Will the 747-400 require even more PC h.p. than the NG?

[JSACKS 0]

You are taking things too literally. No, it doesn't say "emphasis" on VC, but the implication is that PMDG is building a VC because they want and hope folks to use the VC more. But from recent comments and if you asked Mr. Randazzo, I am sure he would confirm this. The 2D panel will still be there but the trend is increasingly toward heavily detailed and functional VCs with many commercial FS developers. The PMDG NG takes quite a toll with its VC so that's why I posed the issue.With regard to the AI/UT, you are right. I'd forgotten about the impact this makes at busy airports. Thanks for the reminder!JS

[John_Tavendale 453]

Vin has done a wonderful job in building the VC of the Queen.I think people will be pleasantly surprised with the frame rates. We've (Vin's) learnt a lot since building the NG. ;)

[JSACKS 0]

Hey, John:That sounds like ENCOURAGING news. Thanks for posting it!Cheers!Jonathan

[B777ER 2,485]

>Vin has done a wonderful job in building the VC of the>Queen.>>I think people will be pleasantly surprised with the frame>rates. We've (Vin's) learnt a lot since building the NG. ;)This does sound VERY encouraging.

[Orlaam 306]

>>You are taking things too literally. No, it doesn't say>"emphasis" on VC, but the implication is that PMDG is building>a VC because they want and hope folks to use the VC more. But>from recent comments and if you asked Mr. Randazzo, I am sure>he would confirm this. The 2D panel will still be there but>the trend is increasingly toward heavily detailed and>functional VCs with many commercial FS developers. The PMDG>NG takes quite a toll with its VC so that's why I posed the>issue.>>With regard to the AI/UT, you are right. I'd forgotten about>the impact this makes at busy airports. Thanks for the>reminder!>>JS>>I just posted this in another forum, but I'll repeat it here. I've only seen a couple of VCs that were good enough that I'd fly them in VC only, and they were the RealAir Scout and Spitfire. The Spitfire looks perfect, but it's a panel and fairly simple as planes go. I can't imagine a complex VC running at 20+ frames in all conditions with the computers we have today. Most users with the PMDG and top-notch computers running AS2004, UT AI, and who knows what else aren't getting extremely high FPS. I would hate to think some developers are going to drop 2D panels completely like one such developer did. That other developer designed their NG cockpit to run better on low end systems and it showed. With complex aircraft that have overheads, consoles, and a myriad of other panels and gauges, I can't see how some fly VC only. I need perfect gauge quality and prefer to see things straight on, and the VCs don't always cater to that.I'm happy to see that the add-ons I'm looking forward to will have 2D panels. Looks like the 747 and MD-11 will. Same with the other developers projects I'm interested in. I can see going strictly VC in the near future, but as far as FS9 is concerned, I think it's a bad idea.

[rsrandazzo 6,353]

Gents-We are still a bit to early in the development process to make DIFINITIVE comments on the FPS load, however......We started development on the PMDG 737 series airplanes in April/Mayt of 2002. We did this with little or no knowledge of the level of complexity to which we would finally take the airplane.The systems are written in numerous gauges and and a different format than the display gauges- and the visual model was not as efficient as it would have been had we known a few things at the time we started.....So- this being our second major new product- we have learned a thing or fifty.....Part of the reason why the 747-400 is taking so long is that we are porting our system's model into the same platform that the gauges are written in....As a result- we expect that the 747-400 will be approximately 30% more efficient in the VC than the 737NG..... As michael pointed out- the complexity of the system's model is NOT the driving factor- it's the EFFICIENCY of that model.We're putting a significant amount of time into making sure that PMDG's products don't spiral out of reach of the current technology.....Once we get the bird into beta- we'll be able to post FINAL hardware requirements. For now- i think you can expect to run the 744 at least as well as you run the 737.... and most likely better.

[B777ER 2,485]

>The systems are written in numerous gauges and and a different>format than the display gauges- and the visual model was not>as efficient as it would have been had we known a few things>at the time we started.....>>Part of the reason why the 747-400 is taking so long is that>we are porting our system's model into the same platform that>the gauges are written in....>>As a result- we expect that the 747-400 will be approximately>30% more efficient in the VC than the 737NG..... As michael>pointed out- the complexity of the system's model is NOT the>driving factor- it's the EFFICIENCY of that model.>>We're putting a significant amount of time into making sure>that PMDG's products don't spiral out of reach of the current>technology.....>>Once we get the bird into beta- we'll be able to post FINAL>hardware requirements. For now- i think you can expect to run>the 744 at least as well as you run the 737.... and most>likely better.>Robert,I hate comparing products from different developers but in this instance, it (I believe this is a valid comparison in regards to memory useage only) goes off what you wrote about gauges. I noticed in the Gauge folder of FS9, the NG has many while the PSS A330/340 package has 1. Is this a factor that would cause the NG to have 250-300MB more cpu resources in regards to memory needed? The fact that there are many gauges working together instead of just one main gauge for everything? Again, this is not a knock on your plane at all, just trying to see where all the memory is allocated to.

[JSACKS 0]

Robert:Many thanks indeed for your unexpected, thoughtful, and detailed post on this matter. It looks like positive news. I appreciate your consideration very much.Cheers!JS

[rsrandazzo 6,353]

Eric-No... It's really not related.The PMDG airplane takes more CPU resources for a variety of other reasons- including artwork and animation.

[crvm 0]

If that was the case then think of all those scenery files! Why not put all in one large file? While it sounds logical it really does not matter for performance..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" |

[michal 44]

>the trend is increasingly toward heavily detailed and>functional VCs with many commercial FS developers. Unless this "detail" will involve gauges that are as smooth as those in 2D panel then I am afraid the VC will have hard time catching up with 2D among **some** of the most hard core users. This is universally true in MSFS and have nothing to do with PMDG. I would gladly dump 2D in a second but VC, even though it looks better and better every week has obvious shortcomings as an IFR training platform.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2