Hi,yesterday I had the chance to compare the old but still gorgeous Level D 767 and 737 NG from IFly.737 NG from IFly is a fps killer, let's say 40% less fps than Level D 767 !!!! .....and therefore 40% less of each other payware plane installed.I have also seen in action PMDG J41 and despite the good graphic it is a fps hungry one as well, even if of course not like the horrific ( fps ) 737 NG by IFly. I ask to devs, how does PMDG 737 NGX compare to PMDG J41 in terms of fps ? Please bear in mind that I guess 95% of flight simmers have at least 3-4 add ons installed, like f.i. REX etc... and this must be taken into considerations when gauging fpsIf J41 and 737 NGX had pretty much the same fps performance I am under the impression that most of us should expect no more than 15-20 fps average within the VC ( when on ground ) and even less when on bigger hubs. Thanks for the answerMark Fosseth

You won´t get an answer for this question, because the product is still in beta code and therefore estimates of FPS is irrelevant.They already said that the 737NGX will be comparable to the MD-11, maybe a little bit tougher on frames. And you can still tweak the settings of the plane to further help with fps.Don´t expect any miracles, this is a heavy simulation with graphics that are simply beyond what any other competitor out there is producing, but they said that they optimised the hell out of the product.We will all know when the plane finally ships, how good or bad the performance is...I honestly expect better performance with PMDG than iFly, which I also have and must say that they did some improvements with the latest service packs, but I think PMDG will perform better.

Hi since currently flying from ybcs to ymml using the ifly 737ng and with all my settings maxed out except for a1 aircraft which is set about 10 percent and autogen at 3/4 flying at the present at Fl350 now using orbox scenery and orbox airports rex2 as my texture and ase as my weather engine my fps now using the ifly 737 is ranging from 33 to 38 fps.On the ground at ybcs airport it was ranging betwen 15 to 19 fp and i got my fps locked at 50 in the fsx settings.Uisng the pmg js4100 i usually get round the 12 to 19 on the ground and between 28 to 34 in the air besides i usually dont worry bout fps as longs i get smooth frame rate so if it 70 fps or 12 fps as long there are no9 stutters i dont care

Mark, After reading your comments about FPS, I thought I'd do a test to see. I loaded up FSX using FSDT's KDFW on rnwy 35L. This scenery( on my system) is very demanding. I'm running UT2 with traffic at 50%. I loaded the Level-D 767 first. Framerates were about 25. Next was the PMDG MD-11. Rates were about the same. Lastly, I loaded the iFly 737-800. Framerates were 24. This was by no means a scientific test. FPS are relative to your system and how you have the sim set up. You didn't list your system settings. If any developer is capable of squeezing the last available frame out of this sim, it would be PMDG. Until it is released, we really won't know how it's going to perform. They're not going to say, and I don't blame them.

Mark, After reading your comments about FPS, I thought I'd do a test to see. I loaded up FSX using FSDT's KDFW on rnwy 35L. This scenery( on my system) is very demanding. I'm running UT2 with traffic at 50%. I loaded the Level-D 767 first. Framerates were about 25. Next was the PMDG MD-11. Rates were about the same. Lastly, I loaded the iFly 737-800. Framerates were 24. This was by no means a scientific test. FPS are relative to your system and how you have the sim set up. You didn't list your system settings. If any developer is capable of squeezing the last available frame out of this sim, it would be PMDG. Until it is released, we really won't know how it's going to perform. They're not going to say, and I don't blame them.

Hey Michael, gang,It is not really a ase of "not going to say", but right now it is meaningless to say. Firstly, you are quite right in everyone's system is different, with their hardware and setup. Secondly, whilst we are still in beta there is diagnostic code running in the aircraft so none of us are seeing final figures to share with you all.I know that this is very important to people. All I can say is that all of the testers, myself included, have been entirely happy with the frame rates we are seeing, even with diagnostic code still in place. Every single tester, regardless of their hardware (and we have some testers deliberately testing on older machines) are really satisfied with performannce to the point where we see it as a non-issue for us. We are more than satisfied, even with diagnostic code in place and things will only get better as code gets tightened up for release.Having been on the test team for all the FSX releases by the team (and for some years before that, to the original NG), I think I will be giving away no secrets to say that the guys skills are evolving and enhancing with every FSX release. Every aircraft has given them the opportunity to learn new optimisations to really squeeze FSX in performance. They really are honing their skills with every release. There is no sign of them reaching a plateau as I continue to be blown away with every new aircraft in my hangar!I should also point out that RSR has told us should we wish to post about the aircraft then we are totally free to be completely open and honest with you all. Every tester will tell you, hand on heart, that they are pleased with performance.JaneRachel

I ask the very same thing about FPS and got my topic deleted,. WOW I wonder how long this will stay up???Is it really a very bad Q to ask ??All I ask was a beta tester to post a SS comparing the 737 with other PMDG aircraft at a gate of an nice airport (YMML)so we would see where FPS sit with the others PMDG's.Yes I know there is still debugging code in the built but even so it would me very nice to see.

Hey Michael, gang,It is not really a ase of "not going to say", but right now it is meaningless to say. Firstly, you are quite right in everyone's system is different, with their hardware and setup. Secondly, whilst we are still in beta there is diagnostic code running in the aircraft so none of us are seeing final figures to share with you all.I know that this is very important to people. All I can say is that all of the testers, myself included, have been entirely happy with the frame rates we are seeing, even with diagnostic code still in place. Every single tester, regardless of their hardware (and we have some testers deliberately testing on older machines) are really satisfied with performannce to the point where we see it as a non-issue for us. We are more than satisfied, even with diagnostic code in place and things will only get better as code gets tightened up for release.Having been on the test team for all the FSX releases by the team (and for some years before that, to the original NG), I think I will be giving away no secrets to say that the guys skills are evolving and enhancing with every FSX release. Every aircraft has given them the opportunity to learn new optimisations to really squeeze FSX in performance. They really are honing their skills with every release. There is no sign of them reaching a plateau as I continue to be blown away with every new aircraft in my hangar!I should also point out that RSR has told us should we wish to post about the aircraft then we are totally free to be completely open and honest with you all. Every tester will tell you, hand on heart, that they are pleased with performance.JaneRachel

JaneRachel, That is great news. I was thinking about upgrading my video card for this release but I think I'm going to wait just a while longer.

New video card wouldn't improve things much with your rig, you have great CPU with nice overclock, that's what count's for FSX.Regards,

Grzegorz, My wife would tell you that I look for excuses to upgrade. I don't know that I disagree with her. I do woodworking as a hobby, and if I really want to get that next great tool, I try to find a project that will help me to justify buying it. Must be some kind of mental disorder! :(

New video card wouldn't improve things much with your rig, you have great CPU with nice overclock, that's what count's for FSX.Regards,

+1 you have a gtx480, still one of the most powerful cards out there.I don't like slating other add on companies, but it is good for comparison, I really really struggle with the ifly, much less fps than the PMDG 747. I am glad it is not just me. I for one would be happy to lose some functionality and system depth for +++fps.. nothing in the world beats a really smooth flight experience.

Ace, The only airport that I have where the iFly just struggles is Fly Tampa's "Tampa rebooted". For some unknown reason my FR's are in the mid teens with the iFly 737,while almost all of my other addon aircraft are in the upper 20's to mid 30's. I don't have this problem with any other payware airport and I have a lot of them. Very strange.

Mark, After reading your comments about FPS, I thought I'd do a test to see. I loaded up FSX using FSDT's KDFW on rnwy 35L. This scenery( on my system) is very demanding. I'm running UT2 with traffic at 50%. I loaded the Level-D 767 first. Framerates were about 25. Next was the PMDG MD-11. Rates were about the same. Lastly, I loaded the iFly 737-800. Framerates were 24. This was by no means a scientific test. FPS are relative to your system and how you have the sim set up. You didn't list your system settings. If any developer is capable of squeezing the last available frame out of this sim, it would be PMDG. Until it is released, we really won't know how it's going to perform. They're not going to say, and I don't blame them.

@ Jane : I am glad that 737NGX seeems to be fair, please remember to test it with at least 3-4 add ons like every simmers has. Thx@Mwilk : just Google a bit a you will see that SP1 installed or not 737 NGX from iFly is a fps killer. You have done some mistakes while gauging it otherwise you would be the one and the only in the world to have good fps over there. ( Google source ) you also have a graphic card you want to change, this seems to support my theory too.@ NxyyUK : I read your thread and I shared your thought that it was the perfect test to gauge fps because the only way to compare fps with another plane is placing them in the very same GPS position doing the same stuff ( nothing ) and using the same weather. HW config must be the same.btw I have a i860 + Radeon 5870 and 4GB RAM on W7 64 anyway a HW configuration performs the same on every aircraft, or do you have a graphic card branded iFly seriously optimized to play 7374 NGX from iFly ? Those iFly devs are not very skilled, results speak for themselves and a quick Google search says the same. @ PMDG devs : please remember that fps is the most important feature to take care of, without a good fps level everything else can't be appreciated. Thks a lot in advance.-

Gee Mark, Pretty nasty tone there. All I know is how it runs on my system. I'm not interested in getting into an argument with you. The change in video card was to accommodate the PMDG NGX not the iFly. I was guessing that because the of extreme detail of the NGX that it might require a little more horsepower. I'll wait and see until after the release. Hope the rest of your day goes better.

Gee Mark, Pretty nasty tone there. All I know is how it runs on my system. I'm not interested in getting into an argument with you. The change in video card was to accommodate the PMDG NGX not the iFly. I was guessing that because the of extreme detail of the NGX that it might require a little more horsepower. I'll wait and see until after the release. Hope the rest of your day goes better.

I meant no harm mate,infact you are shating my thread's worries about PMDG NGX fps but it seems tests are going fine from that point of view so I now feel slightly optimistic about PMDG fps but those devs guys must take into consideration to test it on a average machine and with 3-4 addons installed like REX + OD , imho the most cool one.cheers

Mark, No problem. I think that's the rub for any highly detailed addon aircraft. No matter how beautiful it looks, if the performance isn't up to par, it won't matter. That's the purpose for the wide beta. Trust me, I'm a Flight Sim mercenary. I own multiple versions of the 767, 757. Airbus, and I'll own multiple versions of the 737 NG too.