution will you use? Big difference between aiming for 40 fps on 1080p vs. 4k.

2560 x 1080 on a 36 inch ultra wide LG Monitor. It's pretty sweet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Will273 said:

Hi Steve. Can I ask what your rendering settings are...texture wise? I have an intel i5 6300 and an NVidia GTX 1080 card and 16 GBs RAM...at medium settings and textures at high I'm getting 40 - 50 FPS at KJFK with real weather using FS GRW...just did a test and it's very cloudy...ceilings 2,500 ft and rain....just did this 10 minutes ago....default King Air C90....X Plane 10 though. Tried the Carenado Baron 58 and got around 30 - 40 FPS but get stutters when I pan around the cockpit...no stutters with the defaults. Tried the very high textures but got some stutters in the King Air when panning and looking around in the cockpit...Carenado's Baron is worse but got good FPS with both. Thanks.

27" AOC at 1920 x 1080 , settings are medium getting 30-40fps dropping to 20-30 in full cloudy weather but no stutters. Don't use any Nvidia tweaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Will273 said:

LOL...I hear you loud and clear! There's another computer that's twice as much and I've been eyeing that too...around $3,000...problem with that is I'd never leave the house...I'd be crying tears of joy 24 hours a day. I don't remember what the specs were but I know I wouldn't have to ask if it would run this or that...probably along the lines of a Cray Main Frame. I do have a NVidia GTX 1080 on the computer I have now...maybe I could see if they'd switch it out. Yea back to what you were talking about...those graphics...oh those graphics! Are you running something along the lines of what you suggested? Thanks...I'm seriously thinking along those lines.

Yea I built a new PC last year, it's pretty high end.  But even with that you cannot go crazy in the settings and turn everything up.  Especially reflections, it kills performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Colonel X said:

Get two 8GB modules for dual channel. I'd also recommend getting a 1080 GPU instead just for the extra 2GB VRAM. XP eats VRAM.

Agreed.....8GB vram I'd say is what you want for XP11....especially with the newer aircraft addons (textures and more textures!)

I've got a 980 with 4GB...and the card is great for "regular" gaming at 1080P...but XP11 bogs down a lot still and the vram is maxed out basically every flight.

If you're on a budget I'd try the new RTX 1660 Ti - 6GB vram is the lowest I'd go (I love rich visuals though lol).  That card is shaping up to be a solid budget minded GPU

Edited by ryanbatcund

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JustanotherPilot said:

27" AOC at 1920 x 1080 , settings are medium getting 30-40fps dropping to 20-30 in full cloudy weather but no stutters. Don't use any Nvidia tweaks.

That sounds pretty good...thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ryanbatcund said:

Agreed.....8GB vram I'd say is what you want for XP11....especially with the newer aircraft addons (textures and more textures!)

I've got a 980 with 4GB...and the card is great for "regular" gaming at 1080P...but XP11 bogs down a lot still and the vram is maxed out basically every flight.

If you're on a budget I'd try the new RTX 1660 Ti - 6GB vram is the lowest I'd go (I love rich visuals though lol).  That card is shaping up to be a solid budget minded GPU

Ok....you're right...thanks for letting me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So how do guys think the computer I mentioned...the one for $1,600 would run X Plane 10 and using add-on aircraft like Carenado's Baron or Saratoga? Think I could run it at high settings using FS GRW in real downloaded weather with nasty stormy conditions over NYC without any panning stutters  when I look left and right in the cockpit? I'm thinking just high settings...above medium but below ultra high max settings? It's the panning stutters that get me now with what I have.

Edited by Will273

Share this post


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

+1 to at least 8GB of VRAM. 

Got it...yea...I'll need the VRAM. Thanks Turnandbank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Will273 said:

So how do guys think the computer I mentioned...the one for $1,600 would run X Plane 10 and using add-on aircraft like Carenado's Baron or Saratoga? Think I could run it at high settings using FS GRW in real downloaded weather with nasty stormy conditions over NYC without any panning stutters  when I look left and right in the cockpit? I'm thinking just high settings...above medium but below ultra high max settings? It's the panning stutters that get me now with what I have.

"High Settings" is not very precise. 

GPU = There are three factors. Resolution, slider setting (HDR or SSAO) and AA. Very easy to find a sweet spot, and a modern, fast GPU (1080, 2060, 2080 ect.) should be able to handle it nicely, meaning full slider, 1080p+ and some AA - remember in X-Plane, AA is never perfect, and Ben seems too lazy to advance the slider to offer better AA (I have personally requested that many times). I'd def. recommend decreasing resolution to allow 8x AA (if you have to) because a clean image is the most natural replication of the world. Personally, I believe 4K is pointless is X-Plane and just a way to make your sim creep. But some people would object.

CPU = It's complicated. First of all, the slider should be on the far right (maxed), otherwise you will get patches with missing Autogen and that just looks bad. So, that puts some strain on that CPU, but luckily, there are a few super useful hacks to take load off the CPU without making it look much worse.

1. Draw distance. Slider maxed means all the Autogen, but it also sets the Autogen draw distance to "1" = very high. You can access the dataref (LOD_bias) and set it to 2, 2.5 or 3 to dial back on the draw distance without losing any of the actual density of the Autogen.

2. Reflections. By all means, that slider needs to be FULL LEFT. It's the most pointless slider in the history of X-Plane. It doesn't even look better maxed out, but it will fry your CPU. However, there's more to it: use the dataref to limit the water reflection setting to "1", that way, only clouds will reflect in the water, a nice sweet spot, especially since terrain reflections in X-Plane have been buggy for a decade now. Plus, it takes load off the CPU.

3. Cars. Use the dataref to set car density to "1", there's still plenty, so that's a no brainer.

4. Scenery shadows. This should be off, as it hammers the CPU. On the other hand, it's the one setting that really adds realism to the visuals. So you might want to experiment with that in combination with draw distance to find a sweet spot. Ultimately, I think shadows are reserved for high end CPU's such as overclocked single core performance monsters (like 9900K).

I'm not on my sim machine otherwise I would post all the relevant datarefs.

Edited by Colonel X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Colonel X said:

"High Settings" is not very precise. 

GPU = There are three factors. Resolution, slider setting (HDR or SSAO) and AA. Very easy to find a sweet spot, and a modern, fast GPU (1080, 2060, 2080 ect.) should be able to handle it nicely, meaning full slider, 1080p+ and some AA - remember in X-Plane, AA is never perfect, and Ben seems too lazy to advance the slider to offer better AA (I have personally requested that many times). I'd def. recommend decreasing resolution to allow 8x AA (if you have to) because a clean image is the most natural replication of the world. Personally, I believe 4K is pointless is X-Plane and just a way to make your sim creep. But some people would object.

CPU = It's complicated. First of all, the slider should be on the far right (maxed), otherwise you will get patches with missing Autogen and that just looks bad. So, that puts some strain on that CPU, but luckily, there are a few super useful hacks to take load off the CPU without making it look much worse.

1. Draw distance. Slider maxed means all the Autogen, but it also sets the Autogen draw distance to "1" = very high. You can access the dataref (LOD_bias) and set it to 2, 2.5 or 3 to dial back on the draw distance without losing any of the actual density of the Autogen.

2. Reflections. By all means, that slider needs to be FULL LEFT. It's the most pointless slider in the history of X-Plane. It doesn't even look better maxed out, but it will fry your CPU. However, there's more to it: use the dataref to limit the water reflection setting to "1", that way, only clouds will reflect in the water, a nice sweet spot, especially since terrain reflections in X-Plane have been buggy for a decade now. Plus, it takes load off the CPU.

3. Cars. Use the dataref to set car density to "1", there's still plenty, so that's a no brainer.

4. Scenery shadows. This should be off, as it hammers the CPU. On the other hand, it's the one setting that really adds realism to the visuals. So you might want to experiment with that in combination with draw distance to find a sweet spot. Ultimately, I think shadows are reserved for high end CPU's such as overclocked single core performance monsters (like 9900K).

I'm not on my sim machine otherwise I would post all the relevant datarefs.

OK...monitor is a 36 inch ultra wide and resolution is 2560 x 1080. HDR I can do with or without and shadows I can do without....AA is set at 4...works good and don't really need it higher. So you think that machine will run add-ons like Carenado's with no problems then? Generally speaking...I'm talking about the preset settings...Minimal, Low, Medium, High and Ultra High settings...tweaked of course...the High Preset is what I'm aiming for...but more than the  Medium Preset. Thanks Colonel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Greazer said:

Yea I built a new PC last year, it's pretty high end.  But even with that you cannot go crazy in the settings and turn everything up.  Especially reflections, it kills performance.

Yea...I totally understand about not maxxing everything out...can't be done. Now I'm thinking about staying with X Plane 10 if I can run add-on aircraft at high settings rather than medium and use real world weather in large urban areas and not worry about panning stutters and FPS with that machine I'm looking at. Thanks for the input Greazer and let me know what you think...if that machine will do the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't go XP 10 now. The add-on aircraft for XP 10 is much more limited and older.  It also doesn't have proper HDR and all the improvements in 11. XP 11.35 is very stable. The other thing, you need to get the XP Realistic plugin, it's a Must.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Will273 said:

Yea...I totally understand about not maxxing everything out...can't be done. Now I'm thinking about staying with X Plane 10 if I can run add-on aircraft at high settings rather than medium and use real world weather in large urban areas and not worry about panning stutters and FPS with that machine I'm looking at. Thanks for the input Greazer and let me know what you think...if that machine will do the job.

X-Plane 10 is not any faster than X-Plane 11. More the opposite. It's old code and it all depends on settings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Greazer said:

I wouldn't go XP 10 now. The add-on aircraft for XP 10 is much more limited and older.  It also doesn't have proper HDR and all the improvements in 11. XP 11.35 is very stable. The other thing, you need to get the XP Realistic plugin, it's a Must.

There's this talk now that XP-Realistic causes stutters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Colonel X said:

X-Plane 10 is not any faster than X-Plane 11. More the opposite. It's old code and it all depends on settings. 

I was thinking with a faster more powerful computer I'd be able to crank the settings up to the preset high instead of the preset medium and get close to the FPS I'm getting now.

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