AI is two parts - 3D model and then lots of kinematics/autopilot/mission nav/rules calculations. The latter part - calculations - can very readily use as many CPU cores/threads as you have on your 9900K (or whatever) and take small pieces of milliseconds per traffic element .This current IPACS traffic demo shows the 3D model part which is actually trivial anymore since the Aerofly graphics engine handles hundreds of thousands of 3D polygons without blinking (as evidenced by the New York City Manhattan model and other densely cultivated (buildings etc ) models like the ORBX Netherlands).

10 hours ago, nickhod said:

How is X-Plane VR performance with your spec CPU and GPU? Can you dial back settings to get it acceptable yet still looking good?

I have a picky side,and don't consider it to be "looking good" until the settings are almost maxed. Turning off water reflections, which i could give a fig about, helps a lot, and sacrificing shadows does a lot as well. Other that that, I'm not willing to  turn down building density because I find sparse buildings to be an unrealistic eyesore over the dense cities I like flying near.

In the end, as my videos show, I mostly fly X-plane like an fps tweaking experiment. I also test orbx sceneries, so a working installation with all the best toys is a must.

In VR, like many, I'm waiting to see if vulkan helps things.

Unless the XPlane people figure out how to decouple rendering from the simulation I doubt Vulkan is going to do anything for it. The documentation clearly states that the developers are satisfied with 25fps and anything else is a waste of resources. Maybe when FS2020 comes out they'll have some competition again and be forced to make some meaningful updates to rendering and performance.

4 hours ago, akadajet said:

Unless the XPlane people figure out how to decouple rendering from the simulation I doubt Vulkan is going to do anything for it. The documentation clearly states that the developers are satisfied with 25fps and anything else is a waste of resources. Maybe when FS2020 comes out they'll have some competition again and be forced to make some meaningful updates to rendering and performance.

I agree with you, but the documentation is gonna be obsolete since they already stated that the aim for Vulkan is 60fps on single monitor.

Anyway as you said I hope MFS will give even more pressure to Ipacs and Laminar. Yeah I know Ipacs said they are not competing with etc etc... But...

17 hours ago, Murmur said:

I agree with you, but the documentation is gonna be obsolete since they already stated that the aim for Vulkan is 60fps on single monitor.

Anyway as you said I hope MFS will give even more pressure to Ipacs and Laminar. Yeah I know Ipacs said they are not competing with etc etc... But...

I honestly can't tell if IPacs is still actively developing Aerofly. It certainly performs well, but I don't know what their ambitions are to expand it.

1 hour ago, akadajet said:

I honestly can't tell if IPacs is still actively developing Aerofly. It certainly performs well, but I don't know what their ambitions are to expand it.

The best thing would be to ask about that on their official forums, if you are looking for an authoritative answer.