Hi,Based on my system below, how will the 737NG perform? Also compared with PIC767. ;-)I am only interested in the 2D panel view, since I almost never fly from the outside of the plane nor VC. :-)Happy landings,http://www.scandicair.com/images/SA_Banner4b.jpgMy system specs are: ASUS A7V 200Mhz FSB, VIA KT133 Chipset, 1009 Bios Athlon Thunderbird 1400 Mhz, 200 Mhz Bus 300 Watt powersuply 512 Mb SDRam 133 Mhz Gainward GeForce3 TI500 Gold Sample, 128 Mb44.03 DriversDirectX 9.0 Windows XP Home + SP1 Sound Blaster 16 PCIAltec Lansing ACS41 speaker system MS Sidewinder Precision ProGateway EV700 17" screenWith the 44.03 drivers and DX 9.0, I have never had even a system hickup

It all depends on how you personally have FS set up and how well your system is tweaked.I know it's the question we always want answered, but it is simply impossible to know for sure until you try it. But.... you knew that already, didn't you ;-)I'm happily running it on an old P3, but I don't look outside much. :-lol The vc is also out for me.Cheers,Roger- Oh yeah, you also won't find me flying into any SimFlyers scenery anytime soon -

Hi,Ok, enclosing a pic of my settings. As a benchmark, default start up at Miegs with PIC767, I get 25fps, with the fps target set to 25.It shouldn

I dont seem to have any problems with fps with PDMG's B73X's...I would say that it is better then PIC's B767, the models are totally fab and the flight deck is great. One of the best things about this aircraft must be the cabin, wow, I would say that its better then PIC's A320!I would say its a must have.Kind RegardsKimberlyPs. It also works with FS2004!

Staffan,if I put it like these (since I don't have your specs on my system) I fired up the default Cessna (2d cockpit view) at Arlanda vid 100% Ultimate Traffic and I then switched to the 737 (2d cockpit view). Result? The fps didn't go down one bit! :)In other words I'd say it's very friendly on the hardware when you run it from 2D cockpit view. Of course having 1 GB of RAM helps./KristerPIV 2,4 @2.6something1 GB 333 MHz RAMGainward 4200 videocard with 128 MB RAM, 1280x960x32Hitachi 21" CRT and NEC 15" TFTWindows XP Pro

Hi Staffan,My system is certainly "slower" than yours and I've been VERY surprised at how well the PMDG 737 has run on my machine. I have not noticed any huge difference between this product and either PIC767, PSSA320 or DF737 and the outside view runs WAY better than RFP 747. I run at 1280x1024 in 16-bit mode with roughly all sliders set to the middle position. I usually toggle between Normal scenery complexity and Very Dense scenery complexity when leaving the gate and then back the other way on landing when taxing to the gate. These are the compromises one must live with when you need upgrading as badly as I do! LOL In addition last night I moved the LCD refresh rate on the PMDG 737 to 25fps and didn't notice any drop in frame rates, although it was nighttime in the simulator, which tends to help frame rates.Motherboard: ASUS A7VCPU: Athlon Thunderbird 1000 MhzMemory: 512Mb SDRam 133 MhzVideo: Asus V7700 GeForce 2, 32Mb, 30.82 drivers (I went back to older drivers to fix problems related to my FS crashing whenever I tasked to the desktop while FS was running)Directx: 9.0aOS: Windows XP Home + SP1Sound: SoundBlaster Live! 128I suspect if you run your display settings in FS in a similar compromise fashion to mine you will be pleasantly surprised as to how nicely the PMDG product runs. Clearly PMDG spent a great deal of time optimizing their code and they are to be lauded greatly.All I can say is once you see how smooth the LCD displays run you will almost wet your pants. Everything on the navigation display slides by like silk! It's amazing! I certainly recommend it as it should be in everyone's FS aircraft library.Regards,Mike

Staffan wrote:It shouldn't be that hard to compare the difference with PIC767 in that situation. Or the actual fps in that situation with 737NG :-hmmmStaffan,The only way your comparison would work is if both systems had a completely fresh install of FS, with no other add-ons competing for resources ( ie. what's running in the background ? FSnav / FSmeteo / active sky / RW / FSflightmax / RXP / etc )Not to mention the exact same setup, using the exact same amount of resources at startup..... it goes on and on.Just look at the varying reports so far. There are people with 3 gig systems complaining about fps, and there are people like me with far inferior machines, who are quite happy running a stripped down FS, to simply enjoy PIC and other "complex" sims without all the airport/scenery candy.In fact, this aircraft would have run completely different on my same machine about 6 months ago. That's when I went through the whole Georender/Emma Field/Lago airport/mesh scenery phase.It's all in your priorities. If you want better fps, you may need to loose some other candy. But with your machine, I would be quite satisfied. That's me though, not you.RogerKLAS/KVGT

Ok, Thanks all for your input. :-)And Klas, ofcourse you can compare the difference even with many addons running. A difference between two parties can be valuated even under other circumstances. ;-) That said because I wanted to see the difference between PIC767 and 737NG. Not just with my sytemspecs. ;-)Take care,http://www.scandicair.com/images/SA_Banner4b.jpg