Eduardo,I think we've taken this discussion as far as it can go. I'm not disagreeing with you that there is a frame rate hit with the PMDG737 2D panel when compared to the default aircraft. However, you have got to be more specific. When you say "Other addons" and state "really good fps" that is not specific - you're generalising.I have already said the 767PIC imposed a frame rate hit when compared to default aircraft and that hit is similar to that for the PMDG. Consider all the processing having to be done to update the state-of-the-art displays and compare that to the relatively crude default 737 panel. There is a world of difference and that means the performance will suffer as a result. Any 3rd party panel with non-standard autopilot and an FMS will impose a similar hit - it's unavoidable.The clouds in FS2004 will impose a frame rate reduction whatever the panel being used but when it's with the PMDG the frame rate hit is excessive. Hence the need for a powerful system to get the best out of FS. That's always been the case and will for the forseeable future.BTW, if you're getting 15fps on finals consider yourself extemely fortunate. I'm getting around 6-8fps when descending through multiple cloud layers!Cheers,

Nevermind

Hi EduardoI have to chip in here!Noone is saying that PMDG panel doesn't have an impact on frame rates. It will, because it's a complex panel, maybe the most complex you can get today. And believe me it will get more complex ;-)But what you have to understand is that if you are having a medium fast machine with a medium amount of memory you have to trade other things off. That is if you would like to run complex panels.I was running the PMDG with FS9 and a complex add-on scenery with a FPS of 8-10 and that I considered good on my 800MHz, 384Mb, GF3 machine.If you get 15-20 frames per second you should be happy. You wont notice the difference between 20 and 40. Turn of that SHIFT-Z thingie and fly! I'm currently running the PMDG on an new machine (see sig for spec) and I have locked it to 20FPS and I'm very happy with this. Bottom line is, compromise and trade-offs.And you are comparing apples and oranges as long as you don't state what add-ons you are running!

>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 :(Is it just me, or you're not looking for help? Instead of comparing it with other products and complaining, why not think for a second about the level of complexity of the add-ons you're mentioning? DF 734: Very nice, but it's an older product and not as complex as the NG.PSS Airbus: Very nice work by PSS, but it's not as FPS-intensive because it's not as complex either.767PIC: Ah, the big finalist. I won't comment on this one cuz I don't wanna see another flame war in here.I think that if you focused on fixing your issues instead of being uncooperative and evading questions aimed at helping you, you would get better results if you wanted to.DP

>If I set ALL sliders to HIGH but remove the main panel (with>the "w" key) = 30 fps>If i set ALL sliders do MEDIUM but remove the main panel =>Steady 40 fps>>(thats twice!! the fps with the panel!!!)TWICE!? How do you make that out? This is about as bad a test as I could imagine; not only are you changing the panel, but you're changing the scenery too?Paulhttp://www.strontiumdog.plus.com/sbird.jpgOfficially licenced by British Airways plc for use of name and logo[p]AMD XP2800+ Barton, Gigabyte GA-7NNXP nForce2, 1Gig Crucial PC3200 DDR 400MHz, Gainward 128 MB GF4-4200, SB Audigy, 3 x WD Caviar SE[/p]

G'day EduardoSorry but it flies on my system20FPS in the 2d cockpit at intensive airports and 40-65 in the cruise inside and out.Not sure what the problem is with your system?All the best

i have to agreegood plane but frame rate killer.And no i am NOT going to buy 1.5gig of ram just to get acceptable frame rates.

Eduardo,You have raised a lot of points and yes I understand what you mean about frames are not as good as some other panels. HOWEVER!!!!!!!!What you see most folks talking about is level of complexity. PSS and the PIC team did not model the levels of panel, gauge, system intergration that this panel has. While you fly this panel, there are many subystems that are working to bring the panel information that we see on the PFD and ND and EICAS on the NG.I have a system lower than yours, P4/1.7ghz with 512mb and a nVidia 4200/64 video card. I get about 15fps at most complex airports and over 20fps in stock airports. I think without stutters this is very good. The key is to have no stutters. As someone said, get your fingers off the the z key and forget this counting frames. You cannot enjoy the thrill of flying if you keep looking at the counters. 15 is not worse than 30 when everything is working smooth.I have most of the PSS panels and yes it is a complex panel compared to the default panels. HOWEVER (that word again), most of the systems on PSS don't talk to each other like the PMDG panels does. Lots of nice eye candy, but can not be compared to the NG.Should PMDG continue to look at optimization, YES YES YES, and I am sure they will, as they have done with the first patch.I am VERY happy with the PMDG 737 panel and I am BIG critic of bad panels. I was on the PIC767 beta test team. So I think I have been through the "it don't work right" routine. As good as the PIC767 is, it is now years old and needs major upgrades to work with FS9.Bottomline, go FLY and ENJOY, that is what this is all about. Now if something does not work right, then write until you fingers hurt, like mine right now :-). I am doing a flight plan to fly back home from KEWR to KDEN in the morning, but had to jump into this good discussion. Hang in there Eduardo, and work with the entire team, PMDG and us sim captains we all enjoy this great piece of work.Bob JohnsonKDEN

it is very hard to get your finger off the Z key when you notice considerable 1 sec pauses when taxing and landing in the 737 at major airports in 2D Cockpit.

G'day ClaytonYou may not need 1.5 but 512 is just about min spec for running Fs2004 onan XP system.And for $70 you could bump up your FPS by quite a bit.More than value for money given the increase and how much we spend on Video boards and CPU.All the best

For fun I wiped my hard drive, bought a second one, formatted them both (they are 7200 RPM ATA), reinstalled XP on C: and reinstalled FS9 on D:... I left FS9 with the default installation files (textures and such). I then put ALL my display settings on bare minimums, except for Global Max Texture Size I left at 'High'.Then, I flew a circuit at KSEA 34 with the default 737 and took a screen shot at 1200 MSL.Then, I loaded the PMDG 700 2D panel only version (no liveries yet installed) and yes it was SU 1.1... and flew the same circuit and also took a screen shot at 1200 MSL.No display settings were altered between loading aircraft... everything is exactly the same.Yes, we should expect the PMDG 737NG to get fewer FPS than the default 737, but 20 FPS fewer? That seems like a lot. I love the PMDG 737NG, so I'm not trying to join any sort of 'negative campaign' against it... I just thought this was interesting that's all. Maybe PMDG can improve FPS and maybe they can't. Either way, I'm happy with the product and that's all that's important.-JOE

I flew this circuit twice with the same results as my previous post... but on the third time I had an AI aircraft show up in front of me (I had traffic on 10%) and with the default 737 my FPS were around 25 all the way down... so I changed traffic to 0% and flew the circuit again with the default 737 and the FPS stayed at around 25 FPS. Remember, this is with display settings at 'low' on every page.Another note is that this is with FPS set to UNLIMITED, so perhaps MS is allocating FPS to the aircraft differently depending on certain variables. Perhaps it decided to 'lock' itself at 25. I don't know.I guess bottom line is testing like this is unscientific and results can vary.So, I guess you kinda have to take my last post with a grain of salt - yes those screen shots are accurate, but apparently the results can vary from flight to flight even with the same aircraft and display settings.Lastly, I have 512MB of RAM, P4 2.2 and FX5600 Ultra. Has anyone with a similar config gone from 512MB to 1GB and seen noticable smoothness and increase in FPS... I mean does going to 1GB of RAM really produce significant results? I'm willing to try it...I promise I won't be so quick to post results of testing next time.-JOE

Hi Joe,I went from 512mb to 1.5mb cos ram is pretty cheap right now, and it did make a noticeable difference. You already have a good video card, so if you've got the cash spare, then ram is the next logical choice. As the next generation of games for dx9 start to hit the shelves (not just flightsims), ram will make more of a difference then anything else. happy flying,ant

Hello there folks,Ok, let

Can anyone from PMDG please comment on this. I really would not like to hear the same thing I've been hearing from everyone about complex systems, there is no way you cannot tell me this plane doesn't have a stutter/frame rate problem.