I have the MD-11 for FSX, but in my constant search for top knotch performance, FSX is quickly becoming my GA sim while FS9 remains my preferred Airline simulator.What will I be missing with the FS9 version of the PMDG MD-11?I know each aircraft is the same cost, so I am hoping not much. Thoughts/opinions?Thanks!

Well, since everyone is entitled to an opinion no matter how wrong it may be, here is mine! :D I own both the FSX and FS9 version and though I must confess I haven't used the FSX version much I really don't recall any real difference apart from the interior lights being more controllalble in the cockpit in the FSX version! I expect to soon see a list of hundreds more differing items and most definitely PMDG would be able to produce a long list with things you can do in FSX but not in FS9, but I am very very happy with PMDG MD11 for FS9.

Arklight I noticed your signature that you have quite a computer system. I'm thinking of building one similiar seeing that all the major developers are moving to FSX for their addons.Is their a reason why you say FSX is more for GA instead of heavy iron flying? Is it low FPS or something else?My wife is working a second job to help out with the money to afford a new computer just for FSX but seeing your specs and how your unhappy with the MD-11 in FSX I am asking if you could elaborate before I waste hard earned money.Thanks for any opinions,Sean

Arklight I noticed your signature that you have quite a computer system. I'm thinking of building one similiar seeing that all the major developers are moving to FSX for their addons.Is their a reason why you say FSX is more for GA instead of heavy iron flying? Is it low FPS or something else?My wife is working a second job to help out with the money to afford a new computer just for FSX but seeing your specs and how your unhappy with the MD-11 in FSX I am asking if you could elaborate before I waste hard earned money.Thanks for any opinions,Sean

Hello Sean,To be quite honest, even with my system, the performance of FSX is still nowhere near what I "like" to see in a simulator (the key word here being "I"). A lot of folks are happy flying at a stable 20 FPS, I however am not. I need to see at least 30 fps or it seems "choppy" to me. FSX, while it does look nicer in some regards, in others it doesn't (just my opinion of course). On my current system, I run FSX with just about maxed out settings except for AI and visible distance (AI I keep at 59, airport vehicles at Medium, Cars at 12, boats and other at 30) and a few other settings. Flying into a large airport with a lot of AI still sort of "tanks my performance". It is not irregular to see about 15 fps in some cases, which I find completely unacceptable. Even if 20 fps or lower is fine for flying, it does somewhat ruin the immersion for me. Or......maybe I am just used to fluid framerates in FS9. Now, it is important to note that the resolution I run at does put a rather large strain on most systems. For reference, I also own a 23 inch Widescreen (16:9 aspect ratio) and performance is better, but not by a whole lot. Settings wise, I use what NickC recommends in his NHancer guide. On a side note, I also tested my system OC'd to 4.0 ghz and still did not see that much of a difference (maybe 2-3 fps over what I get at 3.6 ghz). With General Aviation aircraft FSX performance is pretty rock solid on my system, and if I am at altitude in an Airliner than performance is also quite good. However, once I get into the pattern with weather and heavy AI...that is a whole other matter. With GA aircraft, performance maintains itself pretty darn well throughout.Don't get me wrong, it is not that I dislike FSX or am unhappy with the MD-11 in FSX, I just expect a lot more out of my experience. When I can fly into a crazy San Francisco with AI everywhere, heavy weather, all settings maxed (with GE Pro, UT, FE Pro, and AS), and at 2560x1600 with FSAA set as high as possible with Gamma Correction and Super-Sampling enabled, and still maintain 40+ FPS...I am a happy camper. I can do this with FS9 at every airport I have been to on my system. FSX runs "ok", definately better than my older Core 2 Duo at 3.6 ghz and 8800 GTX, but still not what I would expect from my system I built below. Btw, outside of my graphics card and display, my system was not too expensive, relatively speaking.It really depends on what you are looking for. One thing is for sure though, with my system below, you could have an AWESOME FS9 setup and run it at very high resolution with max settings and the highest FSAA and AF you can get. If you are a GA flyer and that is what you do most, FSX is pretty darn nice, and performance is not too shabby at all. I can run the RealAir Duke or the Carenado offerings and get very good performance my whole flight. For Heavy airliner type aircraft, I guess a part of me does not really see the value in FSX yet. If you are deadset on upgrading right now, than the system I built below would more than likley be more than adequate for anything you will be doing. Sometimes my expectations regarding FSX performance are a little unreasonable. lol But they may not be in 1-1.5 years. :)What are your current system specs?

My wife is working a second job to help out with the money to afford a new computer just for FSX Sean

SeanDoes she have a sister? Will she marry me?Good job mate!!!! :( :(

Hmm Arklight. That's interesting. You've even overclocked that 920 and still it doesn't perform to your liking. I am about to finish the build in my sig, similar to yours, so hopefully I see something satisfactory :( :(

Nope no sister, she surprised me the other day saying she was allowing me to build a new computer with the extra money she makes next month hopefully from her part time job. I was in shock to say the least. The money I was going to use for a new computer earlier this year I ended up buying her a new car (Miata); put tires on my daughters car along with a prom dress etc. Yes I'm showing my age.I still run a system I built about 5 years ago and its showing its age. P4 3.2 with 1 gig mem and a 6800GT 512meg video card. Yea, laugh. I have actually loaded and run FSX on this system granted no autogen, no traffic, no scenery etc and can maintain pretty fluid framerates (unlimited) with GA as you say but as part of my VA I need to fly the heavy iron. I love the MD-11 and 747 for FS9 but know those don't have a chance in FSX on my system.I'm not into the AI traffic so thats the least of my worries; I find it causes more disruption on landings and is very unrealistic in its spacing so I've flown without AI basically since the beginning of FS9 until Radar Contact and space it out better. I also don't buy addon scenery at all only addon aircraft or utilities. So I'd be running with the stock scenery for all airports.I'm looking at either a quad core 9650 or I-720 as yours and making sure I spend the money well because this computer will need to last another 5 years like my old one did; I've got a second daughter in high scool next year and my oldest about to start college so money will be tight for the next 4 years and beyond and I just want to get it right.Thanks for your detailed answer; I do appreciate it.By the way I love the MD-11 for FS9; I really don't think there is a big difference other than lighting from what I've read.Sean

Nope no sister, she surprised me the other day saying she was allowing me to build a new computer with the extra money she makes next month hopefully from her part time job. I was in shock to say the least. The money I was going to use for a new computer earlier this year I ended up buying her a new car (Miata); put tires on my daughters car along with a prom dress etc. Yes I'm showing my age.I still run a system I built about 5 years ago and its showing its age. P4 3.2 with 1 gig mem and a 6800GT 512meg video card. Yea, laugh. I have actually loaded and run FSX on this system granted no autogen, no traffic, no scenery etc and can maintain pretty fluid framerates (unlimited) with GA as you say but as part of my VA I need to fly the heavy iron. I love the MD-11 and 747 for FS9 but know those don't have a chance in FSX on my system.I'm not into the AI traffic so thats the least of my worries; I find it causes more disruption on landings and is very unrealistic in its spacing so I've flown without AI basically since the beginning of FS9 until Radar Contact and space it out better. I also don't buy addon scenery at all only addon aircraft or utilities. So I'd be running with the stock scenery for all airports.I'm looking at either a quad core 9650 or I-720 as yours and making sure I spend the money well because this computer will need to last another 5 years like my old one did; I've got a second daughter in high scool next year and my oldest about to start college so money will be tight for the next 4 years and beyond and I just want to get it right.Thanks for your detailed answer; I do appreciate it.By the way I love the MD-11 for FS9; I really don't think there is a big difference other than lighting from what I've read.Sean

Sean,So would it be right to say that FSX is better suited to lower altitude GA traffic and the heavy stuff is better off sticking with FS9 where scenery is of lesser importance? You bought your wife a Miata? I just bought one ( we call them MX5s here) but had to wait until all the children had left home. You are ahead on points mate!!Gerry

Sean,So would it be right to say that FSX is better suited to lower altitude GA traffic and the heavy stuff is better off sticking with FS9 where scenery is of lesser importance? Gerry

I agree with that statement. FSX crushes most systems. The only difference between user experience is their 'yardstick' for acceptable performance. If you can fly at 15 fps, little traffic and a few random system crashes/freezes every other day, then FSX is perfect. For me, FSX crashes randomly and the MD11 is unflyable and unreliable. The FS9 version works very well in heavy weather, heavy traffic and 3rd party airports. My only gripe is I lost money on the craps shoot setup by PMDG. Specifically, having to buy the airplane twice at full price because PMDG declined a request to take advantage of the combo price after the initial purchase. (That's after I find out the FSX version regularly crashes my system.) Bob..

Hmm Arklight. That's interesting. You've even overclocked that 920 and still it doesn't perform to your liking. I am about to finish the build in my sig, similar to yours, so hopefully I see something satisfactory :( :(

I am sure you will. As soon as I wrote the post above, I went into FSX and started doing some tinkering here and there (and I downloaded the latest Enhancer) and my performance got quite a jump. The PMDG MD-11 (FSX) seems to stay pretty much above 35 fps at all times except at the very large airports where I have a lot of traffic. Still not as nice as FS9, but not too bad. Now flying into La Guardia with all settings maxed and 100% A.I.? Probably not very fun...still flyable though. I am still very much interested in the MD-11 for FS9. I still think that FSX is better suited for general aviation aircraft and other smaller (say regional type aircraft) though. FSX definately has some nicer graphics (in some parts), but to be honest, with some of the add-ons out there (GE Pro, UT, FE, AS, etc..) the gap is pretty darn close. With Flight Environment Extreme coming out for FS9 soon, the gap will be even smaller. In my opinion, I still think FS9 looks more "realistic" with regards to coloring/shading. FSX almost seems too "bright and cheery" at times. I can't really put my finger on it, but FS9 just looks "smoother" (not sure if that is the proper term either) in some instances to me.

I have the MD-11 for FSX, but in my constant search for top knotch performance, FSX is quickly becoming my GA sim while FS9 remains my preferred Airline simulator.What will I be missing with the FS9 version of the PMDG MD-11?I know each aircraft is the same cost, so I am hoping not much. Thoughts/opinions?Thanks!

More polygons, better lighting ability, bump mapping, self shadowing, and better gauge refresh rate potential. Other than that, nada, zilch, nil, zero. I have both and they both do exactly the same thing. Just like the PMDG 747 or the LDS 767 or any other high fidelity aircraft for that matter. Oh, except that you can have the FS9 version with all sliders right, 100% AI traffic and 50 FPS -or- FSX version, all siders right, 100% AI traffic and 8 FPS (with a tailwind, while driving downhill, and a rocket motor strapped to your back).

More polygons, better lighting ability, bump mapping, self shadowing, and better gauge refresh rate potential. Other than that, nada, zilch, nil, zero. I have both and they both do exactly the same thing. Just like the PMDG 747 or the LDS 767 or any other high fidelity aircraft for that matter. Oh, except that you can have the FS9 version with all sliders right, 100% AI traffic and 50 FPS -or- FSX version, all siders right, 100% AI traffic and 8 FPS (with a tailwind, while driving downhill, and a rocket motor strapped to your back).

Thanks for the info., Mike. Much appreciated.I went ahead and purchased the FS9 version and I am downloading it now. Thanks again to everybody for the help/information.

Ok, purchased and installed last night. Looks the same as the FSX version and functions the same as the FSX version (minus a few lighting options that I can tell), it also stays locked at 40 fps (what I have FS9 locked at). I haven't really noticed any difference between the FS9 offering when compared to the FSX version. One thing is for sure though...the added performance makes it much more enjoyable. On a side note, I wish the internal cockpit glass had some type of shine bitmap or something to it (like on the CS 757) and that the external glass had the shine effects, but that would be nice for both the FS9 and FSX MD-11 versions. The internal glass bitmap adds to the VC immersion for me. Has anybody added this to the aircraft?

I can now safely say that I share Arklight's view on FS9/X with Core i7.FS9 is like liquid now. 50-60 fps going into Heathrow with the PMDG MD11 + TrackIR + FS2Crew. It's like a dream. Definitely the preferred sim for me as a heavy jet man.If on the other hand I want to kick back and fly some GA in the hills, the FSX is the place to be. But not for airliners. Still no chance of that I am afraid.