2.4 Ghz Core 2 Duo sufficient for 747 on FSX?

[Guest Mendota]

Subject pretty much says it all. I fly on a MacBook Pro. 4 Gig RAM. Nvidia GeForce 86ooGT 256 VRAM. Vista with Boot Camp runs everything else I have pretty well (Wilco Airbuses and 737PIC).

[Guest Mendota]

Above by Tim Capps (real name).

[spesimen 135]

Hi,I'm using an older 2.4 machine with 8800GT/512meg, 2gig ram.In my experience the 747 performance is nearly unflyable using my regular settings that get me 30-50 with default aircraft. If i turn off water shaders (using 1.5 at most) and no traffic it helps a bit and makes it usable. For some reason this plane just eats a ton of frames. It's a nice plane, and when I first got it I assumed that fps hit was something i would just have to put up with if i wanted a detailed FMC (the 747 was my first really complex payware plane), but i've since discovered the MD-11 performs very well on my system (as does ld767) so I'd speculate that the 747 uses an older codebase that isn't as efficient. In summary, you can probably get it flyable but don't expect too much. I would highly recommend the md-11, however. Actually I kind of wish the pmdg guys would redo the 747 using the md-11 techniques since it's a fine plane otherwise. cheers,-andy crosby

[Guest Mendota]

Is that a single or dual processor? I think that might make a difference.I owned the PMDG 747 before, and really miss it now that I am back into flight simming.I think there are plenty of route opportunities at my VA for an MD-11, but it isn't a 747. I'll have to do some research on the MD-11 (plane not flightsim plane) to see if I can develop enough excitement about it to buy.

[Cuddly1956 1]

Well I ran fsx on a pentium D I think it was 2.6 or so and found as long as I limited fsx to 20fps it was ok, no water effects, limited graphics, etc but ran the 747x ok most of the time. Addon airports slowed it to 5-7 frames but still flyable.Think that was single core (maybe not) too, so I expect you'd be ok as long as you don't crank it up too high.upgraded now, of course, especially as the motherboard died lol.John E

[spesimen 135]

Is that a single or dual processor? I think that might make a difference.I think there are plenty of route opportunities at my VA for an MD-11, but it isn't a 747. I'll have to do some research on the MD-11 (plane not flightsim plane) to see if I can develop enough excitement about it to buy.

my system is a dual core. i like the md-11 not so much because of the specific plane, but PMDG's version the state-of-the-art as far as these addons go. more details and systems than the 747 and performs quite well too! the plane itself, yeah.. it's kind of lacking in 'elegance' with the 3rd engine just kinda smushed onto the tail.. at first i wasn't sure how i would feel about a 'retro' plane but it takes off like a rocket and has amazing range, it's really grown on me.cheers,-andy crosby

[Guest Mower]

From a purely FPS vantage, the PMDG 744 is a disaster. So low you cannot even land her by hand.Tellingly, even in the AOA training DVD, the FPS are poor as the sim is jerky.Much better is the MD-11. With the code written outside of decrepid FSX and the initial caching of panels, it is a leap forward and quite flyable.

[Guest SkullxBones]

I have a quad core and get decent FPS with the 747, it's my favorite plane. I don't know how I'd feel about it with a lesser CPU though. I'd gladly pay for a version 2.0 747 and I suspect many others would also.Jeff P.

[Nfus 0]

For FSX (and all its add-ons) the most important thing you should look at it is the power of the CPU you want to buy.When we talk about CPU power I mean the Processor frequency: the highest Mhz you can have the highest FPS you will obtain.I write all this because if you use your PC mostly for flying Simmming, there is absolutely no need to waste huge amont of money for the newest CPUsExample: for FSX purpose it is much better having an "old" Intel E8600 Duo at 3.3mhz (even better if overclocked!) rather than a newer and most expensive CPU like a Q9550 Quad (at 2.8mhz).BUT: before you buy/change anything on your PC, I HARDLY raccomend all of you to get in touch with these guys: http://www.fs-gs.com/contact.htmYou will not believe how much money you will be able to save following their suggestions.Nick

[macpac22 0]

HowdyAs an iMac user, ive been running FS9 with the PMDG 747 on Boot Camp for a few weeks now. It handles it beautifully on high settings. Ive heard conflicting reports from Apple users with FSX that run the Queen. I would recommend searching on youtube for any users running the Queen on FSX with Boot Camp. There are quite a lot of videos on there with specs attached.

[Guest Mendota]

I went for the MD-11.The PDMG 747 was one of my favorites, but I opted for the newer product. I did the tutorial flight last night and it ran amazingly smooth on my system. This is a very nice airplane. I remember flying to Aviano on my way to Sigonella on a World Airlines big tri-jet with three kids still in diapers, with a stop in the Azores. (Twins were involved.) The baby cried so much an FA wanted to know if we wanted "something" for her :-) So the personal connection justified my buying the product, even though I think it is an ugly airplane (albeit beautifully recreated here).I thought the B377 was ugly at first, too; now I think she's beautiful. So I know airplanes you enjoy flying tend to grow on you.The VA I"m with offers many classic routes with the MD-11, so I'm happy. (The tutorial was one of the best I've seen, too.)