Archived

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

kiwikat

Flythemaddog 2008 Pro

Recommended Posts

I know there was a review done not too long ago, but it doesn't elaborate on the performance issues. I am more than aware that the maddog 2008 pro is a FS9 portover. However, it seems to be the only good offering of a "modern" MD-80. The super 80 pro from flight1/coolsky crashed for me more than Windows ME did (which is scary...). I couldn't even get off the ground without a CTD. I got a refund promptly. Has it been fixed since?Do any of you have the maddog 2008 pro? How are the FPS and what are your system specs? Thanks. :(

Share this post


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

I have the Coolsky Super 80 Pro, with the latest beta patch, and it's been very stable. The frame rates (for me) are on par with the PMDG MD-11, which is to say (again on my machine), very good. Overall it's an outstanding addon, with a lot of depth.I don't have the Maddog version, but I seem to recall reading the FPS impact is greater than the CoolSky version. Perhaps someone that has both can comment.Noel WBrisbane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noel, what OS are you using? It seemed to me that the people having issues when I was, all had vista. I've since moved from 32 bit to 64 bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have the Coolsky Super 80 Pro, with the latest beta patch, and it's been very stable. The frame rates (for me) are on par with the PMDG MD-11, which is to say (again on my machine), very good. Overall it's an outstanding addon, with a lot of depth.I don't have the Maddog version, but I seem to recall reading the FPS impact is greater than the CoolSky version. Perhaps someone that has both can comment.Noel WBrisbane
Noel, a comparison with the default Cessna 172 would be nice. What fps do you get wilt the default C172 and with the Super80 Pro? You could use a scenario in VC standing still on the same runway with all settings exactly the same. Just give us the fps, and that will give us a fair picture of the Super80 pro. OK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I decided to repurchase the super80 pro and see how it is after a service pack and beta patch. I can at least get it in the air this time :)The McPhat AA livery for it is awesome looking, especially with the new bloom DLL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noel, what OS are you using? It seemed to me that the people having issues when I was, all had vista. I've since moved from 32 bit to 64 bit.I'm using XP Home (didn't know about the 3gb switch at the time), though I also have a HDD with Vista 64, which by comparison, runs worse. I was just testing the two platforms the other night and without a doubt, XP runs FSX better on my machine. The 'unlimited' tweak doesn't work on my machine; it might have something to do with multiple monitors. Dunno, just doesn't work. As an aside, I've experimented with Win7 32 and 64. Win7 is great...but of course it's still a beta. I'm thinking about switching to XP64, as Vista has not been good to me for some reason. (I use NickN's OS, FS, and nHancer tweak recommendations in each case.)Noel, a comparison with the default Cessna 172 would be nice. What fps do you get wilt the default C172 and with the Super80 Pro? You could use a scenario in VC standing still on the same runway with all settings exactly the same. Just give us the fps, and that will give us a fair picture of the Super80 pro. OK?I'm at work as I write this, but perhaps I can give you an idea of the performance I see. First off, I run a somewhat unusual configuration with more than one monitor. I wrote a long post here that has the details on the hardware and software if you're interested.Sitting on Rwy 10R at Monterey, Calif (KMRY), noon, with 5/8 cumulus 3000-8000 feet, 30 mile vis, MyTrafficX 15% airline, 7% GA, the FPS bounce around between roughly 30 and 39.5 (with FPS locked at 40). These numbers stay the same throughout the takeoff roll and climb, but bounce down into the 20's when flying through the clouds. All is generally smooth regardless. Note that I don't use Autogen and I don't usually fly into LAX or New York. BTW, this compares to the MD-11 which has equally good performance on my machine. On the Super80, I've noticed that having the MCDU panel open has a noticeable impact, so I usually hide it while taxiing or on takeoff. In climb and cruise it's not an issue. The MD-11 MCDU doesn't seem to have any impact. And no surprise, the traffic and clouds have significant impacts, so I temper them. I'll usually compromise on the side of ensuring smooth performance.Comparing these two airplanes to the PMDG 747X and the Flight1 Mustang...there's no comparison. The Mustang and 747X stutter on my machine to the point of distraction. The new Duke, well that runs smooth as butter. Then again, I'm only using the TH2go screens since it's VC only. Nevertheless, that's a very polished addon and FPS friendly.Trying to determine the FPS reminds me of that 'whack-a-mole' arcade game. The numbers go all over the place, it's very subjective. I've seen numbers generally in the mid-30's, and a '24' will flash for a split second. So some ignore the FPS counter and just judge the smoothness. But even that's subjective. Hmmm.I've not compared the stock 172, but I'd guess that it would stay solid at 39.5 or so in the above scenarios. The Super80 and the MD-11 are not far off, on my machine. YMMVHope this helps.Noel WBrisbane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites