OS X X-Plane 10 Updates

The fastest Mac for X-Plane 10:

Thanks to Barefeats

Me happy.

MacsRgr8 said:

The fastest Mac for X-Plane 10:

Thanks to Barefeats

Me happy.

Click to expand...

But it does lead one to wish apple would release a baby nMP with a desktop 770/780/780ti( or their maxwell successors) with a 4670K/4770K. It's a bit sad that the best we have for X-Plane is the 780M. I'm completely happy with it, but we know it isn't the best for X-Plane.

quagmire said:

But it does lead one to wish apple would release a baby nMP with a desktop 770/780/780ti( or their maxwell successors) with a 4670K/4770K. It's a bit sad that the best we have for X-Plane is the 780M. I'm completely happy with it, but we know it isn't the best for X-Plane.

Click to expand...

Point is that X-Plane 10 is mostly CPU (mostly dual threaded) limited. A good grfx card is necessary (and with lots of VRAM when huge amounts of extra scenery is involved...), but if you had to choose between:
a) good CPU and great GPU, and
b) great CPU and good GPU,
then option b) is better for X-Plane 10.

Of course, as you have noted, we would love to have both great CPU and great GPU (i.e. Core i7 -not the Xeon- and 780 Ti / Radeon 7970), but in the world of the Mac, we don't have that option... some call it the xMac.

MacsRgr8 said:

Point is that X-Plane 10 is mostly CPU (mostly dual threaded) limited. A good grfx card is necessary (and with lots of VRAM when huge amounts of extra scenery is involved...), but if you had to choose between:
a) good CPU and great GPU, and
b) great CPU and good GPU,
then option b) is better for X-Plane 10.

Of course, as you have noted, we would love to have both great CPU and great GPU (i.e. Core i7 -not the Xeon- and 780 Ti / Radeon 7970), but in the world of the Mac, we don't have that option... some call it the xMac.

Click to expand...

I great CPU would a K version of the 4670/4770 so you could over clock. Really not even an i7 is needed. While I have seen X-Plane use hyper threading, it doesn't use it that often. That is why I got the 4670 in my iMac. An extra 100 Mhz isn't going to make that huge of difference in X-Plane, hyper threading isn't being utilized all that much, etc. So I took the $200 to upgrade to the 4771 and put it in the 512 GB SSD.

Though I guess you could say the 4771 is future proofing in case XP11 is coded better and more multithreaded orientated where hyper threading would be an advantage. But, I don't expect XP11 for another 3 years or so. By then the CPU's would be ancient and the 780M begging for mercy. haha

The 880M doesn't improve performance all that much over the 780M. Not surprising considering it's still Kepler.

quagmire said:

The 880M doesn't improve performance all that much over the 780M. Not surprising considering it's still Kepler.

Click to expand...

Nice find!
Where did you find that?

That 880M would probably be in the next "best" iMac.

MacsRgr8 said:

Nice find!
Where did you find that?

That 880M would probably be in the next "best" iMac.

Click to expand...

http://www.notebookcheck.net/X-Plane-10-Benchmarked.111450.0.html

quagmire said:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/X-Plane-10-Benchmarked.111450.0.html

Click to expand...

Tnx!

I'm interested in how future Mac Pros (7,1) will perform.

As the CPU in the 2013 iMac (the i7) definitely out-performs the newest Mac Pro regarding X-Plane, and the 780M is goed enough to not actually be a weak point, I wonder if the 2014 iMac (maxxed out) will out-perform the Mac Pro 7,1 too... even with the then maximum grfx card installed.

FlightSchool for Mac

Hi there,

i wonder if anybody might be interested in backing the FlighSchool for Mac Kickstarter campaign: http://kck.st/RAYyV8

FlightSchool is available for PC only so far but if they find enough people interested (backing the campaign), they'll write a Mac version for it.

Out of just under GBP 8500 they're still short GBP 3000 with 3 days left to go.
Doesn't seem likely to go through but i'd find the idea of flying about with a talking instructor quite interesting...

10.30 Beta 1 is out.

- Saw a 6-8 FPS bump

- It loves RAM. It use to consume about 4.5 GB, now it consumes 5.85 GB. Might be time to bump my RAM to 32 GB.

quagmire said:

10.30 Beta 1 is out.

- Saw a 6-8 FPS bump

- It loves RAM. It use to consume about 4.5 GB, now it consumes 5.85 GB. Might be time to bump my RAM to 32 GB.

Click to expand...

Yep!

Regarding RAM and VRAM usage....
Take a look at what X-Plane 10.25 consumed, see attachments eek

I used SimHeaven's ZL17 photo sceneries, the experimental OSM buildings (and that is great!!) and pay ware EHAM here (where EHRD, EHEV are also loaded).

10.30 Beta 2 released. Fixed some of the easy bugs like the ATIS.....

Also, the FlyJSim 732 was released yesterday. It's awesome.

And Beta 3 is now up.
Release notes

The 10.30 beta is very nice, it give me a 20% performance boost.

As a fairly well known name in The X Plane 10 Community for my Paints etc , i have to say that there are two things we need to have , Better Better Aircraft Wakes , Better Visibility which X Plane 10.30 was supposed to fix , but i see no improvements ... check out my paints on the Org ,

Emma x

emmab2006 said:

As a fairly well known name in The X Plane 10 Community for my Paints etc , i have to say that there are two things we need to have , Better Better Aircraft Wakes , Better Visibility which X Plane 10.30 was supposed to fix , but i see no improvements ... check out my paints on the Org ,

Emma x

Click to expand...

The visibility issue will be fixed later in the beta. Ben is still working on it.

Macman45 said:

That would be my only justification for buying one, and funds just don't allow..( Jealous )

Click to expand...

And.... the maxed out 2013 model (with the 780M) still is the fastest!!

I'll be waiting for the 2015 model Retina, then.

MacsRgr8 said:

And.... the maxed out 2013 model (with the 780M) still is the fastest!!

I'll be waiting for the 2015 model Retina, then.

Click to expand...

I would wait until they switch back to NVIDIA even with the crappy drivers. They just run cooler. It's surprising reading posts in the iMac forum that they are fine with temps of 100 C+ because the iMac is made by Apple and surely they tested it and the temps are technically within limits....

It is a darn shame they didn't put in the 980M though. That thing is benching close to a 780Ti from what I read.