All that garble aside I'm having a blast with what I think is one of the best airliner simulations we've ever had in FS. The VC looks exactly like the real thing and the gauges run very good on my system.'TheBFG' I'm going to give you a tidbit of info here that may help you. Notice the specs on my machine. Any setup around or better than what I have it's best to run FS9 with a target framerate of 90. You really hinder performance using the old tweak method of 20-30. I run mine at 90 and get an all but fluid experience. Maybe you should try that and give this outstanding effort a try. :(

Thanks, I think I'll do that. Before I get myself banned from the iFly shop.

I just took my first flight in this bird and the framerates were nothing but excellent! Virtual Cockpit was great and the frames could not have been any smoother. As a matter of fact the frames on this baby were much greater than any other payware I own, which is about everything out there. Just my 2 cents

OK, I bought it and did a quick flight. A circuit really out of KSEA, around and landed just to test the gauges. My conclusion: it runs very well, similar to Level D 767. I lock my frames at 45 so by the reasoning presented above the gauges run 15 fps, except the BBJs with the HUD would be lower around 11. I haven't tried the BBJs or HUD yet but as of the airliner versions, if it is15 it seems very fluid to me. I did notice that clicking the gauges to enlarge them did hit the FPS a bit. Very nice VC, better than Ariane in my opinion (I have theAriane BBJ). By the way I am not new to Avsim or flight simulation even though you see 2 posts. I was here before, just away for a while. By the way. Tom Gibson, how did you combine VC sections if each has a texture file associated with it? Regards, Carlos:rolleyes:

All I know is that I took a VC with 9 VCockpit sections that ran incredibly jerkily, converted it to use 2 sections but added MORE gauges, and now it runs nice and smooth. Because I am limited to 2 1024 x 1024 textures the gauge resolution is a bit less than before, but not bad.

Read the link I provided to see why you managed to improve your performance... :(

Well done to you too. Geez guys thanks for the welcome.Please read carefully cohort.I'm not a PMDG "a really excited user". It was mentioned several times, as stated above, because it is a good reference available to me. What did you want me to call it? The other 737? The unmentionable 737? Please.And WHEN did I say that "other developers can't even get close"?????? On the contrary I mentioned how good the iFly aircraft looks. You know what I'm sick and tired of? Forum morons who don't read posts properly before slagging off the poster about something they THINK they read.Do you two go round flagging any thread that has the letters "PMDG" in them? Because that's about the most "evil" thing I can see here. Why would I even be here if I didn't see the iFly aircraft as a possible, better, replacement for the PMDG version which is in many ways (for the year 2010) flawed.If anything it sounds like you guys are pushing the iFly aircraft onto us, and yet accusing me of doing so with the PMDG aircraft that I have no interest in. :rolleyes:By all means lets discuss, but clearly this is not something you're interested in.For the record I got the info from a gauge designer and it made perfect sense to me, as removing vc entries had a dramatic improvement in performance. Also the fact that the PMDG (SHOOT ME cohort) 747 has only one entry and the gauges are fluid meant that his theory held up. If I am mistaken then I humbly apologise but it's still clear additional entries have a big negative impact.

First off, you joined this forum almost a year ago...I didn't think a "welcome to the forum" was in order. What annoyed me about this thread was the fact that you don't even own the iFly 737, yet you feel entitled to come onto a public forum and make (false) claims about it because you looked at a panel.cfg that your friend sent to you...which is actually illegal because it is copyrighted material by the way. Irregardless, you seem to be the only one that is complaining about it. Steve made the suggestion of unlocking the framerates to see if it would help...not as a fix straight from the developer. In a way, I am pushing this product on people...because if it gets good sales, other developers just might see that and realize that fs9 really isn't dead. I never said that you were pushing PMDG onto people. What I said was that I was sick and tired of hearing about how great PMDG is. I wouldn't feel this way about them if they were still developing for fs9, but they aren't. PMDG washed their hands of fs9, and I have washed my hands of them. And please don't call me a moron.

Respect yourselves and others. This is just a place to learn and share. An opinion is just that. I guess a "IMHO" before very post would be helpful in these cases. Keep your egos aside and simply and respectfully disagree, BTW terms like "moron" and "blabla a really excited user" in a pejorative way turned this thread in the wrong direction.

Notice the specs on my machine. Any setup around or better than what I have it's best to run FS9 with a target framerate of 90. You really hinder performance using the old tweak method of 20-30. I run mine at 90 and get an all but fluid experience. Maybe you should try that and give this outstanding effort a try.

Dilloll0, I will give it a try, I have the same specs but always capped the frames at 24 to avoid blurries, are you flyin big jets at high altitudes with these settings? (sorry for the thread hijacking).

Actually, when I read this thread yesterday it gave me the impulse to buy the airplane although I at first hadn't intended to! :D I can also report that I have absolutely no problem with the fps and I have it limited to 47 I think (if I use no limit I will get crackling sound in some PMDG planes). The 737NG for FS9 King is dead, long live the King!

always capped the frames at 24 to avoid blurries

I wish it was so simple! :( I'm flying with higher FPS and still get annoying ground blurries, no matter what tweaks I apply (and I applied many).

if I use no limit I will get crackling sound in some PMDG planes

Same for me, goes for their 737 and 747.

King is dead, long live the King!

:(

First off, you joined this forum almost a year ago...I didn't think a "welcome to the forum" was in order.

Nice to meet you too.

What annoyed me about this thread was the fact that you don't even own the iFly 737, yet you feel entitled to come onto a public forum and make (false) claims about it because you looked at a panel.cfg that your friend sent to you...which is actually illegal because it is copyrighted material by the way. Irregardless, you seem to be the only one that is complaining about it. Steve made the suggestion of unlocking the framerates to see if it would help...not as a fix straight from the developer.

Fair enough, but others were complaining about the exact same thing, hence my post. Sorry if I hit a nerve, but I've learnt something from this thread thanks to others, which makes it worth it I suppose.

In a way, I am pushing this product on people...because if it gets good sales, other developers just might see that and realize that fs9 really isn't dead. I never said that you were pushing PMDG onto people. What I said was that I was sick and tired of hearing about how great PMDG is. I wouldn't feel this way about them if they were still developing for fs9, but they aren't. PMDG washed their hands of fs9, and I have washed my hands of them.

But cohort... PMDG IS great. Are you saying they made rubbish aeroplanes for FS9? Thanks to developers like iFly, we still have new aircraft coming in. And Aerosoft is releasing loads of FS9 airports. FS9 is far from dead. Who knows, maybe PMDG will see all this and change their minds again. But I'm not going to sit here and pretend I hate them after spending so many hundreds of hours flying their superb aircraft (with hundreds of hours still to come). That's silly.The iFly 737 is now BETTER. I had an issue with the gauges. Once again I'm sorry if I was given the wrong information regarding the vc gauges but I never had any intention of pissing anyone off, promoting PMDG, spreading untruths, trolling, or any of the other ridiculous accusations being thrown this way.

Read the link I provided to see why you managed to improve your performance... :(

Yes, I've been playing around with this newfound wisdom and I do believe you have a point. Sorry for the misunderstanding!

HI,The rejected theory couldn't be true because this is an excerpt from the panel.cfg of Suprunovs Yak-40, with fluent indications on numerous analog instruments. I must admit, it's the last entry and the Yak is heavy on memory requirements:[VCockpit41] <-- YES!, FOURTY-ONE ....size_mm=1024pixel_size=1024,1024texture=$sd6015_indbackground_color=0,0,0gauge00=sd_yak40_6015_v2_vc9!PRI_NDL_AGB1PLANE, 1,83gauge01=sd_yak40_6015_v2_vc9!PRI_NDL_KPPMS2HDG, 233,88gauge02=sd_yak40_6015_v2_vc9!PRI_NDL_RPM1N1, 2,444I am glad you solved your problem!Hugo

Read the link I provided to see why you managed to improve your performance... :(

That was the most useful post about the myth floating around here....

PMDG this...PMDG that....blah blah blah. I am so sick and tired of hearing the a really excited user talk about how PMDG did this and that right, and how every other developer can't even come close. Remember. PMDG abandoned fs9 and it's users. Not the other way around.Bottom line. If you haven't bought it and tried it on YOUR computer, don't come on a public forum and bash it. Irregardless, I smell troll and I have also flagged this thread.

Well sorry! PMDG raised the bar and now they are the comparison model. Personally I am tired of hearing iPhone this and iPhone that but they too have raised the bar. Every industry has THE comparison model. Why not compare it to PMDG. You say they abandoned FS9 users. So with THAT logic, EVERY dev has abandoned FS2002 users too? Although I use FS9 just as much as I use FSX, FS9 has to be let go of sooner or later. I can understand why PMDG moved on to FSX. Do I like it? Not really but I respect their decision. I am all for dev still making products for FS9. BUT, like you, it gets tiring hearing people complain about devs abandoning FS9.

I wrote in another thread about the ratio of dual FS9/FSX users in the community now, this thread has brought allot of that back. I see from the posts here there are allot of people in the dual category. Yea, these are just a few posts in this thread but if you look as discussions all around the community the facts really stand out... I'll segway this into our current iFly conversation as Cohort's angst against PMDG is very valid to say the least. PMDG releases the MD11 for FSX in this upset market, we'll start if off with that. You have the FS9 only crowd that didn't really want the MD11, then you have the dual crowd that needed to populate FSX so they buy it, and then you have the FSX only crowd who by default bought it. The dual crowd which is most Flight Simulator users today and then are not going to buy the MD11 twice for both FSX/FS9 and the FS9 crowd really didn't want or need it hence didn't buy it in mass. It stands to reason why the MD11 didn't sell well for FS9 but it did great for FSX. The break down is this:FS9 - 30%FSX/FS9 - 40%FSX only - 30%Total people still using FS9 in some form = 70% if you go by the numbers above and what happened with the MD11 (or look at the discussion here). Same goes for FSX, it all depends on which version of an addon is sold first as to which version is going to do the best.MD11 FSX sales breakdown pro FSX because it was released for FSX first '40% + 30% = 70% sales'. FS9 came after with 40% FS9 simmers already owning it in FSX form and only 10% willing to buy it again or for the first time, you do the math.We lost the PMDG 737NG for FS9 because of bogus numbers for the MD11 in favor of FSX (I'm sure they knew what was going on and the real story is it's easier to develop for one platform). If 40% dual crowd only buys a copy for their FSX world and another 30% buy it for the only sim they have (FSX) you have 70% of FSX sales. The FS9 only crowd is only 30% hence we got screwed because on one hand we supported it with our dual (FS9/FSX) users for their FSX install but straight FS9 sales didn't happen, anyone can see this. I'm saying all this to say we got the shaft by no fault of our own. A PMDG FSX/FS9 737NG would have sold across the board for both platforms we all know this (this is not like a Caranado scenario where people may or may not buy their add-ons, a PMDG 737NGX is a guaranteed sale everywhere). Cohort brings up a valid point about PMDG and his frustration with them. They like many developers have not taken into account the dual crowd and have abandoned FS9 development altogether. I too understand the ease of which it is to have tools for one platform but to abandon customers prematurely is disingenuous... In the case of PMDG we shouldn't compare anything with them at this point by the nature of how they treated their customers. I'm thankful for the iFly model because I have something when all the FSX and dual users start salivating over PMDG's release when it happens. It's so critical we don't allow untruths to damage any FS9 developer. I'd love to see iFly move on to the 777 or 717 (whatever they choose). If they get good sales with this add-on exactly like PMDG bogusly got their MD11 FSX sails (40% FSX/FS9 + 30% FSX users = 70% sales) we'll see future FS9 development. The timing of the iFly 737 is great because where the MD11 was released for FSX first iFly was released for FS9 first without competition at the moment from PMDG. They will get 70% of the communities sales. I just wish I could see the sales numbers but our answer will come with the next release from iFly. Do they stick with us or go by way of FSX. FSX/FS9 users like in the case of the MD11 will not buy this product twice if they have it already in their FS9 install especially with PMDG's offering around the corner. So FSX sales for the iFly 737 should be on par with MD11 FS9 sales. It would be nice to see someone abandon FSX with the theory PMDG used for FS9, heck why not since FS11 is around the corner anyway... :(

Dilloll0, I will give it a try, I have the same specs but always capped the frames at 24 to avoid blurries, are you flyin big jets at high altitudes with these settings? (sorry for the thread hijacking).

I fly all over and have no issue. One day I could be bush flying in the Fjords, the next day testing out iFly's 737NG, no problems at all... There's a tweak for blurries if you do a search. I wrote about this awhile back that helped me with extended textures in the distance (do a search for my posts here on Avsim and you'll find it). There were some disputes but we all came to a universal agreement I believe. It's all here in the FS9 forum. I suggest trying that along with setting your target framerate at 90% and you should be o.k...

.................The break down is this:FS9 - 30%FSX/FS9 - 40%FSX only - 30%Total people still using FS9 in some form = 70%. Same goes for FSX, it all depends on which version of an addon is sold first as to which version is going to do the best.MD11 FSX sales breakdown pro FSX because it was released for FSX first '40% + 30% = 70% sales'. FS9 came after with 40% already owning it in FSX form and only 10% willing to buy it again or for the first time.We lost the PMDG 737NG for FS9 because of what they saw with the MD11. If 40% dual crowd only buys a copy for their FSX world and another 30% buy it for the only sim they have (FSX) you have 70% of FSX sales. The FS9 only crowd is only 30% who didn't ask for this aircraft in the first place hence we got screwed because on one hand we supported it with our dual (FS9/FSX) users for their FSX install but straight FS9 sales didn't happen, anyone can see this. ......................

Where did you get all those percentage statistics?