3 hours ago, 1st fltsimguy said:

INTEL® CORE™ I7-6700K Processor 8M Cache 4GHZ Base 4.2GHZ Turbo FC-LGA1151 Retail Box Skylake
Corsair Cooling Hydro Series H100I V2 CPU Cooler System LGA1151
ASUS Z170-A ATX LGA1151 Z170 Skylake DDR4 3PCI-E16 3PCI-E1 1PCI CrossFireX/SLI USB3.1 Motherboard
G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series F4-2133C15D-16GVR DDR4 2133MHZ 32GB(8GBX4)
Corsair 850WATT 12V Power Supply Unit
ASUS GeForce Turbo-GTX1080TI 11GB GDDR5X Graphics Card 11Gig

For this in Intel you need at least 4.8 GHz,, AMD 5000 latest im sure youd get the same at 4.5 its singe thread performance that counts. I went fro ma  4790K 4.6 GHz i had like for 10 years to a 10700K to even begin to justify the upgrade, but I had teh money. also went form GTX 1070 to RTX 2070, made some diff but i just wanted to go to something newer, wasnt expecting much, but now I can run AA i notch from max with no issues in vulcan

I don't think it makes sense to compare XP11 to MFS. It's like comparing FS2000 to FS2004. XP11 is at the end of its life cycle.

Edited January 25, 20215 yr by Murmur

1 hour ago, GoranM said:

Not the most powerful CPU.  Definitely wouldn't want to crank up the details with that system.  Could use more RAM. 

It's definitely not the most powerful CPU, but it's also above the recommended CPU: https://www.x-plane.com/kb/x-plane-11-system-requirements/

Also, if 32 GB is not enough, I don't know what is.

I get more FPS (around 30s) when everything's cranked to the absolute maximum with worse hardware (i7-6700, GTX 1070 and 16 GB of RAM), so I think it's an add-on related issue rather than the game itself.

Edited January 25, 20215 yr by BiologicalNanobot

3 hours ago, GoranM said:

Not the most powerful CPU.  Definitely wouldn't want to crank up the details with that system.  Could use more RAM. 

So you got your requested source and that's the response.  Info: he is running the same system and now getting lower FPS with Vulkan.

1st fltsimguy, are you getting lower FPS in Vulkan than in OpenGL in XP?

Edited January 25, 20215 yr by Murmur

33 minutes ago, Greazer said:

So you got your requested source and that's the response.  Info: he is running the same system and now getting lower FPS with Vulkan.

So I, along with many others (I won't say ALL others) have some kind of miracle PC, that SOMEHOW manages almost double the fps under Vulkan, while you get the opposite effect.

Speechless.  

 

42 minutes ago, Greazer said:

So you got your requested source and that's the response.  Info: he is running the same system and now getting lower FPS with Vulkan.

Guys, calm down, its really simple.

Click plugins->plugin admin

The window that pops up will give you exactly what plugin is killing your performance (the cost column in:)

 

7 hours ago, GoranM said:

Not the most powerful CPU.  Definitely wouldn't want to crank up the details with that system.  Could use more RAM. 

Three years old.  32 Gig of RAM is plenty, sorry I don't understand why I would need more, perhaps I'm missing something, can you provide me with what you are suggesting. In a few years, likely 3, I would look to replace this system.

And not everyone of course can run out and spend $3,000 to have the latest and greatest as you know.  I have mine overclocked and I have a very good smooth flying experience which does the trick for me at this time.

3 hours ago, Murmur said:

1st fltsimguy, are you getting lower FPS in Vulkan than in OpenGL in XP?

Actually, while I didn't benchmark my frames, I am finding that I'm getting slightly higher frames and super smooth flying.  I don't know what more to ask out of my system.

4 hours ago, Greazer said:

So you got your requested source and that's the response.  Info: he is running the same system and now getting lower FPS with Vulkan.

 

3 minutes ago, 1st fltsimguy said:

Actually, while I didn't benchmark my frames, I am finding that I'm getting slightly higher frames and super smooth flying.  I don't know what more to ask out of my system.

So - how does this jibe??

1 minute ago, Janov said:

 

So - how does this jibe??

It doesn't.  I'm a happy camper!  I'm not sure where that came from.

Regardless, I don't have issues with Vulcan but as I stated earlier, LR needs to up it's game regarding out the window flying experience.

I'm a bit of a special animal with an all-AMD system on Linux, but threaded OpenGL obliterates Vulkan in terms of performance (+15%). Unthreaded OpenGL is like 15% slower than Vulkan.

20 hours ago, mSparks said:

They are both xplane 11 shots.. I wasnt comparing, I was just saying there is nothing crying out to be done in either. (and that it looks fine at VR framerates)

Meanwhile, in the real world.

TBH, the scenery there makes XP10 look good, wth are those lights on the taxiway?. In fact, no need to answer that, because they speak for themselves.

_______

Challenge accepted,

freeware btw

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/41479-new-york-city-vfr/

http://www.dmax3d.com/dmax3d/eurofighter.html

If this is your answer then I'm afraid your challenge continues to fail because you didnt seem to read my response.

"nothing crying out to be done?"  really?  

Your examples don't compare to MSFS.  They still look like something for 5 years ago.  Any modern rig will run something that simplistic at 60+ fps.   When I was using X-plane I wasnt satisfied with uninspired autogen and lack of any shadows or reflections.  I know thats not important to many people - totally get it and don't have any issue with that.  But there are those of us for which it is - even those who want to see BOTH a decent flight model and good imagery.

You dont have to settle for 5 year old imagery any more when you can have this:

Not sure what point you're trying to make? 

If I can see the world in this level of stunning detail .. it buys a heck of a lot of patience while they continue to improve avionics etc.  Throw in whats already being done by FBW and WT ... and I dont boot up xplane very much anymore.

4 hours ago, 1st fltsimguy said:

 LR needs to up it's game regarding out the window flying experience.

One thing, I think, the majority of the folks out there need to remember, is that all this hype surrounding MSFS scenery, as good as it looks (from the air), is nothing more than STREAMED photogrammetry...which, I might add, is made from 5 year old Bing maps.  2 petabytes in total, if you want to stream the whole planet.  Asking to have this as part of the installation, from a company with no deals in place with Google or Microsoft, simply won't happen.  

I can see this delving into another MSFS vs X-Plane discussion, but as long as people remember that they have an OPINION on where X-Plane is headed and what it needs, and that opinion is to their own personal taste.  Some people don't really care for that streamed scenery look, and are perfectly ok with having ortho scenery installed.

6 minutes ago, VFXSimmer said:

Not sure what point you're trying to make? 

If I can see the world in this level of stunning detail .. it buys a heck of a lot of patience while they continue to improve avionics etc.  Throw in whats already being done by FBW and WT ... and I dont boot up xplane very much anymore.

X Plane will never have graphics like that out of the box, not in 5 years, not in 10 years. Never.  LR developers can only dream it.