there is no way you cannot tell me this plane doesn't have a stutter/frame rate problem.If there is "no way you cannot tell me" then (apart from the double negative) there's no point to PMDG replying.I am telling you: I have no stutters with this product. Whether you will have, I cannot say. Do I regret my purchase? Not for a second. PMDG's 737NG to me is outstanding; its quality is exemplary, support is second to none.I'm having so much fun with this product!! 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]

>there is no way you cannot tell me this plane doesn't have a>stutter/frame rate problem.>>If there is "no way you cannot tell me" then (apart from the>double negative) there's no point to PMDG replying.>>I am telling you: I have no stutters with this>product. Whether you will have, I cannot say. Do I regret my>purchase? Not for a second. PMDG's 737NG to me is>outstanding; its quality is exemplary, support is second to>none.>>I'm having so much fun with this product!! >AMD XP2800+>Barton, Gigabyte GA-7NNXP nForce2, 1Gig Crucial PC3200 DDR>400MHz, Gainward 128 MB GF4-4200, SB Audigy, 3 x WD Caviar>SE[/font][/i][/p]Paul,Im sorry for saying that, but you have a top-end system, I mean, you cant compare this FPS issue on your system with other completly different system. I think the question here is not:"I have good fps""I dont have good fps"The question is about comparison with other reference add-ons. Man, you have a:- AMX XP2800+ Barton !!!- 1 GB ram memory- GF4 TI 4200Thats a pretty, pretty fast processor. All we are saying is that this add-on, PMDG NG, should run with less system resources, and all we want, at less I, is to hear from PMDG that they are considering to focus some extra time on this issue.Eduardo

>but you have a top-end system, I mean, you cant compare this FPS issue on your system withother completly different system. I think the question here is not:>"I have good fps">"I dont have good fps"I agree, but then I'm not comparing my system with any other system. I'm merely stating a fact. This thread started off on a particularly critical premise. I (and only I) am merely making the point that the PMDG 737 is not unflyable rather the performance is system-specific. It is not fair to make statements like "the 737 is unflyable, I want a refund". Patently this is untrue! I make certain sacrifices with respect to my display options. I want the 737 to be 'flyable' and have reduced my display options in order for this to be the case.My personal feeling is that people want "the cake and eat it". Unfortunately we don't have 5GHz processors and therefore cannot have everything turned up to the maximum and at the same time expect complex panels to perform perfectly!Like everyone, my comments are not above criticism. But then like everyone, I'm merely stating my observations - whether they have merit or not.Cheers,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]

Deleted due to derogatory comments toward a forum memeber.

>It is not fair to make>statements like "the 737 is unflyable, I want a refund". I'm sorry but nowhere have we stated we want a refund. We will just have to deal with it but what we are asking is for PMDG to say something, anything about this situation because clearly this isn't an isolated issue.

I have tried everything too and I musr confess I am in total agreement.5fps is NOT flyable and this could become a casualty to the bin all because of this one fact.A VERY unhappy customer

Cant agree with you either. My 767 had frame rates 3 times as high as this. Well, this is 5 and that was 18 !

I wasn't quoting you, I was generalising.Cheers,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]

I am running the PMDG 737 on an AMD XP1.5gb with 1gb of pc2100 RAM. Yes it is heavy on the frame rates in certain circumstances. You can see that by cycling through the various panels and watching the frame rates change. I have learned to adapt. I use the L (landing panel) for taxi take off and short finals. The frame rates with this are fine. Once in the climb and cruise I can use the main 2D panel with no probs. I only ever use the 2D, no VC version as that would kill my frame rates.However I am not complaining, I realise it is a complicated panel and if I want panels like this to run faster I should by a new system but I can also derive a freat deal of pleasure from it as it is now. As far as Eduardo's comments go, I will only say, please give it a rest mate. If it's taxing your system too heavily, either go and buy a new system or don't fly this aircraft any more. You want the best of both worlds. Fast performance from an aging system. You can't have it both ways. It's like buying a Citroen 2CV and expecting the performance of a Ferrari.It's no good to keep demanding PMDG do something about it. You are just going to have to accept the situation. I have!regardsTimhttp://www.cambridgeflyingclub.com/images/timavatar2.jpg

Hello fellow simmers,Concerning the frame rate issue I would like to state that on my machine, there is a totaly different behavior of the PMDG 737NG in FS9 than FS2002. In FS2002 the aircraft runs smoothly with grate frame rates (see attachements, there is no trick these are actual fps, Airport LGTS Makedonia Greece, Rwy 28, Scenery by Fly Logic), which are the same with PIC and PSS products (A320, 777, 747). Of course, the performance is much better with the 2D panel but I always use the VC model. All sliders are maxed out.On the other hand, in FS9 the potential of the product is restricted in terms of frames rates, but I don't have any stuttering and this is very satisfactory to me. I get 10-25 fps on the 2D panel (mostly 12-17) in any kind of scenery and weather with all sliders to the right. Essential to the performance hit are clouds and big airports. Moving sliders to the left does not make much difference in heavy scenery areas, I have tried all tweaks with no results.I think I'd probably stay with FS2002 (much better performance in all aspects), or I will consider a RAM upgrade for my machine.My configuration is:P4 2.66, AGP X8512DDRFX5200 128MB, Drivers Nvidia 45.241024 X 768 X 32 in 17' monitorHDD 80GVassilis Beglis

Sorry, I forgot the attachments,http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/36984.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/36986.jpgVassilis Beglis

Looks like your display settings (in the pics) are without anti-alias or extended textures (or low texture settings), and of course fair weather and you are at a 'FPS friendly' airport. I could be wrong, that's just what it looks like to me, so please correct me if I am wrong. When I set FS9 to no anti-alias, non-extended and low textures and no weather, and fly from a 'FPS friendly' airport I also get high FPS with the PMDG 737NG. Not quite THAT high, but high enough (anywhere from low 20's to high 40's depending on situation).If you get high FPS in a 'complex' 2002 scenario, I'm with you... I may move the PMDG to 2002 until I can save some money and get a better system.-JOE

>Eduardo will never listen and therefore never>learn. I suggest everyone ignore him and the post>will fall off the end of page one never to be seen again.>>Must be related to Streetgang - Hi Ted :D Great words Ted. :)Eduardo

Well I must admit to #### about this problem - to the point of asking for my money back, OOOPSI just jumped my FR from 5 to 18 amd it was MY FAULTI have a Inteli mouse with touch feedback. I killed the program and the sim now is GREAT.So, check what other programs ARE running and not what just LOOK as though they are running. Bet there are a few out there that have the same problem.Great, now lets get some flying with this bird done.My humbliest apologies to everyone concerned.

Joe,Yes, my display settings are without anti-alias, but extended textures are enabled, all sliders are maxed out to the right, and it is not the default airport, but a payware scenery from Fly logic which is heavy enough (of course no like KLAX or KSEA). I also use anisotropic filtering to X4. On the same situation, where with FS2002 I get 50fps, with FS9 I get 20!!! Thats frustrating. I'm thinking to run complex aircraft on FS2002, while all the default aircraft with FS9.Vassilis Beglis