I know when the 737 first came out, it had a high polly count in the VC. It was later optimized somewhat on a maint. release. I still find that the PMDG 737 uses the most resources of anything I own for FS9 aircraft-wise (a certain scenery company has the honor of having the worst performing software..resource-wise). I find that while the 737 is most flyable as is, it would sure be nice to free up some of the MB's it sucks up on the computer (over 100MB is what FS9 goes up by after loading the 737NG). Any chance of seeing the 744 a little better optimized and/or lower polly count for the VC?

If we want realsim there is only so much one can cut for performance. The displays are a case in point but the biggest is the code running the ND drawing & AFDS, this is where it is hurting performace yet I would not tell them to sacrifice this over performance since CPUs always get faster. It's true they cut many megs out of the panel etc but this only meant less overall ram being used which for folks running anything under 512 helped out a great deal. I believe PMDG will once again have options to turn things down for lower machines but this is only a guess...Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/southparkcartmad.gif[h3]PMDG 747![/h3]Caution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)ASUS KV8 DLX | AMD 3200 64 | 1 GIG PC 3200 DDR | GIGABYTE 5700 ULTRA | ViewSonic VP192b 19" |

>> If we want realsim there is only so much one can cut for>performance. The displays are a case in point but the biggest>is the code running the ND drawing & AFDS, this is where it is>hurting performace yet I would not tell them to sacrifice this>over performance since CPUs always get faster. It's true they>cut many megs out of the panel etc but this only meant less>overall ram being used which for folks running anything under>512 helped out a great deal. I believe PMDG will once again>have options to turn things down for lower machines but this>is only a guess...>Randy,How much MB does your computer go up when loading the 737? Just load up the default flight at Seattle with the Cessna. In windowed mode, bring up the XP task manager and look at your PF Useage figure in the left box under the CPU useage. Just keep it up and move it off to the right side of the screen. Now load the PMDG 737..load up the -800, virtual cockpit model (so I can judge it off mine). What did the PF graph show? How many MB did it go up after loading the 737? I just want to make triple sure that there is not something wrong with my system. Now if the code running the ND drawing and AFDS is the biggest performance issue, they hopefully found a way to optimize it. Either that or I will not be flying the 744 into any Simflyers scenery!

For mine I would rather have the aircraft than the scenery..no contestRob :-cool

It's a safe bet that everything the dev team learned when making the NG (their first MSFS aircraft remember) will be utilized in the 744.

>For mine I would rather have the aircraft than the>scenery..no contest>>Rob :-cool True Rob and I agree with you but it sure would be nice to fly into a nicely detailed airport as well without wondering if your sim is gonna lock up. I know that is not PMDG's fault but a combination of factors that would take me an hour to write down!

Well Eric my system does not lock up or cannot handle the NG although it did not run as well as my 1 gig of ddr ram but it is not any different than Flight 1's ATR in the system resources department. Again, I say the more code operations is better for the sim and should not be negelcted simply because some folk's system cannot handle it. Now I know they can make any system crawl if they wanted to so fine tuning I am sure will be done to make the 744 comparable with today's add-ons in their league. As with anything computer related, if you want to run it with all the goodies then you will need to upgrade your system to handle it. And by the way, you cannot compare the default Cessna's resources to this aircraft for obvious reasons..Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/southparkcartmad.gif[h3]PMDG 747![/h3]Caution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)ASUS KV8 DLX | AMD 3200 64 | 1 GIG PC 3200 DDR | GIGABYTE 5700 ULTRA | ViewSonic VP192b 19" |

It seems there is quite a bit of misunderstanding of computers and performance over here.The MB's reserved or used by a program don't have anything to do with performance (at least not directly).Randy, you'd be amazed - I'll bet the portions responsible for the entire displays (ND, PFD, MFD's) and AFDS only require a few megs (10-15) of memory. Still, if you try to run the displays at 900 fps you'll have your CPU running at 100%. Especially with "bogus" rendering mechanisms that can be used within MSFS (GDI+). You'd be surprised how much faster Open GL is (just check out X-Plane). Unfortunately, I haven't heard of anyone being able to render in open GL within MSFS.MB's are only used for textures and open files etc... So if you have hundreds of bitmaps you'll be requiring a lot of space. As long as you don't do anything with them, your CPU will be idling (even though your system manager tells you the application has reserved over 100 megs).I have no clue why the 737 needs so much memory. With regard to nice smooth displays - you can create them with using as little as 4 megs. As long as you use vectors to display the items and not textures you're good to go.Regards,Mark

Eric-this is the super-optimizing code I will be using:for (int i = 0; i < 10000000000; i++){ sleep(10);}:-)At the end of each development cycle, we put our code through various different optimizers, as well as code checkers and memory leak test programs. As such, we already do the best we can. I hope this should be enough.Best,

>>for (int i = 0; i < 10000000000; i++)>{> sleep(10);>}>LMAO! :-lol Yes, that's an old programmers trick...put some of those loops in your code, and when everbody is complaining about performance, remove those loops and...voil

>>for (int i = 0; i < 10000000000; i++)>{> sleep(10);>}>LOL! http://homepage.eircom.net/~eamonnmca/images/logo_ba.JPGwww.bavirtual.co.uk Senior Captain Simflight.com Staff Reviewer

>for (int i = 0; i < 10000000000; i++)>{> sleep(10);>}the above is rather poorly optimized code. I strongly suggest this version:for (int i = 0; i < 10000000000; i++) { compute_PI_100_digit_accuracy();}Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

Mark, Specifically, a system will become boged down if your resources over-run your availible ram which will lower your FPS. As for the displays, they are strictly CPU hungry, the more you have it perform (like drawing a perfect magenta line etc) will bring your system to a crawl which also lowers your FPS but as LK stated they are already working on making such things more system friendly.Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/southparkcartmad.gif[h3]PMDG 747![/h3]Caution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)ASUS KV8 DLX | AMD 3200 64 | 1 GIG PC 3200 DDR | GIGABYTE 5700 ULTRA | ViewSonic VP192b 19" |