I'm playing aWorld War 2 sim named "War Thunder", and I get very high frame rates, and the scenery and aircrafts are very nice. In FSX or P3d I doubt I'd get more than 20-25 fps with that scenery, but I get 55-65 fps with War Thunder... I feel the flight model very realistic too... So, we see we need a completely new platform for future flight simulators. 

Another sim to watch out is Aerofly FS, which is at the beginning but looks promissing in the future.

Imagine if they put PAPI, ATC, ATIS, Wx send/receive weather stations, VORD, VOR, NDB, DME, ILS, LOC, global jet and victor route networks, controlled area boundaries, transitions, FAF, IDF, Approaches, 24500 airports, client network server, entire world drawn >100Nm distance, etc. into War Thunder, would be a bit of a drag on fps. :Black Eye:

Hello yidahoo,

 

I have followed your advise and purchased the Saab340., It is a nice plance, no doubt about that but it seems heavier on the frames than the 757 Professional for instance.

 

Speaking of frames. It was only until i started dispaying the framerate on my screen that i began to realize i was actually flying in slow motion in some parts of the world due to heavy rendering settings.

 

When you don\t see the fps in x-plane you lead an ignorant life i realize now. The screen doesn't stutter and the simulation seems to be smooth. I think there are lots of users not realizing that they are actually flying in slow motion. I began to notice this when listening at the frequency drop of my windscreen whipers

 

Since that moment tweaking the rendering settings so as to keep a constant 20 fps is required. So i have been fooling myself.

Yes, the Saab is probably the most frame rate heavy X-Plane aircraft but probably the most complex too. I believe 19fps is the point where X-Plane slows things down, but if you tweak your configuration so that the Saab in heavy scenery is above 20fps, then virtually everything else will run well over 20fps. Also 20fps looks more smoother than 40-50 locked in FSX or P3D.