Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

midcon385

MD-11 System Requirements

Recommended Posts

Are the stated minimum and recommended system requirements on the PMDG MD-11 page specific for the FSX version or are they applicable for both versions?Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

FSX version. If you can run the 400X, you'll be fine, the MD-11 runs better than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about for FS9? Does the MD-11 run better than the 744 in FS9? That's all I'm concerned about, if the MD will run well on my system.Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I see no reason why that won't be the case, it most definitely runs better in FSX than the 400 does, so I assume that will remain the case in FS9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your rig is equal to or better than my rig - GET THIS FOR FSX!!!!!FANTASTIC!Best regards,Robin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the first beta version right through til the release version I have had good FPS and stability.I completed a 15.5 hour flight a few days back as a final test, no OOMs and only a numb butt to worry about.This aircraft is very thrifty on resources in FSX, so much so that it turned me from an avowed anti-FSXer into a dual-platform advocate overnight!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first aircraft I've flown in FSX where the VC frame rate equals the 2D frame rate. I'm still picking myself up off the floor.I'm actually trying to seriously fly from the VC for the first time since the VC first appeared in FS2002!Best regards,Robin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a 'for instance,' here's a setup to make comparisons: This is Q6600@3.6/4G-Ram@800Mhz/9800GTX+/42" monitor at 19x10 - in windowed mode - . Two other 19" monitors are running with other FSX windows (CDU's, etc) and email clients, flightaware web pages, etc. nHancer 8xS AA, 16AF, etc. (I think it's the AA 8xS, but something here is helping clean-up the Vcockpit).FSX setting tabs setup: Graphics: Frame target unlimited, Res, 19x10x32. Trilinear/AA off. Global Tex 100%. Lens Flare/Adv Anim on.Aircraft: Vcockpit. Hi-res on. Exterior Settings, all on. Scenery: Left side (These are all Vcard related except water). All sliders 100% except water at 2xLow and ground shadows off. Right side (These are all CPU related. Play with these for FPS dial-in). Scenery Complex 100%, AG 25%, GS off, SE 100%. Traffic (These are all CPU related. Play with these for FPS dial-in): All Off.Installed scenery: UTX/GEX/FSG scenerys. From the Vcockpit. Running an LAX approach starting at ~ 5000ft, through rollout. fully coupled approach/autoland with both 744 and the MD11. 744: 15 - 20FPS. Flyable, but a little choppy. MD11: 15 - 20FPS. Flyable, but completely smooth, AND Autogen can be increased to 100% And It Stays Smooth! During the beta, I initially noticed the MD seemed to run smoother. I really missed autogen on approach, but the 744 had always choked with anything above 25% autogen (even that was pushing it). With the MD, I was able to shove AG full right and the MD just kept on truckin'. It is sooo cool to see 3D stuff whizzing by on approach. Just to play, I got it down on the LA deck with AG at 100% and terrorized some neighborhoods at 50 feet. The little houses were flying by, smoooothly. The 744 was a slideshow. I'm not a programmer, but something very different (vs the 744) is going on with this MD11's code. I can almost run my default airplane settings setup with this 'big-dog' airplane. With a good addon traffic program, even a little traffic is possible. The MD11 runs BeTTer than the 744. Definitively better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JUST GET IT! :D It's excellent! :DI'll stop spamming the forums now! :-jumpy Night! @-@Best regards,Robin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The MD11 runs BeTTer than the 744. Definitively better.That is really good news!A reason for me to buy the FS9 version when it's out.Taking the high price into consideration I was in doubt.Now this statement helped me made a decision, I guess.Thanks! :)Best regards,Rafal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robin,Hahaha, this comment made my day :).Glad you are enjoying it, so am I! (but in 2D until I get a new rig)Are you btw using TrackIR with it?Tero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my rig spec far exceeds the minimum, but for the first time with FSX all I am now getting with the MD11X is OOM, System Freezes and CTD errors. I'll have a play around later when I finish work to see what it upsetting the system, but at present it's very frustrating..............System:EVGA 790i w 4GB DDR3 1600 RAMIntel QX9770 @ 3.4GHzDual XFX 1GB 9800GX2 in Quad SLIVista 32 Ultimate SP1FSX SP2Dell 3008WFP @ 1920x1200Dual SATA Samsung 750GB in RAID 1Single SATA Samsung 1TB In windowed mode the program stutters, in Full Screen it will run for a short while and then freezes with the busy icon showing. Using Ctrl+Alt+Del reveals that FSX has crashed.No problems with any other add-ons or scenery. FS9.1 runs fine and so does FSX without the MD11X.Rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, you - Must - set the 3G switch for that 32bit op system. 4Gs of ram and a non-switched 32bit system will OOM in a heartbeat (Or just go to Vista 64).No DX10 preview to start. Mine won't even run with DX10. Then turn down the FSX settings 'til things get stabilized. Mine crashes in high-slider/low frame rate environments. Looks like yur a clocker. A 400Mhz FSB is plenty. Get your CPU clock with the multi. Then, if you have that ram cranked out, crank it back in to "only" 2:1 and default timings. Ram running at 1600Mhz with default timings is plenty. As far as I know, you are the beta for SLI. If all else fails, break the SLI. Crysis needs it, but it won't help FS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>First, you - Must - set the 3G switch for that 32bit op>system. Sam, would you say the same about the FS9 version to come?I have 2GB RAM and I'm having performance problems with the Queen in FS9.1. Although FPS are high enough to enjoy, the virtual memory (page file) use stays around 1.3 GB through all the flight. Which, in the end - as we know, leads to OOMs.Although I've read the 3GB switch helps with OOMs, I haven't applied it (and really don't want to) for two reeasons:- I heard there are some potential system risks and I use one PC both for flying and for my work- I use almost only airports equipped in AES by Aerosoft and there are conflicts after applying the switch.To be clear: I'm not a PC guru, just an average user.Best regards,RafalWindows XP Home SP3 32bitIntelCore 2 Duo E8400 3GHz2GB RAMNVidia GeForce 8400GT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I'd throw my experience with the MD-11 overnight.I'm on a laptop with the following specs:E6700 2.66 ghz3 GB ram8600m GT 512mbVista Ultimate 32FSX AccelerationI honestly cannot believe how awesome this plane turned out. On top of that, it has significantly better performance than the 747X. I compare it to the performance I get with the Level-D 767. At times it was even better than it. In the following situations, my FPS is always locked to 35.External view on the ground was 30, in the air 35.VC on the ground was 20-25, in the air 25-30.2D panel on the ground was 25-30, in the air, 35.Just a note, this was on the tutorial flight and I have Ultimate Terrain Europe installed.The MD-11 is THE jet to bring FSX above FS9 in commercial aviation.Again, this thing is just remarkable. I can't wait to see how she does on my new quad core that I'll be building in the next month or so.Incredible job PMDG team. You've really done it this time.William M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William,Thanks for sharing your very positive experience with the MD11.One question though:>The MD-11 is THE jet to bring FSX above FS9 in commercial>aviation.Why's that? Does the FSX version have any significant features the FS9 version will not have?I'm asking as I'm a typical example of a heavy metal pilot with tones of addons resisting to switch over to FSX.Best regards,Rafal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply because it is the best jet addon to date (imho) and the performance it gives. The biggest reason people aren't using FSX seems to be performance. My laptop did not stutter even once during the tutorial flight.William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam,>First, you - Must - set the 3G switch for that 32bit op>system. 4Gs of ram and a non-switched 32bit system will OOM in>a heartbeat (Or just go to Vista 64).>++I thought SP2 took care of that problem by defaul? Vista 64 is not currently an option as the software used for the primary system use is not Vista 64 bit compatible (yet).>>No DX10 preview to start. Mine won't even run with DX10. Then>turn down the FSX settings 'til things get stabilized. Mine>crashes in high-slider/low frame rate environments. ++DX10 preview not used, as you say it makes things worse!!>>Looks like yur a clocker. A 400Mhz FSB is plenty. Get your CPU>clock with the multi. Then, if you have that ram cranked out,>crank it back in to "only" 2:1 and default timings. Ram>running at 1600Mhz with default timings is plenty. ++No overclocking - all settings are at default. System was designed to have horsepower without needing steroids too. >>As far as I know, you are the beta for SLI. If all else fails,>break the SLI. Crysis needs it, but it won't help FS. ++Not sure what breaking the SLI is going to do for all the other work that this machine is used for. Oh and a Beta too, wonderful.... ;o) Right, slow taxi trials first then...I will play around with the settings to see what works and let you know.Rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OOM problem really takes hold when a user has 4Gs of physical ram with a 32bit system. The op system keeps a "notepad" predicting future ram usage. If a user only has 2Gs on board, the prediction will be less likely to schedule greater than 2Gs (but not always. This op system function is dumb as a rock!)Just FYI, page file size will Not lead to OOMs. It's this prediction "notepad" thing that does it. Your poor frames are because of your CPU's clock. Using the pagefile won't hurt FPS rates, it will just cause scenery fuzzies.With a 32bit system and only 2Gs of physical ram, you will be relatively safe from OOMs . . . however with this big MD11 airplane (even in FS9) you might become more vulnerable. You're kinda trapped in a technology "rock v hard spot." http://www.anandtech.com/gadgets/showdoc.aspx?i=3034&p=4I don't like that 3G switch either. The best bet is to go with Vista 64. That will solve the OOM problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SP2 only allows the FSX.exe program to use > 2Gs - if the op system is ALSO enabled to allot > 2Gs to that program - . Make sure the Op System's 3G switch is AlSo, in fact, enabled. It's your only hope. . . . cuz the other OOM solution is to - Remove - 2Gs of ram.That's really a monster box, but these huge programs and big systems are pushing the edge of these puny 32bit op systems. The Vcard memory is also observed by this OOM talley sheet. That's potentially another 2Gs of Vmemory this little 2G memory talley sheet column will have to find room for . . . and there may be not enough room, even at 3GS. . . or even at 4Gs. Between a lecherous FSX and a randy MD11, this could be big trouble! I actually OOM'd my 64bit system at 4.1Gs with the 744 and a 512M Vcard. It was a science project and I had to really work at it, but here we are. You may just be giving this couple too much (hardware) love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really sorry but all this talk of huge increases in hardware capabilities just to run this MD-11 is plain crazy. I don't mean to be disrespectable to the PMDG folks but having to go to 64-bit OS, very expensive RAM solutions, expensive graphics cards, and 3Gb switch hacks is not the way to put across to the user community a wonderfully designed aircraft that won't work on anything short of a desktop Cray.Having to adopt a 64-bit OS brings on so many problems - drivers, software, communications, and the like. We're already running up hill with FSX and now you want us to purchase an addon that a high-end system won't run. This will be a configuration nightmare.I don't know how much more complex the MD-11 is over the B744 but PMDG efforts on the development of the Boeing managed to deliver a complex aircraft that will run successfully under Vista and FSX.I'm sorry, but I'm disappointed. I just spent over 200USD for the aircraft and documentation and now I have a problem I can't solve without huge outlays for a new system - just to fly one aircraft.Frank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, your right. This is a real clumsy time to be trying to push the state of the (software) art . . . but here we are. The real stumbling block is this darn 32 > 64 bit operating system transition we are butt-up against. This airplane had 2 choices. Dumb it down to run on any 32bit system, or run on the edge of a 32bit operation system. It didn't get dumbed down. The hardware needed to run this airplane is actually ExTremely modest. Check this out: http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWi...tNumber=7159746This essentially my system. For 800 stick set and a $100 8800GT. That's It. It doesn't take big money to do this . . . only smart money. So whats ya got now? Bet we can get you there cheap. This is not a transition for a PMDG MD11. This is a transition for the "forever after" (that is until we hit the 64bit's 16TB barrier!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frank,With respect.I have a very old AXP2600+ system, X800XT Radeon on top of old WinXP 32. I can run the MD-11 very well, with FSX display settings tuned to low, mid-low settings. FPS is locket at 30FPS, and I am getting around 25-30fps all the time.The MD-11 is easier on the resources than the 744. If you can run the 744, you can run the MD-11.rgds,Tero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tero,I respect your position. However, you are comparing apples to oranges. MS XP is a different OS from Vista. In my opinion you can't compare how the aircraft runs under XP with attempts to run it under Vista.If PMDG optimized this product under XP then it is possible some problems fell through the crack - for me one of them being able to successfully fly the aircraft (or at least taxi to the active). On my system the product crashes. I fly many aircraft without problems. I shouldn't have to dial all settings back to zero just to fly this one product.Frank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites