1 hour ago, blingthinger said:

Blah blah blah blah.

It's hilarious that you folks who need to make this distinction always fail to also acknowledge that the code base is identical. The only differences between the 'approved' and 'not approved' versions are the min FPS requirements and some visual display capabilities. 

Yep, they also seem to forget that one needs to be attached to a school. One cannot just purchase a license from Austin and have the correct hardware and one is good to go.

31 minutes ago, Mike_CFII_MEL said:

XP12 is a resource hog as it is.

Even if you hacked the gfx back on the master? Small window (low render res), etc. Isn't that just needed for avionics at this point? Does the FM run independently on each machine? Can dial that back too if so.

3 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

Even if you hacked the gfx back on the master? Small window (low render res), etc. Isn't that just needed for avionics at this point? Does the FM run independently on each machine? Can dial that back too if so.

I use to run a server computer that did just that with all graphics turned off. But I'm running 5 as it is, that would bring it up to 6. Far cry from 2020, I run two computers.

39 minutes ago, Mike_CFII_MEL said:

Only issue with that idea is I'd have to add additional demand on the system with an additional view. XP12 is a resource hog as it is.

I'm a little confused at this comment.  Let me explain why.  

I've seen people in the past, complain that X-Plane didn't use enough of the CPU and/or GPU.  That Laminar need to fix this.  I run X-Plane 12 on an M4 Max MacBook Pro, and I discovered, with a great deal of satisfaction, that XP12 uses so much of my MBP's resources, that it's the only time the fans spool up to cool it down.  Even when I bake texture maps, the fans are silent.  

So, I don't see it as an issue.  I see it as a huge plus.  

13 hours ago, GoranM said:

I'm a little confused at this comment.  Let me explain why.  

I've seen people in the past, complain that X-Plane didn't use enough of the CPU and/or GPU.  That Laminar need to fix this.  I run X-Plane 12 on an M4 Max MacBook Pro, and I discovered, with a great deal of satisfaction, that XP12 uses so much of my MBP's resources, that it's the only time the fans spool up to cool it down.  Even when I bake texture maps, the fans are silent.  

So, I don't see it as an issue.  I see it as a huge plus.  

It doesn't use enough of the resources that are available, would be nice if this was looked at as well. My memory with XP12 loaded at KEWR at night sits at 24% with my CPU sitting at 10% usage. Yet XP12 won't draw out to the horizon, so I have to run extended lighting. I also have scenery popping up in large chunks. Yet all this memory is still available for use.

This is why I consider XP12 a resource hog. Even with resources available it still flickers/stutters, and that's one monitor to one view. Yet on MS2020 I can run seven monitors off of one computer and she runs smoother than XP12.

4 minutes ago, Mike_CFII_MEL said:

It doesn't use enough of the resources that are available, would be nice if this was looked at as well. My memory with XP12 loaded at KEWR at night sits at 24% with my CPU sitting at 10% usage. Yet XP12 won't draw out to the horizon, so I have to run extended lighting. I also have scenery popping up in large chunks. Yet all this memory is still available for use.

This is why I consider XP12 a resource hog. Even with resources available it still flickers/stutters, and that's one monitor to one view. Yet on MS2020 I can run seven monitors off of one computer and she runs smoother than XP12.

Wouldn’t it be the opposite, then?  That it’s NOT a resource hog?  I’ll check what it uses again on my mac when I wake up, but if it uses 10% of the CPU, I wouldn’t call it a resource hog. 

Edited March 13, 20251 yr by GoranM

1 minute ago, GoranM said:

Wouldn’t it be the opposite, then?  That it’s NOT a resource hog?  I’ll check what it uses again on my mac when I wake up, but if it uses 10% of the CPU, I wouldn’t call it a resource hog. 

The programming isn't capable of utilizing what's available giving the appearance of being a hog, better way of putting it I guess.

That's 100% backwards from any use of 'hog'. Something like 'miser' would be closer.

You could nudge that up a bit by starting up 2 instances of the sim on one of the systems. Because the sim is so un-hog-like/miserly, that 7950x3d certainly has tons of headroom to run 2 XP instances: a low res master plus one of the externals for the 75" monitor it's connected to.

2 hours ago, blingthinger said:

That's 100% backwards from any use of 'hog'. Something like 'miser' would be closer.

You could nudge that up a bit by starting up 2 instances of the sim on one of the systems. Because the sim is so un-hog-like/miserly, that 7950x3d certainly has tons of headroom to run 2 XP instances: a low res master plus one of the externals for the 75" monitor it's connected to.

Xplane 12 introduces stutters when adding a second front screen. Funny thing, it doesn't happen when I add an additional experimental front screen for the front using 2020.

I find it funny, that on one hand users are complaining xplane isnt using enough, and on the other hand users complaining it uses too much. Isnt xplane supposed to use what it needs.

16 minutes ago, Mike_CFII_MEL said:

Xplane 12 introduces stutters when adding a second front screen

With a second running instance? Or still using just the 1? That cpu has 2 CCDs. Are you seeing CCD jump? Process lasso would deal with that. If you hack the gfx back for the master, gpu usage plummets. Applying a low FPS limiter would knock it back even more.

45 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

With a second running instance? Or still using just the 1? That cpu has 2 CCDs. Are you seeing CCD jump? Process lasso would deal with that. If you hack the gfx back for the master, gpu usage plummets. Applying a low FPS limiter would knock it back even more.

I have parts coming in within the next 10 days to rebuild the two I9-10900's to AMD 9950X's, I'll give it another go after the upgrades. 

Good grief. 

Don't forget:

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/275672-making-better-use-of-hardware-with-virtualisation-impressive-gains/&page=2#findComment-2870436

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/299432-fps-breakdowns-in-intervalls/&page=3#findComment-2884541

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/299432-fps-breakdowns-in-intervalls/&page=2#findComment-2656701

I disagree with Sid/Janov on that last one. It should be 16/2 - 2 in his example. Not -1. XP will often use 1.5-2 cores under normal circumstances. Leaving only 1 core open for the main XP process es isn't quite enough for full comfort.

Seems like an edge-case visual glitch to me, which is probably why the can keeps getting kicked down the road.

If this "isn't a hobby" for you, how is this a critical feature in your non-hobbyness...?

It seems to me like LR are delivering a steady stream of improvements.

There's no doubt multiple development streams happening, with each having its own prioritized list of activities.

If this was a hot issue for customers (particularly Comm/Gov accounts), I'm pretty sure it would be (would have) getting attention by now.

But since, at the end of the day, LR is a business and has bills to pay, I'm sure that's what fundamentally drives their schedule.

Seems reasonable to me.👍

On 3/12/2025 at 7:29 AM, Mike_CFII_MEL said:

Only thing missing from my setup is an attached FAA school and a commercial license from Laminar.

That automatically makes it a hobby.