12 hours ago, pryoski said:

The sim is in early alpha.

Lol no it isn't.

Seems like you have an agenda.

47 minutes ago, UKflyer said:

other games no problem, XP12 well let's not go there 😄

Well, if you only get 20fps, and I get, 

On a lesser system.

I think its 100% safe for everyone to conclude Laminar/XP12 isn't the common denominator here....

13 minutes ago, mSparks said:

Well, if you only get 20fps, and I get, 

On a lesser system.

I think its 100% safe for everyone to conclude Laminar/XP12 isn't the common denominator here....

ha everyone can twist what they wish to show, even i get 80 fps when looking at the sky 😄

this is looking south with medium rendering distance, it's also worse when at 30,000ft (as i mentioned before, when flying over holland)

 

6 minutes ago, UKflyer said:

ha everyone can twist what they wish to show, even i get 80 fps when looking at the sky 😄

this is looking south with medium rendering distance, it's also worse when at 30,000ft (as i mentioned before, when flying over holland)

 

not to mention: no addon scenery, simple airport, no AI, no parked aircraft, sparse objects (can't even see them in the distance) .. J,O,K,E

Edited October 2, 20223 yr by UKflyer

1 minute ago, UKflyer said:

ha everyone can twist what they wish to show, even i get 80 fps when looking at the sky 😄

this is looking south with medium rendering distance, it's also worse when at 30,000ft (as i mentioned before, when flying over holland)

 

And you think this screenshot is evidence of what being broken in XP12?

passing over EHAM at 30,000 feet, current weather, 100% vanilla (which is silly)

About the only common denominator I seem to run in to with these discussions is everyone griping about performance is using windows, which is just funny, like someone buying a superbike then putting training wheels on it in order to learn to ride.

 

10 minutes ago, mSparks said:

And you think this screenshot is evidence of what being broken in XP12?

passing over EHAM at 30,000 feet, current weather, 100% vanilla (which is silly)

About the only common denominator I seem to run in to with these discussions is everyone griping about performance is using windows, which is just funny, like someone buying a superbike then putting training wheels on it in order to learn to ride.

 

oh here's mine if you want to compare that view

think we can safely say that fps isn't always the same at all viewing angles, what a surprise

Edited October 2, 20223 yr by UKflyer

3 minutes ago, UKflyer said:

think we can safely say that fps

is maybe, as it says TWICE in the release notes

https://www.x-plane.com/kb/x-plane-12-00-release-notes/

Quote

Known Bugs

• In progress features:
  • Performance
  • Performance tuning

NOT the current point of the early access program?

5 minutes ago, UKflyer said:

what a surprise

that

25 minutes ago, UKflyer said:

it's also worse when at 30,000ft

turned out to be typical BS?

6 minutes ago, mSparks said:

is maybe, as it says TWICE in the release notes

https://www.x-plane.com/kb/x-plane-12-00-release-notes/

NOT the current point of the early access program?

that

turned out to be typical BS?

like to prove everyone wrong don't you smart guy, never mind what othe people are experiencing or reporting

everyone knows XP performance is shockingly bad when you pile on a few objects or a complex addon, and seems as though nothing has changed with the latest version

Edited October 2, 20223 yr by UKflyer

3 minutes ago, UKflyer said:

prove everyone wrong don't you smart guy

When they are, yes, its a public service. Much better than just saying random BS things with no proof imho, which is unfortunately the norm.

4 minutes ago, UKflyer said:

never mind what othe people are experiencing or reporting

Well, lets come back to what started this branch of conversation

You start by saying the best you get is

7 hours ago, UKflyer said:

Just an observation that at the moment the graphics engine is unable to cope with a complex plane (Zibo) with some fairly simple scenery objects. Don't shoot people down because they have an opinion.

It's not early alpha but beta version 5. Alpha version testing is performed by developers not it's customers.

then you, as proof, post a screenshot of 90fps over one of the most complex scenery areas of the world.

Welcome to the mSparks experience. Its not quite as funny as The Mary Whitehouse Experience, but I like to think sometimes I get close.

Hi,

Beta 5 broke networking my visual computers to the server, back to beta 4.

Edited October 2, 20223 yr by Mike_CFII_MEL

2 hours ago, mSparks said:

When they are, yes, its a public service. Much better than just saying random BS things with no proof imho, which is unfortunately the norm.

Well, lets come back to what started this branch of conversation

You start by saying the best you get is

then you, as proof, post a screenshot of 90fps over one of the most complex scenery areas of the world.

Welcome to the mSparks experience. Its not quite as funny as The Mary Whitehouse Experience, but I like to think sometimes I get close.

ah you know what, i think i may have had global forests installed which might explain a few things 😄

i just did a CPH-STN without it and all seemed fine

anyhow, i think the rendering of distant objects could be improved... ie. flying at 30,000 who needs to see this stuff

also, it seems strange sometimes that the shader loading (when the fps drops and recovers at the start) does have a bug where it gets stuck at 30 fps or so and the fps never recovers

Edited October 2, 20223 yr by UKflyer

Those EHAM pics look dreadful. This should yield 300 fps at least. No idea why getting 90 fps at this level of fidelity would be something to brag about.

2 minutes ago, rka said:

Those EHAM pics look dreadful. This should yield 300 fps at least. No idea why getting 90 fps at this level of fidelity would be something to brag about.

lol, you have a good point

Edited October 2, 20223 yr by UKflyer

1 hour ago, rka said:

Those EHAM pics look dreadful. This should yield 300 fps at least. No idea why getting 90 fps at this level of fidelity would be something to brag about.

indeed, much better using actual scenery, better fps to

e.g. 15,000 feet over EGLL

Think I can even see one of my houses in that shot

5 hours ago, Mike_CFII_MEL said:

Hi,

Beta 5 broke networking my visual computers to the server, back to beta 4.

Hi Mike,

Please, how did you revert back to Beta 4? I have to do that too.

Thanks

Edited October 2, 20223 yr by Hamilton_