25 minutes ago, CarlosF said:

nowadays no sim should be designed and limited to only one cpu core, that was fine in the FSX days, we didn't have that many CPU options back then, high-end pc's (referring to my previous comment on youtubers with killer machines) should be able to run XP with full settings without having to dial down eye-candy just because the sim code is designed to use one core for the most part

I think these are a bit high expectations, knowing that using multiple cores would need to entirely rewrite the whole code from scratch. And it’s not easy to accomplish because you have to plan which tasks to port to which core and those have to communicate together (giving a value back that will be used by another core etc.). So it’s very complex as far as I know. And it is planned but they already told us that we shouldn’t expect way much higer fps even when using multicore. Sure, some performance-increase can be expected. But keep in mind that they are a rather small team and don’t have the ressources to compete with a specialised gaming-company of 500 people. Meaning, that needs time.

32 minutes ago, CarlosF said:

What is the point of spending $60 on the sim, then having to buy add-ons worth $80 bucks each, more or less (my addons from previous versions of XP don't work with XP12) , I might end up spending $350+ on XP, then to find out that the next version of XP (hopefully) will be multi-thread, this alone would make my $350+ investment obsolete, no thank you, I've spent $$$$$ on simulators and addons, not any more.

When you compare that with my spending of 250 bucks for 1h I spent in a « commercial » flightsim that used P3D 2 years ago…or compared to the 600-700 bucks that each of my real flights for my PPL did cost, an absolutely laughable low amount of money, at least in a rich country. This for unlimited fun…just think about it.

36 minutes ago, CarlosF said:

I bought MS2020 when it came out, (flying XP11 back then) spend a few hundred bucks on addons, then 2024 came out with multi-thread design, decided to wait because all of the release issues but then my son got it for me for my BD, installed it and wow, to see all my hardware being used to it maximum potential, with all the eye-candy it offered, and not only that, the fact that all of my 2020 addons I bought showed up in 2024 and most work just fine, is a game changer.

The irony is that I have never spent as much money in little time as I did for MSFS. Default airports are almost unusable (or were at least when it came out), then I had to buy addons like Cat-turb for realistic turbulences etc. MSFS has been a pretty money-grab machine for me, also due to the fact that they advertise addons after addons (that by the way aren’t fully compatible with 2024 as well for some).

And keep in mind that you don’t really need that high fps. A few weeks ago, V1-pilot who has been streaming almost exclusively MSFS in the past few years, used XP and he said that with 25fps it was way more « fluid » than the 60 fps he gets with MSFS.

I absolutely agree with you that there is potential for improvement and optimization and I think Laminar is fully aware of that. But in my opinion this is being over-dramatized a bit. A lot also depends on optimisation-factors from your PC (driver, Windows-settings, driver-settings, emptying cache etc.). For me the performance in XP is really good and more than enjoyable. I very rarely have drops below 25fps. And I am running it a higher settings and almost in 4k.

 

21 minutes ago, Litjan said:

nowadays, it was designed DECADES ago

I'm referring to XP12 not the previous versions of XP so "nowadays" applies and not "decades" ago.

9 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

I think these are a bit high expectations, knowing that using multiple cores would need to entirely rewrite the whole code from scratch.

It is what it is, and that's why I'm sticking with 2024.

1 hour ago, CarlosF said:

My point is, nowadays no sim should be designed and limited to only one cpu core

X-Plane isn't limited to one CPU. It already has some degree of multi-threading. Certainly, as you said, improving multi-core capabilities should be one of the important things to do, and indeed it is one of ongoing LR priorities.

1 hour ago, CarlosF said:

high-end pc's (referring to my previous comment on youtubers with killer machines) should be able to run XP with full settings without having to dial down eye-candy just because the sim code is designed to use one core for the most part

This reasoning is flawed. The designed range of available settings can (and does) vary from sim to sim.

For example, let's say that LR decided to tune a specific visual setting so that no present PC can handle it when maxed, maybe because they want to make that specific setting "future-proof" for the next few years.

Or, let's say that they decided to tune multiple visual settings so that only some of them, but not all of them, can be maxed on a present PC. Maybe because they decided that a single user could subjectively choose which visual aspect to maximize while "sacrificing" others.

For example, I remember some time ago (don't know if it's still the case) that the visibility distance of 3d structures at max settings was way farther in X-Plane than in the competing sim. And yet, if you maxed it in both, you would be disappointed because X-Plane would get less FPS, despite actually drawing things farther.

2 hours ago, CarlosF said:

Thanks for your suggestions Murmur, I am quite familiar with XP settings, I have XP 9, 10 and 11 and so I can easily configure XP to my hardware.

The process of configuration though should not be: "max all visual settings" and then be disappointed if FPS are too low.

It should be: tune all the settings in order to get the FPS you want, and then decide if the visual quality is acceptable to you.

If you are getting only 40 FPS in the demo (I assume in a default aircraft), I would tend to think that you're just maxing all the settings. I get more than 40 FPS with a much slower PC than yours, with sliders about halfway (but each one tuned carefully) and importantly without sacrificing a lot of the final visual quality (for my subjective preferences).

54 minutes ago, Murmur said:

If you are getting only 40 FPS in the demo

Nowhere did I said that, I was referring to youtubers with killer machines, not mine. 

Seriously, you really think that my reasoning is flawed when I see youtubers showing off XP 12 (with latest beta) with $2k in just cpu/gpu and still having to lower settings just to maintain certain fps because the sim code is outdated, sorry that doesn't cut if for me.

It is hard to justified outdated code when people spend literally thousands in a cpu/gpu hoping to get the most out the sim and then realize that their investment is only being utilized by only 25% (just a number) of its total cpu capacity, to me it just doesn't make sense, to put it one way, I'm married to miss efficiency and my reasoning is based on that.

Look we all have our own expectations, XP in its current state of design doesn't fit mine, what's the big deal, I'm just stating my opinion, not trying to convince anybody to make the move to a different alternative.

Lets flip the page and move on, no need to derail this thread even more.

Edited April 30, 20251 yr by CarlosF

In my case I have reached the "optimal" settings for the present version of Xp12 by using RTSS to limit the FPS to 29, or the command line argument that can be used with "Xp12.exe" and then Lossless Scaling to scale FPS up to 58.

My sliders are all away from full right though. 

My experience has been rather smooth, no stutters at all. FPS stays sharp at 58 or 60 or 30 if I opt to set it at 30 in RTSS or through the command line option.

Only aspect I don't like that much, but it's me with my pickyness..., is the fans sometimes working fast to keep T away from higher levels.

Other than that I honestly find that, specially for it's present graphic quality, Xp12 has never performed so well for me. Actually no other version of Xp since Xp9.

Edited April 30, 20251 yr by jcomm

21 hours ago, CarlosF said:

I've seen youtubers with killer machines and I mean KILLER machines (Intel 14900/4090) barely sustaining 40fps, that's just not acceptable

They're doing something wrong. Native 1440p and 2 x MSAA with medium shadows and high rendering distance nets 70+ FPS on my system (7950X3D, 7900XT) with default scenery. X-World and Global Forests decrease FPS when on the ground, but that's to be expected considering how much more scenery objects must be drawn. To sustain at least 45 FPS, I run a script that dynamically adjusts scenery object draw distance (this should totally be a default feature though).

Expanded multicore support will not be the holy grail for performance.

 

17 minutes ago, CarlosF said:

I'm married to miss efficiency and my reasoning is based on that.

Your definition of efficiency is flawed when having all cores constantly pegged at 100% is what you're striving for. Because that would mean a seriously bad rendering engine and weak CPU.

What you want is the highest FPS at the least amount of energy consumption, say with the least amount of cores running at high clock, which in turn means a CPU with a high number of instructions per cycle. This is what drives FPS, not the multicore capability of the rendering engine. E.g. the Ryzen 5800X is capable of 25% more IPC than the 3700X. And guess what, this is exactly the jump I saw in XP11 FPS back when I upgraded. Better multicore utilization from the engine could not have achieved that, as a fixed number of instructions per cycle will always be used for synchronizing with other major program threads, decreasing the cycles available for executing other core tasks.

Edited April 30, 20251 yr by Bjoern

27 minutes ago, Bjoern said:

your definition of efficiency is flawed when having all cores constantly pegged at 100% is what you're striving for. Because that would mean a seriously bad rendering engine and weak CPU.

hmm, 100%, where did I said that, I'm referring to all cores and not utilization %, besides, I rather have a sim that pegs all of my cpu cores to 100% utilization, that would mean I'm getting the most out of the sim, rather than just one pegged at 100% with the other 11 just sitting around doing nothing, that is seriously outdated coding.

Case in point, EA Battlefield 2042 this game pegs all my cpu P cores to the max 100% utilization, maintaining 120fps continuously for hours on end without a single rendering or thermal issue, now that's what I call efficiency, we can agree to disagree if you like.

2 hours ago, Bjoern said:

To sustain at least 45 FPS, I run a script that dynamically adjusts scenery object draw distance (this should totally be a default feature though).

I am interested in this script, where can I find it?
(given my "weak" pc I would like to use it to limit the frame to 30 fps and not more)

3 hours ago, Murmur said:

For example, I remember some time ago (don't know if it's still the case) that the visibility distance of 3d structures at max settings was way farther in X-Plane than in the competing sim.

To back this up:

MSFS 2024 - KSFO at 10,000 ft from the cockpit

More zooming in isn't possible - there might be a reason 😉 

 

XP 12 - same position as above:

 

20 minutes ago, efis007 said:

I am interested in this script, where can I find it?
(given my "weak" pc I would like to use it to limit the frame to 30 fps and not more)

I assume he was refering to this one:
https://forums.x-plane.org/files/file/31097-3jfps-control-keep-good-fps-by-automatic-adaption-of-view-distance-cloud-quality/

18 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

To back this up:

MSFS 2024 - KSFO at 10,000 ft from the cockpit

More zooming in isn't possible - there might be a reason 😉 

 

XP 12 - same position as above:

 

I wonder what equivalent slider position for draw distance in XP12 equals highest on MSFS 24? Medium perhaps?

Edited April 30, 20251 yr by Ianrivaldosmith

2 hours ago, CarlosF said:

Seriously, you really think that my reasoning is flawed when I see youtubers showing off XP 12 (with latest beta) with $2k in just cpu/gpu and still having to lower settings just to maintain certain fps because the sim code is outdated, sorry that doesn't cut if for me.

If LR released X-Plane 12 with hypothetical different settings such that their max would correspond to the mid-range of current settings, then according to your reasoning X-Plane would be fine. That's why your reasoning ("I must be able to max all settings and have good FPS") is flawed.

Another completely different thing is to say that, even after optimizing its settings on your PC for your desired level of FPS (if you've actually done that), then the visual quality you get in X-Plane is not acceptable to you.

But mind you: even if that would be the case, you can't know for sure that the cause of poor performance/visual quality is the lack of multi-core use!

Maybe X-Plane is pushing more 3d objects than the competition, but what you're missing in visual quality is due, say, to an outdated scenery system/artwork.

That's why saying "I want X-Plane to be more multicore" like you did, does not make a lot of sense, if you don't know the underlying details of the code. It makes a lot more sense to say e.g. "I want X-Plane to have these improved scenery features and be able to draw them at 60 FPS". Ben Supnik himself often stressed the point I'm making.

35 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

To back this up:

MSFS 2024 - KSFO at 10,000 ft from the cockpit

More zooming in isn't possible - there might be a reason 😉 

XP 12 - same position as above:

Excellent example! Just the point I was trying to make.

What's your "Rendering distance" setting in X-Plane in these shots? "Max" or "High"?

@flying_carpet Sir, I don't want to be a party pooper, but a flight simulator is not the "Hubble Space Telescope Simulator".
In reality, pilots' eyes will never be able to see houses tens of miles away.
I have seen cruise ship captains use powerful binoculars to look into the distance.
On ships, it has been standard procedure for centuries.
But I have never seen cruise plane pilots use binoculars to look into the distance.
In a flight simulator, the inability to zoom very far like a telescope should not be considered a weakness of the simulator.
In my opinion, it is a more realistic representation of the surrounding environment that forces pilots to follow the flight procedures reported on the charts instead of "cheating" by observing (with binoculars) distant details that no pilot will ever be able to see by sight.
I am not against the use of the zoom function.
I'm just saying that, in my opinion, depth zoom should never be used if you want to imitate the reality of a pilot, so the comparison you made between XP and MSFS (in which we see Xplane display houses at telescope distances) is meaningless for evaluating the greater or lesser realism of a flight simulator.