17 hours ago, Old_As_Dirt said:

I was hoping that my biggest disappointment with V-12 would be fixed with the recent update.  My favorite of the default aircraft - The Baron - would have its tendency to be slammed to the runway upon landing fixed.  No matter how gently, I bring her in, she seems to have a big magnet suddenly turned on which slams her down - killing at least one of the engines.  Still have to fly V-11 to feel like I can still fly it.

I fly the default Baron with the Reality Expansion Pack (which slightly modifies the flight characteristics) and get no behavior that I would classify as abnormal upon landing (with having zero hours in a real Baron 58).

https://store.x-plane.org/Reality-Expansion-Pack-for-default-B58-Baron_p_790.html

Really sad to see a commercial member of all people white knighting to this degree.

1 hour ago, Krakin said:

Really sad to see a commercial member of all people white knighting to this degree.

Someone made an incorrect statement.  And it isn't the first time he's done this.

I corrected him.

White knighting??

🤷‍♂️

Edited July 29, 20232 yr by GoranM

2 hours ago, Krakin said:

Really sad to see a commercial member of all people white knighting to this degree.

The 'alligator tears' are strong in this one.

 

7 hours ago, Greazer said:

X Plane is not supporting proper multi core at the moment, as mentioned by lead Dev.

What do you mean by 'proper'? Or in other words, what constitutes 'improper' multicore? Or was that just hot-air-inflated figure of speech with no real technical meaning?

XP spawns 50+ threads. "Rendering" consists of more than filling the commandbuffer. That latter bit has indeed been single threaded. But the additional tasks and calculations needed to feed the buffers going into the final commandbuffer are spread out already. Could it be more so? Sure. And now with rendergraph in place, FPSes will flow like the "salmon of Capistrano" in the not too distant future.

Also, 5-10x? More like 2-3x. Sometimes. And with fake DLSS frames turned on. What's more, because XP isn't weighed down with wannabe CFD, there's even more headroom to grow on the CPU.

DCS was a huge gain because it doesn't really draw that much in the first place. In terms of polygons drawn, the GPU has been loafing for most people. There was plenty of room to grow there.

What I'm also really wondering about in this discussion. It's a question, not a statement!

Is Laminar even capable of exploiting the full potential of Windows? I always read they develop on macOS. So does Laminar even have the skills to optimize that in the best possible way? Can a code that runs on Linux, Windows and MacOS be optimized in the best possible way for the respective OS?

The problem is, among other things, that X-Plane doesn't even begin to use my 8 cores evenly, but MSFS, for example, hammers all 8 cores to the limit, so of course only as far as I allow it. (VSync, Limiter etc.)

Don´t get it wrong, i´m a hardcore X-Planer. I like the visuals in MSFS but that was it.

 

 

39 minutes ago, Skylon5000 said:

What I'm also really wondering about in this discussion. It's a question, not a statement!

Is Laminar even capable of exploiting the full potential of Windows? I always read they develop on macOS. So does Laminar even have the skills to optimize that in the best possible way? Can a code that runs on Linux, Windows and MacOS be optimized in the best possible way for the respective OS?

The problem is, among other things, that X-Plane doesn't even begin to use my 8 cores evenly, but MSFS, for example, hammers all 8 cores to the limit, so of course only as far as I allow it. (VSync, Limiter etc.)

Don´t get it wrong, i´m a hardcore X-Planer. I like the visuals in MSFS but that was it.

 

 

One of there nexr beta releases is supposed to help with us cpu limited people. As for cores being hammered a lot of that is purely texture loading. Xplane does that too, its just getting a lot more efficient. You should read there blog. They are laying the ground waork.

Well it seems that Laminar are pretty much writing there own gaming engine that suits flight simming. So I guess even with there limited staff, they are quiet capable.

Edited July 29, 20232 yr by mjrhealth

10 minutes ago, mjrhealth said:

there own gaming engine that suits flight swimming

that sounds like fun:

Edited July 29, 20232 yr by turbomax

@turbomax Yes that spell checker gets you every time.

It's becoming extremely tedious dealing with the constant hijacking of XPlane threads with Windows-bashing and Linux proselytizing.  Knock it off.

 

The usage of the number of cpu cores has nothing to do with the OS, just saying.

2 minutes ago, soaring_penguin said:

The usage of the number of cpu cores has nothing to do with the OS, just saying.

And arbitrary core usage, that looks like it's using a lot of cores, means exactly nothing either, especially when it doesn't result in a significant performance increase. As Bob said, all this Linux evangelizing is absolutely exhausting to read, week after week.

3 hours ago, soaring_penguin said:

The usage of the number of cpu cores has nothing to do with the OS, just saying.

wrong, just saying:

"Windows 11 thread scheduler (sometimes called a thread director) – essentially a simple background program that dictates which cores in a CPU should handle each task given to the system"

"Windows 10 thread scheduler is aware of the hybrid multi-core topology ... and that it is able to classify workloads at a very advanced level so the right kind of core is in use at any given time"

https://www.techpowerup.com/270010/windows-10-scheduler-aware-of-lakefield-hybrid-topologies-benchmarked

https://www.techradar.com/news/look-out-amd-microsoft-is-tanking-your-cpu-performance-again-with-windows-11

3 hours ago, Sethos said:

using a lot of cores, means exactly nothing either, especially when it doesn't result in a significant performance increase.

but it does, why would developers otherwise work so hard to improve performance by offloading as much as possible to as many cores as possible. 😊

1 minute ago, turbomax said:

but it does, why would developers otherwise work so hard to improve performance by offloading as much as possible to as many cores as possible. 😊

Maybe try and read the full sentence and understand context, in a thread where a certain Linux evangelist likes to show off a lot of cores being used, like that's just a universal good. You can have any piece of software 'use' a lot of cores / threads without actually benefitting from that usage. The difference lies in actually using the cores, the software being properly multi-threaded and taking advantage from the additional threads to gain a performance boost. I wasn't speaking out against developers trying to multi-thread.