Getting the best visuals while keeping gameplay smooth can be challenging, especially when you’re working with budget hardware. As someone using a Lenovo IdeaPad Slim 3 with an AMD Ryzen 7 processor and integrated Radeon graphics, I have to find a practical balance between visual quality and performance.
Why does this matter? In a flight simulator, higher visual quality can make the scenery and aircraft look better, but it can also reduce frame rate. On lower-end hardware, increasing graphics settings too far can make the simulator noticeably less smooth.
Rather than simply lowering every setting, I wanted to see how X-Plane 11 actually performed at different visual quality levels on my laptop.
For this test, I used Chicago O’Hare International Airport with both the Boeing 737-800 and Cessna 172. I compared different graphics settings and watched how the FPS changed.
My Setup at Chicago O’Hare: A Unique Perspective
Running X-Plane 11 on a Lenovo IdeaPad Slim 3 requires some compromise between performance and visual quality. My laptop has an AMD Ryzen 7 5825U, 16 GB RAM, and integrated Radeon graphics.
Chicago O’Hare is a useful location for this type of testing because it is a large airport with detailed terminals, taxiways, and surrounding scenery.
To make the comparison more consistent, I tested the aircraft at the same airport while changing the visual settings. This gave me a clearer idea of how much the graphics settings themselves affected performance.
Including different aircraft added another useful comparison. I tested the Boeing 737-800 and the smaller Cessna 172 to see whether aircraft choice made a noticeable difference at the same airport.
Keeping the testing conditions reasonably consistent made it easier to compare the FPS results instead of relying on general assumptions about which settings should perform better.
Performance Test: Comparing High,Medium and Low Settings
Testing different settings in X-Plane 11 showed a clear difference between High and the lower visual settings.
With the Boeing 737-800 at Chicago O’Hare, I tested High visual effects with Low texture quality, 4x SSAA+FXAA antialiasing, and 2x anisotropic filtering. While taxiing, FPS ranged from around 9 to 14. At this level, performance was below what I consider comfortable for normal flying.
At Medium visual effects, the result improved significantly. With Low texture quality, 2x antialiasing, and 2x anisotropic filtering, FPS was generally in the 20s. For me, this was usually within a comfortable range.
When I lowered the visual effects to Low with the Boeing 737-800, FPS remained fairly similar to Medium and generally stayed in the 20s. In this test, lowering the setting from Medium to Low did not give me a major additional FPS increase.
This was useful because it showed that the lowest setting was not automatically the best choice. Medium still provided comfortable performance while allowing somewhat higher visual quality.
The biggest difference appeared when moving to High. The FPS dropped from the 20s at Medium or Low to around 9–14 FPS with the Boeing. Based on this test, Medium or Low visual quality worked much better on my laptop than High.
Boeing vs. Cessna at Chicago O’Hare: How Aircraft Choice Matters
I also tested the Cessna 172 at Chicago O’Hare to see whether using a smaller aircraft would noticeably improve performance.
At High visual effects, the Cessna stayed around 12 FPS. This was fairly close to the 9–14 FPS I recorded with the Boeing 737-800. In this case, switching to a smaller aircraft did not make High settings comfortable.
Using Low visual effects with the Cessna produced a much better result. FPS generally stayed in the 20s and sometimes reached around 30 FPS.
This showed that the visual settings had a major effect on performance. Even with the smaller Cessna, High visual effects kept FPS low, while Low settings allowed the simulator to run much more smoothly.
The comparison also showed that aircraft choice was not the only factor affecting performance. At a large airport like Chicago O’Hare, the graphics settings themselves could make a larger difference than simply switching from a Boeing to a Cessna.
Frequently Asked Questions
What visual quality worked best on my low-end PC?
Based on my testing, Medium or Low visual quality worked best overall. With the Boeing 737-800 at Chicago O’Hare, both settings generally kept FPS in the 20s, while High dropped performance to around 9–14 FPS.
Did Low settings perform much better than Medium?
Not in my Boeing 737-800 test. Low and Medium both generally stayed in the 20 FPS range. That means Medium may be a better choice when I want slightly better visuals without losing much performance.
Did the Cessna 172 perform better than the Boeing 737-800?
At High visual effects, not by much. The Cessna stayed around 12 FPS, which was similar to the Boeing’s 9–14 FPS range. At Low visual effects, however, the Cessna generally stayed in the 20s and sometimes reached around 30 FPS.
Are High graphics settings worth using on a low-end PC?
On my laptop at Chicago O’Hare, High settings caused too much of an FPS drop to be comfortable. Medium or Low gave me a much better balance between visual quality and smooth performance.
Is the lowest setting always the best for FPS?
Not necessarily. My Boeing test showed that dropping from Medium to Low did not provide a major additional FPS gain. That is why testing different settings is more useful than simply assuming Low is always best.
What I Learned From My X-Plane 11 Testing
My testing at Chicago O’Hare showed that finding the right balance between visual quality and FPS is more useful than simply pushing the graphics as high as possible or lowering everything to the minimum.
With the Boeing 737-800, Medium and Low settings generally kept FPS in the 20s, while High dropped performance to around 9–14 FPS. With the Cessna 172, High stayed around 12 FPS, while Low increased performance into the 20s and occasionally close to 30 FPS.
For my Lenovo IdeaPad Slim 3, Medium or Low visual quality worked best overall. Medium can be a good option when I want somewhat better visuals without a major performance penalty, while Low gives me more room when smooth performance is the priority.
The biggest lesson from these tests is that the best setting depends on the aircraft, airport, and hardware being used. Testing the simulator under real flying conditions gave me a much clearer picture of what my laptop could actually handle.