Xp 12 Update

[jarmstro 2,402]

2 hours ago, mSparks said:

xplane 11 does all those great, the others dont look remotely similar to either.

But at what cost in performance? That's my worry. And that will be XP12's Achilles heel compared to MSFS I fear. All these new effects will be at a cost few can afford and only a minority will ever see because their PC won't be up to it.

Edited October 30, 2021 by jarmstro

[RXP 2,338]

23 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

But at what cost in performance? That's my worry. And that will be XP12's Achilles heel compared to MSFS I fear.

This is a legitimate concern but I believe XP12 implementation takes advantage of modern hardware.

Here are a few comments you might want to read,  the latter should tell they are really well aware and concerned with performance... 🙂 

 

1) https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/253924-i-wish-x-plane-would-stick-to-its-root/&tab=comments#comment-2260540

Those extra GPU cycles weren't gonna go towards the flight model anyways, and X-Plane 11 makes dreadful use of GPU cycles. It's very hard to really max out a GPU with v11 unless you also enable the clouds. There's a lot of spare GPU cycles in the frame for most people where it's very easy to tuck in extra stuff like the tree calculations. Which by the by take in the microsecond range to calculate and the wind animation is essentially free (it's a technique designed for 2007 era hardware)

 

2) https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/253925-clouds/&do=findComment&comment=2261198

Keep in mind that nobody in the company can buy new GPUs either. 

 

 

 

[jarmstro 2,402]

1 hour ago, RXP said:

This is a legitimate concern but I believe XP12 implementation takes advantage of modern hardware.

Here are a few comments you might want to read,  the latter should tell they are really well aware and concerned with performance... 🙂 

 

1) https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/253924-i-wish-x-plane-would-stick-to-its-root/&tab=comments#comment-2260540

Those extra GPU cycles weren't gonna go towards the flight model anyways, and X-Plane 11 makes dreadful use of GPU cycles. It's very hard to really max out a GPU with v11 unless you also enable the clouds. There's a lot of spare GPU cycles in the frame for most people where it's very easy to tuck in extra stuff like the tree calculations. Which by the by take in the microsecond range to calculate and the wind animation is essentially free (it's a technique designed for 2007 era hardware)

 

2) https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/253925-clouds/&do=findComment&comment=2261198

Keep in mind that nobody in the company can buy new GPUs either. 

 

 

 

I really hope you are right. All I know as a non tech punter is that I got a good fps increase with Vulkan but reflections, shadows and ai planes etc still walloped my fps to an unacceptable degree. I am sceptical that XP12, still using Vulkan and much the same code won't clobber my fps to an even greater degree given the increase in visual quality. Time will tell I guess. MSFS is now the base standard that other sims now have to exceed in terms of visuals and performance,

Edited October 30, 2021 by jarmstro

[mSparks 2,086]

10 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

ai planes

AI planes always will, even simple AI planes hover up CPU resources, and Xplane AI planes are each full aircraft simulations.

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

But at what cost in performance?

Well, this is why I keep having the odd "windows and aircraft specific issues" rant.

Because those aside, XPlane has plenty of resources available to make use of, even in high density scenery areas, especially GPU compute:

 

[jarmstro 2,402]

30 minutes ago, mSparks said:

AI planes always will, even simple AI planes hover up CPU resources, and Xplane AI planes are each full aircraft simulations.

Well, this is why I keep having the odd "windows and aircraft specific issues" rant.

Because those aside, XPlane has plenty of resources available to make use of, even in high density scenery areas, especially GPU compute:

 

Doesn't answer the question. Will all the new effects in XP12 come with an  fps hit or not? That's really all that matters. Or will, like now, will everyone without a super computer not be able to take advantage to them because they have to have all their settings on low to get a useable fps?

Edited October 30, 2021 by jarmstro

[mSparks 2,086]

3 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

Will all the new effects in XP12 come with an  fps hit or not?

You will for sure be able to increase GPU time pretty substantially compared to now.

CPU time probably wont see much change compared with now.

 

[jarmstro 2,402]

1 minute ago, mSparks said:

You will for sure be able to increase GPU time pretty substantially compared to now.

CPU time probably wont see much change compared with now.

 

Sorry, I don't understand what that means? Will some one who now runs XP11 with acceptable performance be able to run XP12 with the same performance and with the enhanced visuals?

[rka 916]

32 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

Doesn't answer the question. Will all the new effects in XP12 come with an  fps hit or not? That's really all that matters. Or will, like now, will everyone without a super computer not be able to take advantage to them because they have to have all their settings on low to get a useable fps?

Of course effects come at a price.

The questions are:

How much of the available computing power will the improved engine make use of which the old one didn't? (See Vulkan for example, was able to make better use of hardware, hence more fps.)

How much additional compute power does not using the old effects anymore free?

This is simply put the amount of compute power they can use for the new effects. If that's enough, you will have as much FPS as now. If it's too little, you will have less fps. If there's even more room, you will have more fps than before.

 

[RXP 2,338]

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

I am sceptical that XP12, still using Vulkan and much the same code won't clobber my fps to an even greater degree given the increase in visual quality.

34 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

Sorry, I don't understand what that means? Will some one who now runs XP11 with acceptable performance be able to run XP12 with the same performance and with the enhanced visuals?

Anyone answering those questions with certainty would rather bet on the lottery IMHO 🙂

However, you're assuming "and much the same code" and this most likely is limiting your vision to what there is, instead of what's possible.

To keep it simple, let's just say that your hardware comprises asymmetrical computing capabilities, CPU and GPU, each better at doing some stuff. Today's XP11 is oversubscribing the CPU when pushed fully to the max, and it is under subscribing the GPU even if pushed fully to the max. All the information about XP12 so far are revealing they are not only well aware of the limits in their code (this changes from others still pretending night lighting is fine for example...) but they are also documenting their approach to migrating to the GPU a lot of things they used to do on CPU, where it was not the best place. And even in doing so, they hint that there is still plenty of room available on the GPU to do all the new rendering lighting, shadows, etc... This should be convincing enough they know their craft.

 

45 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

Or will, like now, will everyone without a super computer not be able to take advantage to them because they have to have all their settings on low to get a useable fps?

Maybe the best option right now would be you ask this question directly to the developers, because only them know?

Edited October 30, 2021 by RXP

[jarmstro 2,402]

2 minutes ago, RXP said:

Maybe the best option right now would be you ask this question directly to the developers, because only them know?

Amen. But I doubt they will answer.😀

[mSparks 2,086]

2 hours ago, jarmstro said:

Sorry, I don't understand what that means?

Thats because you are trying to use fps to measure performance.

Which is a lot like trying to measure how fast your car can go based on its rpm guage.

like sure, if you are in a diesel that maxes at 2000rpm its gonna have lower performance than an R1 topping out at 17000rpm, but trying to get more conclusions than that from it is meaningless, and an R1 wont win a trailer pulling competition.

 

[tonywob 4,769]

7 hours ago, jarmstro said:

Sorry, I don't understand what that means? Will some one who now runs XP11 with acceptable performance be able to run XP12 with the same performance and with the enhanced visuals?

No, of course not.. It'll be more demanding

[mjrhealth 820]

1 hour ago, tonywob said:

No, of course not.. It'll be more demanding

More like, no because people are more demanding. But that is pure speculation again.

[jarmstro 2,402]

7 hours ago, mSparks said:

Thats because you are trying to use fps to measure performance.

Which is a lot like trying to measure how fast your car can go based on its rpm guage.

like sure, if you are in a diesel that maxes at 2000rpm its gonna have lower performance than an R1 topping out at 17000rpm, but trying to get more conclusions than that from it is meaningless, and an R1 wont win a trailer pulling competition.

 

Not a good analogy really. Most people regard fps as their benchmark. The point is that there comes a point where eye candy lowers one's fps below an acceptable rate and the sim becomes unplayable., And at which point you have to switch it off or dumb it down.

[mSparks 2,086]

2 hours ago, jarmstro said:

Most people regard fps as their benchmark.

They do, but only because the games industry paid for reporters to use fps as the benchmark, that backfired badly on Nvidia when RTX came out.

There is really only one thing you need to care about, all times should be less than 16.6 milliseconds. CPU time, GPU time, control sample rate etc

2 hours ago, jarmstro said:

And at which point you have to switch it off or dumb it down.

Lets put it this way, some of those new XP12 screenshots had the FPS counter on.....

 

Edited October 31, 2021 by mSparks