Well well well,I've read MANY posts on this and MSFS forums where this topic have been VERY discussed, and I can only get to one conclusion."PMDG NG is the MOST framerate eater/killer of all the times."You can compare it to any add-on, with FMC and complex panel logic. I really dont get this, I have a fast machine and get ONLY / POOR 20 fps on cruise flight and 15 fps on approach.With other add-ons I get about 30 / 40!!! And sorry you out there happy with 15 fps, I think these fps really kills the fell of flying these bird.I'm posting these cause I think PMDG should work more on this issue, I cant find any reasonable answers to the fps killing problem. Its something like compare:Direct 3D x Open Gl (and I dont wanna to start that discussion here, its only an example)PMDG NG x Other complex add-ons.Again I say, PMDG have done a GREAT work until here, and I really admire their constumer support service, BUT, these issue exists, and I would appreciate to receive some solid feedback and results on that.Eduardo Becker

Have to agree - I just wish PMDG could comment on this and atleast take a step in looking at the problem because this doesn't seem right at all.

Eduardo,Can't agree with you I'm afraid. The 767PIC is also very heavy on frame rates. It's all due to the extra processing the complex gauges have to do. All I can suggest is you upgrade your system. You say you have a fast system but don't specify how fast.I bet those other addons don't have a fully functioning FMC and sophisticated MCP do they?Cheers,

I have to agree with ray on this, I get 30fps with fs2004 and the pmdg737 almost all the time. The only time it dips is when fs2004 chcuks in lots of 3d cloud cover, and it doesn't matter what bird you're flying when that happens! Good job guys, keep up the good work!antathlon xp 2600nvidia 5900fx 256mb1.5 gb ddr 400mhzwindows xpnforce2 motherboard

Ok,I really dont think that the machine I have matters, you know. Let me give a simple example:You have a Cadillac, than you have complex engines (complex add-ons). With all other complex engines, your car runs at 30/40 fps.Than with a SPECIFIC kind of engine you car runs really slow.The thing is comparison, I run add-ons like DreamFleet 734, PSS Airbusses and the famous 767 PIC with really good fps, around 30/40. But JUST with PMDG NG I get 15 / 20 fps. I mean, does it make difference what is my setup?On final approaches, I just HAVE to remove the panel with the "w" key. With this I go from 15 fps to 40 or more! With other add-ons, steady 30/40 fps on final and with panel.I really cant see myself expending a fortune to buy a 1 Gb Ram system with a 3 Ghz CPU and a Video Card of 300 dollars to get average fps.The problem is simple:Other Add Ons - HIGH FPSPMDG NG - REALLY LOW FPSThe PMDG team agree that we DO have a problem on this issue? Or its just myself?(Anyway, my setup: Atlhon XP 1.8, 512 DDR, GF4 TI4200, Asus A7V8X-X)

Sorry,I forgot to sign the last msg,Eduardo Becker

>I have to agree with ray on this, I get 30fps with fs2004 and>the pmdg737 almost all the time. The only time it dips is when>fs2004 chcuks in lots of 3d cloud cover, and it doesn't matter>what bird you're flying when that happens! Good job guys, keep>up the good work!>ant>>athlon xp 2600>nvidia 5900fx 256mb>1.5 gb ddr 400mhz>windows xp>nforce2 motherboardSorry Acroshaw,But I have to disagree with you. You cant do this kind of comparison, your system is REALLY (!!!!) well over the standard setup that most of the folks have.Just make a simple comparison, write down the fps you get with PMDG NG, DF 734, PSS Airbusses and 767 PIC. If you do so, I thing you will agree with me.It's just me, or there are other costumers that have noticed e huge decrease in fps with PMDG NG?(again, I'm talking about comparison a x :(

>I have to agree with ray on this, I get 30fps with fs2004 and>the pmdg737 almost all the time. The only time it dips is when>fs2004 chcuks in lots of 3d cloud cover, and it doesn't matter>what bird you're flying when that happens! Good job guys, keep>up the good work!>ant>>athlon xp 2600>nvidia 5900fx 256mb>1.5 gb ddr 400mhz>windows xp>nforce2 motherboardSorry Acroshaw,But I have to disagree with you. You cant do this kind of comparison, your system is REALLY (!!!!) well over the standard setup that most of the folks have.Just make a simple comparison, write down the fps you get with PMDG NG, DF 734, PSS Airbusses and 767 PIC. If you do so, I thing you will agree with me.It's just me, or there are other costumers that have noticed e huge decrease in fps with PMDG NG?(again, I'm talking about comparison a x :(Eduardo

Which version of FS are you running? The clouds in FS2004 will have a big impact on performance. They don't have the same impact in FS2002.

I don't think it's a matter of complex systems on the aircraft. In my case, the frames I can say are reasonable for my system but it adds a horrible stutter to the panel which brings the frames down to a stand still. And I certainly doubt customers will upgrade their systems for capability.

>Which version of FS are you running? The clouds in FS2004>will have a big impact on performance. They don't have the>same impact in FS2002.Ray,Im sorry, but I'll have to repeat what I said before, its not a question of FS2004 x FS2002. Or 3D or not 3D clouds. :)It's quite simple:Other add-ons ->>> really good fpsPmdg ->>>>>>>>> poor fpsWith the exact same setup. No changes at all. :)(Anyway: im running monstly FS2002)Eduardo

First of all the panel itself is good in frame rates, take it up without scenery and you will see that it alone is good. It is more taxing on your system because of the displays and the complex systems. Please don't compare apples to oranges it simply does not work for a comparison. I have a pretty low end system and even runing 256 megs of ram BUT still get good frame rates for FS9. I suggest that if you want to be able to run everything on high or above that you have a system that can handle it. This plane uses a LARGE amount of RAM and if you do not have a lot of ram your system will use virtual memory off your hard drive, best to use 512 and above of DDR. [h4]Best Wishes,Randy J. Smithhttp://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-8/196432/winglets_lg.jpg [h3] AMD XP 2200 |MUNCHKIN 512 DDR RAM |ECS[/b ][i] K7S5A MB[/i] |GF2 MX 32 MEG and still runs GOOD!|WIN XP PRO |MITSUBISHI DIAMOND PLUS 91 19"[/h3]

>> First of all the panel itself is good in frame rates, take it>up without scenery and you will see that it alone is good. It>is more taxing on your system because of the displays and the>complex systems. Please don't compare apples to oranges it>simply does not work for a comparison. I have a pretty low end>system and even runing 256 megs of ram BUT still get good>frame rates for FS9. I suggest that if you want to be able to>run everything on high or above that you have a system that>can handle it. This plane uses a LARGE amount of RAM and if>you do not have a lot of ram your system will use virtual>memory off your hard drive, best to use 512 and above of DDR.>>Hello there Randy,I will have to disagree with you. Thats completly the opposite.Im running almost ALL the sliders down now. But I made some tests:- Standard high setting for display gives me about 16fps.- Standard low setting gives me about 18/20 fps.If I set ALL sliders to HIGH + PMDG main panel = 15, 14fps.If i set ALL sliders to LOW or OFF with PMDG main panel = 20fps.Now see this!If I set ALL sliders to HIGH but remove the main panel (with the "w" key) = 30 fpsIf i set ALL sliders do MEDIUM but remove the main panel = Steady 40 fps(thats twice!! the fps with the panel!!!)And again, other complex add-ons (and I'm not comparing ORANGES to APPLES here) give me 30 to 40 fps steady. Well I may be wrong(!?), but seems thats is the panel and not FS thats is sucking the fps.

I think that I would be very happy to get 15 to 20 fps on approach with your rig, into a busy airport. I would be happy with that in the default DC-3 with a lot of weather on my computer. And I'm driving a P4 2.6 with a Radeon 9700 Pro and about 764 megs of ram. I think that there has been enough written to prepare potential buyers with mid-range machines for the trade-offs in slider settings etc. that will be necessary to run this plane. Your system is at the low end of computers that will run this plane well. Don't blame PMDG. They delivered a product that was demanded by many -a very complete simulation of a highly automated airliner. There is very little on that panel that interfaces nice and neatly with the Flight Sim code - there is a lot of computing going on that is not required for planes that don't try to model these types of guages, FMC systems and autopilots. Give the Wilco A320 PIC a test ride - airplane with a similar level of automation and similarly modeled as the PMDG plane. From everything I've read, terrible, terrible frame rates. Far worse than the baby Boeing that Robert and crew built. I've heard the Eaglesoft FS9 port over is getting terrible frames. With your rig the way to get decent performance is in 2d mode without the VC loaded. I'm getting OUTSTANDING performance in 2d mode, and even with my rig, use the Z view for take off and approach/landing because its so smooth. I use the VC in climb and cruise, when I have time to pan around and enjoy the views. Give these guys a break! This is an outstanding airplane and a real accomplishment. Colin

Well I would say that you are doing pretty well with those frame rates! Bad frame rates are 10 and below in my book. FS is not like other games in this respect as long as you're not getting suttering and pauses 15+ is smooth. It does require a fast system no doubt about it but just look at the PFD and ND. I suggest you try a comparable type like Flight One's Meridian that has such a complec display...[h4]Best Wishes,Randy J. Smithhttp://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-8/196432/winglets_lg.jpg [h3] AMD XP 2200 |MUNCHKIN 512 DDR RAM |ECS[/b ][i] K7S5A MB[/i] |GF2 MX 32 MEG and still runs GOOD!|WIN XP PRO |MITSUBISHI DIAMOND PLUS 91 19"[/h3]