https://www.x-plane.com/kb/x-plane-12-system-requirements/

 

Minimum Hardware Requirements:

• CPU: Intel Core i3, i5, i7, or i9 CPU with 4 or more cores, or AMD Ryzen 3, 5, 7 or 9.
• Memory: 8 GB RAM
• Video Card: a DirectX 11-capable video card from NVIDIA, AMD or Intel with at least 2 GB VRAM

If your system is borderline, we encourage you to try the demo first. The full version of the simulator will perform exactly the same as the demo—neither better nor worse. (Note: The X-Plane 12 Demo will be available when the simulator is ready for purchase.)

---

Recommended Hardware Requirements:

• CPU: Intel Core i5 8600k or Ryzen 5 3500 or better 
• Memory: 16-24 GB RAM or more
• Video Card: a DirectX 12-capable video card from NVIDIA or AMD with at least 4 GB VRAM (GeForce GTX 1070 or better or similar from AMD).

---

Supported Video Cards:

• NVIDIA: NVIDIA GeForce 900 or newer, driver version 470.82 or newer.
• AMD: AMD Radeon RX 500 or newer, driver version Adrenaline 21.11.2 or newer.

---

Supported Operating Systems:

• OS X: OS X 10.15 or newer (e.g. Catalina, Big Sur, or Monterey).
• Windows: Windows 10 or 11, 64-bit.
• Linux: Varies
  • While X-Plane 12 will run on Linux, we don’t provide support for specific distributions; if you want to run on Linux, you will need to try X-Plane on your distribution to see if it is compatible. With that in mind, we have developers using Ubuntu 18.04 and 20.04 LTS successfully.
  • We require the proprietary driver from NVIDIA to run X-Plane. We require the Mesa drivers for AMD to run X-Plane.

Not a huge leap over Xplane 11 requirements. That’s encouraging for those of us not able to upgrade too soon.  

Seems like with the  "system requirements" pre-release, XP12 might be going into beta soon. Now for the question: Public or Close beta?

Edited January 10, 20224 yr by CarlosF

1 hour ago, CarlosF said:

Seems like with the  "system requirements" pre-release, XP12 might be going into beta soon. Now for the question: Public or Close beta?

I would think close beta first. 

I thought a close beta was already happening? Isn’t that what 3rd party devs are testing now?

3 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Don't know why they keep referencing DirectX when it's Vulkan ... when I asked years ago the response was "users understand DirectX reference as equivalent" ... didn't make much sense to me then as it does now ... I would bet most end users don't really care what graphics API is driving it so long as it looks good and performs well.  DirectX is not OSX native nor iOS ... Vulkan works in both environments.

Anyway, looking forward to it's release.

Cheers, Rob.

I think when buying a GPU we all refer to the DX version rather than the vulkan version.   

Don't know but that's what I feel. 

Other than OS, seems OK for me...

I don't know... why I still didn't move to my already-installed win10 on the same computer....

Well I've got to say this is a relief. I was fearing a super computer would be necessary. Well done LR!

Be interesting to see if XP12 will be optimised for Apple Silicon. I will be traveling a lot over this year and am getting one of the new M1 Pro Macs to take with me. XP11, unoptimised ran surprisingly well on the original M1 chip through Rosetta 2. Given the more powerful CPU/GPU combinations and being optimised for Apple Silicon, XP12 could be very decent on a Macbook Pro 

 

13 minutes ago, yidahoo said:

Be interesting to see if XP12 will be optimised for Apple Silicon. I will be traveling a lot over this year and am getting one of the new M1 Pro Macs to take with me. XP11, unoptimised ran surprisingly well on the original M1 chip through Rosetta 2. Given the more powerful CPU/GPU combinations and being optimised for Apple Silicon, XP12 could be very decent on a Macbook Pro 

 

Rest easy. I have an M1 Max MacBook Pro, and X-Plane runs flawlessly. I can also run planemaker and X-Plane together, with very little drop in performance. 

Does anyone have any idea if xpuipc will function with XP12?

Regards,

Quote

My kinda thread...

Let me just say one thing real quick, the kb article says Intel iGPUs are supported and the min requirement, but they actually will not run v12. I don't have the rights to edit the kb article, otherwise I'd already have changed that sentence. It's not because they are lame (although that's definitely not helping them), but because they lack features that we need to run.

 

Let's talk about CPUs first. There seems to be the myth that clock speed = king cuz single core perf, but that's not really true. Clock speed hardly says anything these days anymore due to the way that CPUs are designed. Imma spare you all the details, but there can be significant perf differences between equally clocked CPUs. So don't go out buying CPUs based on clock speed alone. More cores is probably better, even though the super awesome multi-core rendering tech isn't going to be in 12.0 yet. But it's on the horizon, so if you buy hardware today, buy yourself something that you can be happy with tomorrow as well. The big engine re-architecture is planned as one of the big features to come in one of the first major v12 updates, we got a pretty good idea of what we want to do here and a lot of the tech already exists. That being said, 12.0 itself doesn't make any big major leaps here in terms of CPU core usage, so you are still quite well off with a CPU that can do well in single core benchmarks.

GPU wise, before y'all panic, yes, more things are now done on the GPU, but this is a good thing. X-Plane 11 was terrible at fully utilizing the GPU, leaving a lot of idle time on the table when it could do work. For example in v11 we did water FFT calculation on the CPU, and you can see it easily take 8ms of multi-core CPU time. This is great if all you wanna do is see task manager go a little vroom, but for v12 we are actually doing more FFT calculations on the GPU and it does it in... 700 microseconds. So about an order of magnitude faster. It also does this calculation at the top of the frame, when we don't render anything yet because the flight model is still trying to get its act together. So in this case we moved something from the CPU that was super inefficient to the GPU where it can be calculated much more efficiently than before while absorbing time when the GPU was traditionally idle anyways. GPUs are really good at crunching lots of numbers, so that's where we moved a lot of the graphics number crunching. Plus the advantage is that there is no transfer necessary at rendering time to tell the GPU about the numbers that the CPU crunched.

 

FIY that quote above was from a thread in the org forums, written by Sidney Just from Laminar. 
 

Edited January 12, 20224 yr by peroni

@strider1 I am not surprise by this. Multi-threading is hard to do but at the same time, I am a bit disappointed as this is one of the major issue with XP11 in my book. I wonder how much cpu cycle are they going to free up and move to the GPU and how gain FPS gains this is going to translate too.

15 hours ago, strider1 said:

The big engine re-architecture is planned as one of the big features to come in one of the first major v12 updates, we got a pretty good idea of what we want to do here and a lot of the tech already exists. That being said, 12.0 itself doesn't make any big major leaps here in terms of CPU core usage, so you are still quite well off with a CPU that can do well in single core benchmarks.

@fogboundturtle This is the part that has me excited... and I read it as "multicore optimization will not be in 12.0 but come early within the 12.xx run".