Md-11

[Guest CX355]

I thought I would chime in and just say, yes, there are a few bugs that nn to be worked out. I have probably every Heavy available for FS-9 and I can say that this acrft is great. Experience w/ your system, FS-9 and the rules regarding add-on's etc. are probably the root to many users problems. I cannot comment on FSX or Vista, but these have had their share of problems long before the MD-11. I too have run into a few snags but they have not affected my overall view of the product. PMDG has always come through and I have no doubt they will on this acrft as well. Only individuals who develop these things truely understand all the obsticles involved w/ development. I have only the highest praise for all of them. I have said it before, this is not a multi million dollar sim and as such should always be viewed in this light. It is great entertainment and I always look at it this way. The future for the younger folks out there will see things we cannot even imagine today, but as an older guy who could only get enjoyment building models for so many years, this aspect of computers has truely given me something I otherwise would never have had any concept about. It is sometimes easy to forget what the first flight sims were like, dails and no scenery, no yoke etc. only a mouse. No color screens. These products are truely amazing. Hercules

[ripthejacker99 6]

It would have amazing if this was brought out in the days when other sims had no dials, colour etc, but that was 30 years ago..................................................

[Guest Mower]

I have been around FS and flight simming in general on the pc/atari/C64 forever.I have and love the MD-11 and 744 for FSX. They are excellent.However, it has to be said: FSX was released unstable and broken and has not gotten better. In particular, its inexcusable ability not to leverage more than a single core.With the PMDG product running in FSX I cannot get over 15 FPS on the tarmac, making it very diificult to land by hand among other things. I do not blame PMDG for this. But I am fed up.I had another look at FS9 and concluded that would be a major step backwards. So I cannot win.Carry on.

[CaptEm1 6]

I have been around FS and flight simming in general on the pc/atari/C64 forever.I have and love the MD-11 and 744 for FSX. They are excellent.However, it has to be said: FSX was released unstable and broken and has not gotten better. In particular, its inexcusable ability not to leverage more than a single core.With the PMDG product running in FSX I cannot get over 15 FPS on the tarmac, making it very diificult to land by hand among other things. I do not blame PMDG for this. But I am fed up.I had another look at FS9 and concluded that would be a major step backwards. So I cannot win.Carry on.

Sitting in a PMDG 747, I'm getting a minimum of 20fps with almost everything maxed out, 50% ai traffic and with heavy weather, you just need a better system. There are also tweaks and stuff available. FSX is a hardware hog, but there are solutions.

It would have amazing if this was brought out in the days when other sims had no dials, colour etc, but that was 30 years ago..................................................

Ripthejack, the PMDG MD-11 is the most advanced airliner simulator out on the market, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. All you do is offend and insult the PMDG developers with every comment you make. It's OK to be a newbie and not understand what you have in front of you, but it's not OK to throw a hissyfit on the support forum because your system is messed up. Clean up your act, then come back.CaptEm

[Guest Mower]

you just need a better system. There are also tweaks and stuff available. FSX is a hardware hog, but there are solutions.

I build computers as a hobby. There is nothing wrong with my gaming rig. It's an overclocked quad core. It plays other intensive modern games just fine, including Black Shark.The simple and inexcusable fact is that FSX is NOT a 'resource hog" per say; it is CPU intensive and does not offload to the GPU as any other properly code modern game does.

[CaptEm1 6]

I build computers as a hobby. There is nothing wrong with my gaming rig. It's an overclocked quad core. It plays other intensive modern games just fine, including Black Shark.The simple and inexcusable fact is that FSX is NOT a 'resource hog" per say; it is CPU intensive and does not offload to the GPU as any other properly code modern game does.

Yep, I build computers aswell, and I know fsx relies much more on cpu than the gpu, but if you only get 15fps max on the ground with a hardcore gaming rig something's wrong.

[Guest GAMER]

Yep, I build computers aswell, and I know fsx relies much more on cpu than the gpu, but if you only get 15fps max on the ground with a hardcore gaming rig something's wrong.

I want to chime in here as well, this is the only aircraft I ever want to fly, yeah it's that good, despite the few very minor problems that I am sure will be covered in a patch, this is an amazing program! PMDG as raised the bar once again. Thanks PMDG.Michael P.

[Guest Mower]

Yep, I build computers aswell, and I know fsx relies much more on cpu than the gpu, but if you only get 15fps max on the ground with a hardcore gaming rig something's wrong.

What are your mods please?I am using the following:GEX (Ground Effects X)UTX for Canada & USA (Ultimate Terrain X)ASA (Active Sky Advanced)REX (Real Environment Extreme)Radar Contact 4.3FSPX (FS Passengers X)Traffic X (AI set to 60 %)PMDG MD-11Now I grant you this might be excessive but what do you run bud?Thanx.