Hi everyone,Firstly, I'm sorry for posting such a question again as others have certainly wondered the same. I haven't been in FS for quite some time cause I have had enough real aviation in my life those months. However, with the release of PMDG MD11 I would really like to jump back into this boat. A while ago I even bought a brand new computer which I thought should handle FSX fine. I manage to get decent performance if I fly default planes but for example PMDG 747 in FSX is nothing to be happy about. 2D is okay but VC is just tooo slow in FPS. Especially at big airports...My computer details are in my signature and I do believe that FSX should be usable also with quality addons on this system. How much does one need to throw money into the PC anyway to get FSX finally stable? I just feel somewhat helpless.Perhaps I'm missing something important... Someone told me that Quad processor might decrease the performance in FSX. Any of this true?So finally, should I even bother putting money under the MD11 or will it be too slow?I really thank you all for assistance!

The quad core is good if you want minimal blurred scenery. The dual core is good if you want maximum FPS as you have more room for overclocking.Neither are a bad choice, and clock for clock a quad core will not make FSX slower compared with dual core.I am not sure the hardware has arrived yet to make FSX run with FS9 like performance, we'll see when nehalem arrives.

>I manage to get decent performance if I fly default>planes but for example PMDG 747 in FSX is nothing to be happy>about. 2D is okay but VC is just too slow in FPS. Especially>at big airports...With highly defined virtual cockpits and big airports comes demand on the computer system, and something has to be traded off. Scenery sliders need different settings in such instances (from settings for default aircraft away from densely populated airports).I tend to stay away from the commercial add-on aircraft just for this reason.ArtBiostar TF560-A2+, Athlon 64X2-6000+, 4GB RAM, Geforce 8800GTS-320MB, 500W PSU, 250GB HD, FSX(SP1-SP2), Audigy SE sound, Vista Home Premium 32 bit, CH Yoke & Pedals, 22" WS LCD monitor

The FPS with the MD11 is slightly better, but the smoothness is significantly better. If you O/C that Q to 3.6, the MD11 will run fine.

Thanks for the info. I tried with the 747 again at the Aerosoft EGLL scenery. In VC the average is around 15 but the picture is somewhat smooth enough. I've just preferred to use FS9 cause there I get completely smooth graphics. I read in the PMDG forums that someone said he gets A LOT better performance from the MD11 than the 747. SO you can confirm this as well? Is the performance still much worse than some default airliner?Overclocking the Q6600 to 3.6 - I suppose the first step would be to buy some heavy cooling for it? It's running fine at 3.0 but I believe it was at 3.4 when it started acting up.

Here's the cooler: http://www.directron.com/u120e.htmlAnd here's the FPS rundown 744 v MD11:Just as a 'for instance,' here's a setup to make comparisons:This is [email protected]/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.Weather: 60mi clouds. 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.