Why is the MD-11 along the rest of the PMDG planes so resource intensive

[Guest familyguy]

Hello,I've recently bought the boxed editions of both the MD-11 and 747-400.What really hinders me from really enjoying these master pieces is the servely reduced FPS during the initial flight phase.Before you throw some accusations at me, let me assure you that my machine is highly optimized. My machine is comprised of the following parts : Intel E8500 cpu / 8 GB of ram and a nvidia GTX 285 superclocked videocard. i run windows 7 x64 (RTM), scenery setting : Normal, Autogen : NONE as i fly in photorealistic terrain only, clouds resolution 512x512.I use ASX with visiblity limited to 25miles. also cloud visiblty range is 60km and max layer depiction is 2.I do not use any AI traffic (no AI planes, nor ground vehicles also no boats and cars % is set to 20%).No matter where i fly i get only 20 FPS (locked at 30) in the VC and this really annoys me.So what is there left to do ? wait a year until Intel releases their next high-end CPU ? will that make a difference at all ? or maybe, just maybe we should DEMAND as cusomers that PMDG revise their code and try to optimize their products.To compare pmdg's addons with the rest of the addons, i've decided to compare it to flight1's highly complexed aircraft PC-12. this plane includes a lot of systems, GNS 530\430 , A waas and a lot more. yet it runs amazingly smooth and fluid on the same machine i "try" to run the PMDG products on.I would like to view some more opinons regarding this very disturbing issue.In addiction, i'd like to ask a technical question. How can i disable that annoying head/body movement simulation in the VC ?Thank you,Brian Wilkins.

[ehasanov1 1]

HiSomething wrong here.I would give just totally opposite review.In my case MD11 is the best PMDG a/c regarding FPS and system complexity.I have fs9, but in my case, MD11 works great. FPS locked and constant at 30And with everything maxed in FS9.My config:Intel C2E6750, ATI2900XT, 4GB RAM.Edin

[engwerda 0]

Brian,Recently my 2Gz laptop died (An ACER Ferrari 3400) and I had to revert to my backup a Toshiba A200 with dual 1.73GHz CPUs and an NVIDIA 7300 card to run FS2004. Taxiing out from Brisbane with a sky full of cumulus (Environment Pro) and 80% traffic I was getting around 6fps . So I stopped and set up a rival 767 an immediately got around 16 fps with the same environment set. This was both with a 2D panel - naturally with the VC and lots of weather with this system it went all to hell and was not worth flying.I need a new laptop, one with dual core 2.53Ghz CPUs but I am concerned that the 747 features so badly in the framerates. Has any one else found the same? With the current set up I can only fly the 767 but would love to fly the 747.Gerry

[pete_auau 1,154]

i be happy with fps 20 as long as the sim fly smoothly as mine does i got no prob having 20 fps with pmdg aircrafts

[Guest Mower]

I would give just totally opposite review.In my case MD11 is the best PMDG a/c regarding FPS and system complexity.I have fs9,

LOL: apples and oranges. I have hoime built gaming rig and am lucky to get 15-20 FPS on the ground with any add-onjet, LDS or PMDG.Of course FS9 gets good FPS! It's 7 years old! I will get a minimum 50 FPS with that!

[ESzczesniak 128]

This is far from the experience I've had. I've got an intel E8400 with 2 gb of RAM and an 8600 GT graphics card. I run the graphics options at an average of "very high" with a few key things like bloom turned off for performance reasons. Add in 50-60% AI traffic levels, REX and GEX and I get 18-22 fps in the VC of the MD-11 on the ground at FSDT O'Hare. I'm around 15 fps heading in to FSDT JFK. Their "rival" aircraft perform similarly, but slightly worse in the range of 16-18 fps normally. Not sure what the difference is, but I clearly have very different results. Sure, it's worse than default aircraft, but there are a lot more performance and navigation calculations going on behind the scenes for this one.And as a quick aside, I'm not sure the PC-12 is a great comparison. While complex compared to a Cessna, a heavy jetliner like the MD-11 and 747 are far more complex (not to mention phsyically a lot larger requiring more polygons for the model). A more fair comparison probably be something like *cough* a 767.

[phoenixphire 50]

I am certainly not an expert by any means. I know from reading on these forums over the years that the PMDG team has responded to users experiencing low frame rates. One of the issues that has been has been documented by members of the team is an issue related to click spots in the VC. This is an issue with FSX and I believe PMDG has worked as best they can to optimize their complex aircraft within the limitations of the FSX programming. This would be better addressed by the PMDG team. As far as my experience goes I run Quad4 and I have no problem with PMDG aircraft. I run with lots of add-ons and 100% traffic with UT2. The problem is more than likely the way your own system is configured. Configuring your system properly is a multifaceted approach. Although I suggested that the issue may be system related (sorry) I would suggest you look at NickN optimization thread "SETTING UP FSX and HOW TO TUNE IT" to try to optimize your system further if you have not already. Anyways I only really wanted to relay what the team has documented at other times. As far as optimization goes I don not think that you could find a better company that can work within the limitation of the FSX engine. http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=29041

[Guest realatp]

Yesterday I took my dog to the schimal.....it did, yet, I took then off to my buddies house.J T Collins

[CaptEm1 6]

At big and dense airports open up the FPS to Unlimited. That usually helps a lot. It's also very important that you defrag your computer after big installations. You gotta remember, PMDG planes are very complex, it's just so much stuff in them, and the physical size of it drags down on FPS too. And your CPU is not high end, an I7 is high end. If you haven't done it already, OC your cpu. And last, to be honest, 20 fps is not bad at all when you're at major airports.

[NoahBryant 26]

I'll agree with setting the FPS to unlimited...of ALLL the tweaks I did to get FSX running well, setting the FPS to unlimited was the best frame rate tweak I did. It got me about 15-20% more FPS in all situations. I know this makes no sense, but try it and see.Also - What's wrong with 20FPS around airports. I'm sure that in the air, you get your targeted 30 or higher (if not then there is something else wrong).Man I've been tweaking FSX since the day it came out and I'm finally gettting 20 FPS with PMDG planes at complex airports and i'm happy. The reason PMDG planes are the, worst in regards to fps is because they are so complex. To me, the reason PMDG planes are the best, is because they are so complex. You cant have it both ways. Yes clickspots are one problem, and with PMDG planes, nearly every single button, switch knob and everything works. To me, that's the point of PMDG planes.I dont think PMDG can do much more in this regard. If you look at how much FPS improved from the 747 to the MD11 you'll see that they did change a lot. I'm sure the J41 will go even further, but the J41 is also a much smaller plane with less to the model.goodluck!Noah B.

[Tabs 2,790]

Best advice I can give you is to get a Core i7 or the new Core i5 when it comes out in a few weeks. These are the CPUs that are starting to make FSX run pretty well. A Core 2 Duo really isn't the greatest thing for it - it benefits from the quad cores and newer architecture in the i series. FPS in FSX, especially with our planes and all the VC clickspots is soley dependent on CPU power. Get the best CPU you can afford.