Hi PMDG teamFirst I have to say your 737 aircraft is very good simulation. I only have this PMDG one so I can't talk about other products. But there is a well known problem with your products, that is often addressed in forums: they are very FPS hungry. Can you please find a way to solve this issuses for the forcoming products? Unhappily I have unistalled the 737 right afer buying the CD :(( very bad FPS even in 2D cockpit. I can use several other payware addons in 2D cokpit quite well. Not the PMDG 737 :(.Thanks

Hoi,you didn't say anything about your system specs, but there are some tricks to let even a pretty low system still have good frame rates. Of course you should start with disabling everything you don't need during flight - virus scanners, antispam etc. Next, see http://forums.simflight.com/viewtopic.php?...hlight=fps+tips for some very good advice on how to set up Flight Simulator. On my P4 2.4 @ 2.53, 1024, GeForce 6600GT I went from an average 10 to an average 18 FPS using this advice. Of course, in densely-populated areas it's a bit lower, but still very flyable. Good luck!

Hi, Gert and thanks for the answer, I really appreciate, so don't get me wrong when I say this:Of course, one can give up this and that to gain better FPS. But this is not the issue. The fact is that this plane very is FPS hungry, and I think PMDG should work on improving this issue, and not the users. I can't wait to get my hands on the PMDG 320 because I

Don't worry, in a good discussion I don't take things personal.About these tips, I never had the idea I gave up things. It looks better than before I implemented them - maybe if you really start counting single trees or so there's a difference, but the look and feel is even better than before. I'm pretty good with computers, but I realise there are many people that know better how to optimise settings - and not from a marketing point of view where deliberate (too) low system specs are given ("it runs on the specs we gave, it just doesn't look like the pictures we used to lure you into buying" ;) ), but from another fan's experience. This was a general remark BTW, not aimed at PMDG.IMHO, the planes from PMDG are as optimised as possible while still retaining all their functionality. Although I'm good with computers, I'm not a programmer myself, but if I compare the myriad of options in the PMDG planes with some other (payware) aircraft, I think they did a good job.Yes, the plane is resource-hungry, but you get a lot in return.Also, as you yourself said, your system has a - by now - older processor, only 512MB of memory and "only" 40 GB of hard disk space. Presumably you run WinXP, which needs at least 256MB of RAM to run pretty smooth, but more is better. That means you have 256 MB left for FS9, and that isn't very much.

Thanks again.Happily I run Win2000 :).I have sent you a private message, I hope you don't mind ;)

Win 2K? I'll bet you have for FS a lot of API service spoofing going on meaning indirect translated calls to drivers are going through several steps instead of direct calls to get things done. This really sucks CPU sources and available ram. My sweet spot for a 3.2 GHz XP Pro system mostly full sliders is 1.25 GB ram and I noticed that none necessary services killed I do not get any disk paging and acceptable (to me) frame rates with lots of AI at complex airports.I think in your case more ram could help in your environment if you do not wish to upgrade your O/S. You must have added GDI+ from the MS site.

MikeI:Your system is probably borderline for running any PMDG jet. You really need a 2Ghz+ processor, 1 GB of RAM, and perhaps a more powerful video card. I run PMDG on a DELL XPS Gen 4 with a 3.80Ghz processor, 1GB of RAM, and an ATI x850 xt pe card and get generally very good performance in 2D and 3D cockpits. When I ran the NG on my DELL 2.53Ghz PC, I got reasonably decent performance, but by no means superb performance.FS needs a lot of processing power and RAM and video RAM to run complex add-ons well. PMDG jets are very complex and do a lot of calculations; this requires brute PC processing power. The VC in the NG is very power hungry, the VC in the 744 is less so, but VC's need additional power to run well.I doubt you'll find that PMDG can or will do anything about your performance issues because I think they expect most of their customers to have reasonably hi-end PCs at this point in the evolution of FS.Jonathan Sacks

Thanx for the answers, guys!Well fist... I still have Win 2000 because I don't want to spend money on another OS :).Jonathan, I run Flight1 ATR really great, I don't think it's less complex :)