This site is being deprecated.

Please see the official X‑Plane Support page for help.

0 votes
asked by (12 points)
I am considering purchase of your Software, prime reason is that an aftermarket add on I want: Hawker 4000 is only available for X-Plane.

I downloaded and installed the latest Demo version of X-Plane, it runs so badly it is practically unuseable.

Maximum framerate I can achieve with ALL settings at minimum is 9.0 fps

This contrasts very poorly with MS Flight Sim X which runs at 20-30 fps with medium settings on the same admittedly poor platform using the KSEA Scenery.

I don't expect miracles but your code is far superior to FSX  and should at the very least run at the same speed.

Whats the Deal?

Dell XPS

Intel i&-2760QM @ 2.4 Ghz

8 Ghz RAM

nVidia 540M
commented by (112 points)
In agreement with the other responders that your system isn't really up to current simulator and gaming requirements - and, this IS a beta (I made my purchase already).

However, having written that, I'll agree that there's much work to be done particularly regarding the full use of computer resources - there seems to be no definitive correlation between XP v11b2 settings and CPU/GPU usage.

Here I have perhaps a higher end system (Asus Rampage V 10, i7-6850K, 32Gb DDR4 ram, all SSD's, dual GTX-1080's, etc. Even with this, the best FPS (single GPU with Anti-Aliasing OFF) I'll see is 24-27. If I force the system into SLI, I'll see an increase of 5-7 FPS, into the low 30's or so. Even with this, the GPU & CPU are still "coasting" in terms of per cent utilization.

Again it's in beta; here's hoping this is all sorted out and I'll soon be seeing 50-60 FPS. Cheers.

3 Answers

0 votes
answered by (5.3k points)

Hi mu2marc,

I am no way connected with Laminar Research just a flight simmer like you.

From reading other postings in this forum frame rates are and have been an issue.

X-Plane 11 is a 64 bit operating system whereas MSFSX is a 32 bit system restricting your RAM to a maximum 4Gb despite how much memory you have in excess of the 4 Gb whereas 64 bit allows the use of greater than 4 Gb.

I am of the opinion your PC does not meet the minimum and recommended specifications.  Is it a "gaming" machine used for other purposes or just a "general use" machine.

Have a look at the minimum and recommended specifications at this link

Also have a look at this link

Hope this helps in understanding why you get the low frame rates.



commented by (12 points)
Thank you for your reply.

I get it, hence the nod to my limited spec system, however similar fps should be an attainable goal with a now unsupported software competitor who has code over 5 years old.

Frankly, having to upgrade my hardware in order to run X Plane at the same level I currently enjoy with 5+ year old code with FSX is simply a poor excuse for bad programming.

I fly for a living and use add on payware models for my 6 month flight checks. i couldnt care less about eye candy, i set 200ft overcast and 1/2 a mile for all my interactions with my sim, FSX returns 30 fps Max for these operations and allow me to fly profiles and program the FMS on my old platform with silky smoothness.

Very surprised with X-Plane, I should not have to upgrade my hardware to achieve the same goal I currently achieve with outdated software to make it run period..

The post below you suggests upgrading my hardware, and I would, however I don't see a justification for that, at all.. X-Plane 11 runs like shit because the code worse than Microsofts.

I will buy the X-Plane Software when it is able to achieve or exceed what I can currently achieve with an out of date unsupported software solution that simply does a better job on my current platform.

Spending more money on a hardware upgrade needs to be justified and I am not seeing a justification right now. X-Plane runs better on my cell phone than on my system go figure.
0 votes
answered by (594 points)
To add on to what Glenn said, simply put : your specs aren't good enough. Plus it's a demo and the FPS is something LR plan to address. As for your specs, your CPU is only a 2.4 ghz which is bad (recommended is 3.5 ghz or more). Also your GPU is limited (a desktop GTX 960 isn't the same as a 960M-it's a desktop 760 in terms of performance). You need more RAM somewhere in the range of 16-32 gb. Cooling has to be good as well. I use FSX and constantly achieve more than 40 FPS with PMDG level aircraft.

0 votes
answered by (102 points)
@ mu2marc

Hi!  Your issue is not related to bad programing,  It is your hardware. X-Plane 11 is designed around recommended specifications.

Modern day simulators and games require higher specifications then 5 year old outdated programs.  X-Plane is designed for a market that expect precision and quality that take advantage of today's high end technology.  Customers who buy X-Plane know this.

If MSFSX works fine for you and fulfills your currency needs that is great. Stick with it.  Perhaps someday when you upgrade your rig, you will then be able to transition to X-Plane and appreciate the excellent programing done by it's developers.

commented by (12 points)
That is not accurate Sir.

Permit me the following analogy:

I own a 5 year old printer that is currently printing far better quality pictures at a high PPM rate.

Why would I pay for a new printer that prints slower and at a worse quality?

Hardware limitations are a blanket requirement for operating the program on at least global mid level settings. As mentioned I have no intention of running anywhere near that quality.

If I set all sliders to minimum and weather to 200-1/2 the software is not being asked to render anything but a cockpit and will do so with 1 Gig of Vram and 8 gigs of standard ram on an i7 Quad core CPU. If I unlock the FPS lock of FSX which I have set to 30, the above setting gets almost 60 FPS.

 9 FPS is a programming issue Sir, particularly when I increase all sliders to max and get the same 9 FPS. This was the reason for my question, the Graphics options are not having any effect on the rendering capability of my system and this needs to be addressed before I spend any money.

commented by (594 points)
Hi mu2marc

In this case, I would stick with FSX

Plus it's a demo/beta and the FPS is something LR plan to address. FSX and XP are both great simulators and they each have their own positives and negatives. I PERSONALLY use FSX now since XP10 gave me a bad experience. I also have far more add-ons for FSX such as 3 PMDG aircraft, ASN, etc. I just reinstalled my FSX copy  since I was getting poor FPS and now I'm getting 40+ FPS with zero AI. Its your choice but there is not clear winner.


Intel I7 [email protected] ghz

NVidia GTX 970 4gb VRAM

16 gb RAM

256 GB SSD only for FSX

commented by (102 points)

We are not talking about printing here.  My printer is older too and it works just fine. And all of this is subjective anyway.  I do not replace technology when I do not have to.  For example my plane still has steam gauges supplemented with Ipads.  Works just fine.

There are games today that will in no way run on machines not built to handle those games.  Simulators can be the same way.  My three year old rig is getting 40-60 FPS on X-plane 11.  I am sorry yours is not.

One great point made in other posts on your thread is that we are still in Public Beta.  The Devs are working on many issues and I am sure yours is one of them.  While in beta I take an optimistic constructive approach and help the devs out the best I can.

So I just have to state again that I do not think their programing is "inexplicably terrible" as you stated.  It is a work in progress.  If you go over to you will find a large community that is very satisfied and happy with their work.