Which has best framerates Fly The Maddog 2008 Pro VS super 80 PRO?

[Scope 0]

Which has best framerates Fly The Maddog 2008 Pro VS super 80 PRO in Flight sim X? Anyone able to test it?What in general would you prefer of the two add-ons - and why?

[Guest Astradan]

I have both - they're both EXCELLENT products firstly;Flight 1 / Coolsky Super 80 is definately much, much easier on frames in FSX, in fact it's generally regarded as THE easiest complex aircraft add-on for FSX, on frames.The Super 80 also has the integrated training module which is just superb if you're learining the MD-80 from scratch.The Maddog has a better VC (these days), better failures and pretty much 101% systems coverage and realism! It's awesome and the hand-flying dynamics are slightly 'nicer' than the Coolsky Super 80. But frames are about 30-40% lower than the Super 80 (ymmv).All things considered, they're both excellent aircraft for FSX, my preference goes with the Super 80 because I can fly it wiht autogen, traffic and some good weather and still see 26 FPS, whereas I'd see maybe 17-18FPS with those settings in the Maddog.

[Tim_Capps 457]

Concur with above. Super 80 is what I fly, because I don't get in the MD-80 that much (more of a Boeing 7 Series person) and I appreciate the integrated cockpit training system. Hugely better frame rates; the Maddog grinds on my system. Ultra High Def repaints available from McPhat (at a cost). Possibly the best all-around airliner out there. Although other products stand out in some respects, the Super 80 just seems to do everything well.The Maddog also has the ability to have a pilot and copilot fly it. But despite my nostalgia for it (the first add-on I ever had was the Lago Maddog) it has been retired. But if you must have the most fidelity in systems and checklist items, the Maddog is the choice.

[MrSpeaker 117]

They both look great but what is going to make me purchase The Maddog is the fact that they are going to have an fs2crew soon.

[kiwikat 307]

The Super 80 Pro is a NATIVE FSX addon, while the Maddog is NOT native. So by default, the Super 80 Pro will get better framerates. And because of that, it is the only MD-80 I own.

[trisager 2]

The framerates in the Maddog VC are not very good, so if FPS are your main concern, I would buy the Super 80.Having said that, I must add that the Maddog is my all-time favorite FSX addon because of the great depth of the systems simulation. And I get good framerates in the widescreen 2D display - which I prefer over a VC anyway.

[byork 2,228]

They both look great but what is going to make me purchase The Maddog is the fact that they are going to have an fs2crew soon.

And it's nearly done. It's using Voice Command Control and regular FS2Crew style control for those who don't want to "talk" to their computer.So users can pick which method works best for them.Cheers,

[mpw8679 428]

I appreciate the realism that the maddog has, but the poor framerate is a joke. It is by far the worst performing add on I have. It is unplayable on my system. Coolsky all the way. Its amazing the frames it gets.

[Paul J 321]

And it's nearly done. It's using Voice Command Control and regular FS2Crew style control for those who don't want to "talk" to their computer.

This is great news, Bryan! You will have another customer here!Yeah, you need a pretty good system to manage the Maddog, and I think mine's at the bottom end now. I'm now running Win7/32-bit in the Performance mode - which picks up a few frames.. , plus you can change a number of settings in the Maddog Performance Manager which will make a huge difference to the VC (I only fly VC). I now use ASA with REX graphics - so there's a few more frames: Generally I fly (FSX SP2) FS Passengers out of Seattle, down to Portland twice - three times a week, with frames locked at 21, and she stays there. Also that's sometimes in full overcast with rain. With FS Genesis, UT_USA, & GEX there is no jerkiness, stutters or hesitation, and - apart from water at 1 high, autogen scaled back to 75%, road traffic to 10 and 19% for airline (no other traffic) I'm pretty happy. Yes I have the CoolSky MD-80, but its' systems don't compare to the LH Maddog. Cheers,

[kiwikat 307]

Yeah, you need a pretty good system to manage the Maddog

No, you need FS9 to manage the maddog (because it is a FS9 model...). What everyone here REALLY needs to do is contact the maddog developers and keep asking for a native FSX model. That will SIGNIFICANTLY improve FPS.

[some1 52]

The FS9 compiled 3D models perform badly in FSX as they overally score about 50% fps of native FSX models. Maddog has very demanding VC so fps is very low. If you fly in 2D views, it's fine.

[Paul J 321]

Mike: William; To each his/her own, guys. FSX SP2 is what I fly: there is nothing that FS9 has that would make me go back - so please - don't tell me I need FS9: for me - FS9 is dead. And also - please - don't tell me I should fly 2D cockpit: I fly VC only. The Maddog VC on my system - is perfectly fluid. perfectly fluid"What everyone here REALLY needs to do is contact the maddog developers" - Yup - here we can fully agree, KK, however I honestly think that they have absolutely lost interest in the project, as did Vauchez with FZ01 and 02; and the Fly Tampa guys almost did the same thing. The LH devs don't answer any posts: the site often gets hit with spam; their purchase authentication server is often down; they ignore almost every request for help; that being said - there is an good supply of very knowledgeable users who are there daily, so one isn't totally abandoned, but I don't see any FSX model produced by this group any time in the future. I think they're gone.Maddog perfomance : listen - I set up the machine per Nick Needham's tuning guide using nHancer and the notes in my other post here. It's a C2D at 3.2 gig and I lock FSX at 21 fps: I get moderate to good detail on the ground with a fair cloud cover; I see three or four other aircraft around when I start C & D at SEA, plus I turn on some airport traffic 'till after pushback. Flight plan is from FSBuild, weather is ASA/REX. I've posted lots of screenshots at 3840 x 1024 (Th2G /TrackIR) on Photobucket, and I'm fully happy with the system as it is. It's getting a bit long in the tooth I know, and I've no doubt I can get better performance with newer hardware, but it ain't gonna happen just yet. But I sure don't need to go backward to FS9, and there's a ton of LH Maddog folks that will agree. I don't know what hardware you two guys are using, maybe 386's or something. Between you and me - the only aircraft that really does slow my beast down - is the A2A Cub with Accusim: great aircraft, but load up Heidi at Renton, and I start thinking of "i7, P6T, 6gig and a GTX 285 o/c'd."Everyone is different, have different ideas about what we want in an addon aircraft, but don't degenerate it into a p*****g match over two different devs versions of the same aircraft. They're both very good addons. :(

[kiwikat 307]

Mike: William; To each his/her own, guys. FSX SP2 is what I fly: there is nothing that FS9 has that would make me go back - so please - don't tell me I need FS9: for me - FS9 is dead. And also - please - don't tell me I should fly 2D cockpit: I fly VC only. The Maddog VC on my system - is perfectly fluid. perfectly fluid

I'm the same though. The only plane I use in FS9 is the VRS F-18 as it won't work in FSX, period. I cannot stand FS9 anymore, and most people here know that by now, LOL ;). But the fact remains that the Maddog is a FS9 model and performs best in FS9. Therefore FS9 is the thing that best improves the Maddog's performance.So we don't really disagree on anything. It is really a shame that the Maddog developers will not make a FSX model. It looks like an excellent plane. In the meantime, I enjoy the Super 80 Pro. If the Super 80 Pro developers were to update the VC textures, it would be a near-perfect addon.Oddly, the Cub performs extremely well on my machine. Far better than most other complex addons I use regularly.

[Benjamin J 732]

I don't own the Super 80 Pro, but I do own the Maddog, and with me it has become an instant hit. Performance is lacking here and there, but then again, I don't have a very powerful system and I set my setting too high, like I usually do. If I'd be prepared to have lower settings, it'd be easier on my computer, for sure, and I'd see better framerates. Doesn't take away the fact that the plane itself is great. And, something very important for me: I can save the panel state and reload it later! This means I can do longer flights without having to spend more time in one go. This is immensely imprtant for me, as I don't have the time to do long flights in one go. I always have to break them up.

[wombat778 0]

No, you need FS9 to manage the maddog (because it is a FS9 model...).

FWIW, the Maddog runs just fine on my PC. In the VC, I get about the same performance in the Maddog and in the JS41 (with the slight edge going to the JS41). In the 2d cockpit, the Maddog beats the JS41 3D cockpit hands down in fps. The Maddog VC also gets much better fps for me than the PMDG 747 VC.