1 hour ago, tonywob said:

One of the biggest hidden killers of framerate is inland water and masks.

Thanks for posting your settings. could you confirm 'use_masks_for_inland' should be set to true?  I thought this was an fps hog?

I have inland water and masks enabled, don't see any fps hit.

20 minutes ago, Humpty said:

I have inland water and masks enabled, don't see any fps hit.

That's because you shove away the water with ya ROUGHTORS(*).

(*) FAA / EASA designation for any rotor that equips an aircraft flown by Zulfi the Heli Stress test flyer...

Edited March 27, 20233 yr by jcomm

32 minutes ago, jcomm said:

That's because you shove away the water with ya ROUGHTORS(*).

 

That's exactly what I do when Mumbai is flooded during Monsoon. 😁

2 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Thanks for posting your settings. could you confirm 'use_masks_for_inland' should be set to true?  I thought this was an fps hog?

It is, but I like them as it makes some of the larger inland lakes look good. This is why I reduced the water settings a lot to reduce the amount needed, so only larger lakes etc are shown

 

1 hour ago, Humpty said:

I have inland water and masks enabled, don't see any fps hit.

Hugely depends on the area in OpenstreetMap where it gets its data from. Something like the netherlands can kill it :)

34 minutes ago, tonywob said:

 

Hugely depends on the area in OpenstreetMap where it gets its data from. Something like the netherlands can kill it 🙂

possible, more inland water bodies in NL.

 

Navigraph is an absolute must if you're seriously into flight simming. 

As far as plugins go, better pushback is something I also can't do without. The rest depends on your needs, I don't want to fly alone so I have world traffic. 

As for bizjets, I recommend the Aerobask Phenom 300.

Willing to buy X-Plane 12 and this thread is very helpful. 

My question is - does X-Plane 12 need any "environment" enhancements? I mean external cloud, sky textures, etc.? I know that LR made huge improvement over XP11 but how it looks in practice? Sorry for comparison, but MSFS looks great by default (I mean atmospheric area), is it a case in XP12?

Best

Arek

@ark4diusz My opinion is that it's not even a close comparison in that atmospheric area and all that goes along with it.  Lighting, clouds, sky textures (colors?), etc.  It's a different ballgame.  XP12 also has spruced up the earth a bit but it's still XP.  Although they are getting closer to the "plausible earth" target.  Hope this helps...

9 hours ago, ark4diusz said:

My question is - does X-Plane 12 need any "environment" enhancements? I mean external cloud, sky textures, etc.? I know that LR made huge improvement over XP11 but how it looks in practice? Sorry for comparison, but MSFS looks great by default (I mean atmospheric area), is it a case in XP12?

Download the demo, see for yourself.

I don't use any third party environment enhancements. Default is just fine.

11 hours ago, ark4diusz said:

Willing to buy X-Plane 12 and this thread is very helpful. 

My question is - does X-Plane 12 need any "environment" enhancements? I mean external cloud, sky textures, etc.? I know that LR made huge improvement over XP11 but how it looks in practice? Sorry for comparison, but MSFS looks great by default (I mean atmospheric area), is it a case in XP12?

Best

Arek

I consider XP to look closer to reality. For me MSFS's lighting is overexposed and the clouds look too dramatic. XP has more natural colours and the environment looks more realistic, but there are still issues with clouds and I don't find them that convincing yet. 

Active Sky XP fixes some of the issues, but there's no full-blown cloud replacement yet.