@ 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.

Thanks Mark,

you only have to watch the new video to see how it will perform. yes he is using a 4ghz i7920 but you have to remeber hes running an earlier beta with all the debugging code, also hes running fraps (thats a 30%+ drop in performance right there) and a 3rd party airport, yet still it is smooth. I think anyone with a 3ghz or more PC will have no issues at all. But then again we really wont know untill its installed.You also need to remeber there is some performance tuning options with the NGX (as seen in some vids and screenshots) so that you will be able to change it yourself. I found the J41 hard on FPS but after turning off the F/Os displays and lowering the refresh rates of the displays a bit its much closer to the MD-11. As with all things though computer speeds are increasing all the time. In a few years you will be able to buy a PC fast enough to run FSX for very little money. You can get a decent i3 system for around £450 right now if you know where to look, and learning to build it yourself will work even more in your favour.

Andrew, I've always been one or two processors behind the leading edge but with the price of the 2600k's I was finally able to afford something that was out front. I'm pretty happy with my rig as it is now.

Andrew, I've always been one or two processors behind the leading edge but with the price of the 2600k's I was finally able to afford something that was out front. I'm pretty happy with my rig as it is now.

Ditto though I've got the 2500K @ 4GHz - FSX is amazing. I fly FSDT airports, UTX , GEX with fps hog payware and I can usually maintain 25-27 fps smooth at big B's with maxed autogen.

you only have to watch the new video to see how it will perform. yes he is using a 4ghz i7920 but you have to remeber hes running an earlier beta with all the debugging code, also hes running fraps (thats a 30%+ drop in performance right there) and a 3rd party airport, yet still it is smooth. I think anyone with a 3ghz or more PC will have no issues at all. But then again we really wont know untill its installed.You also need to remeber there is some performance tuning options with the NGX (as seen in some vids and screenshots) so that you will be able to change it yourself. I found the J41 hard on FPS but after turning off the F/Os displays and lowering the refresh rates of the displays a bit its much closer to the MD-11. As with all things though computer speeds are increasing all the time. In a few years you will be able to buy a PC fast enough to run FSX for very little money. You can get a decent i3 system for around £450 right now if you know where to look, and learning to build it yourself will work even more in your favour.

How do you know he is running fraps? I use fsrecorder and have it render the scene in 35fps and then dub the sound over afterwards. This is the best way to make fsx videos. Well for me anyway.

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.

We must be the only ones that have good fps in using the ifly 737 according to mark that is iam sure there are more than 2 of us

Any question abou the FPS can be answered by watching the AOA cockpit Vid. No FPS counter, but you dont need that. Its ULTRA smooth.

Any question abou the FPS can be answered by watching the AOA cockpit Vid. No FPS counter, but you dont need that. Its ULTRA smooth.

Really? It looked pretty laggy and low fps to me. Which has me rethinking if I even need to consider the NGX on my 2 year old system. As someone stated, all the other stuff doesn't matter if it's not smooth.Scott Cooper

yea it did look like lag was really bad at times lol, maybe he had a 5 year old system. was kind of boring just sitting here watching him click buttons.

He was running Fraps to record his tour. Fraps can cut FPS in half. Especially when he's on the ground at a payware airport.

He was running Fraps to record his tour. Fraps can cut FPS in half. Especially when he's on the ground at a payware airport.

I can verify that with Fraps. I use it for PC Pilot screenshots each issue and it takes quite a toll on frame rates,JR

My system used to shoot those videos:i5 2500K at 4.4GTX 480FRAPS knocks down the frame rate significantly. It was 30+ fps without fraps on that stand at Gatwick. I was doing circuits at FlyTampa VHHX Kai Tak yesterday locked at 45 - the fps performance on this aircraft is remarkable.

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.

Your post was deleted because you were making demands on beta testers after we've already said they're not allowed to talk about specific FPS numbers.All I'm going to say on this general performance subject is this:We have used every single trick in our book to make this thing perform well, but we cannot do magic. If you load down the sim with super high detail scenery, a ton of weather and a ton of traffic, the sim itself is slowing down. It's not the fault of the airplane. I can make the default planes run like crap if I really want to by overloading the sim with maxed out Orbx FTX regions, huge overcast layers, 100% UT2 traffic etc.You also need to look at performance relative to what you're getting here - this is the most detailed VC ever created, it's silly to expect it to run the same as the default C172 or Ultralight. We've never ever claimed that was going to be the case. We have done our absolute best though to make sure it's flyable on a wide range of systems - I think you're going to find it runs as well or better than a lot of VCs that look a lot worse.

I recall reading some of the beta testers have older Core 2 Duo's and Quad's. Will the NGX get decent frames on these systems if no addon scenery/weather is used? I have found that I haven't had much trouble with most other add-on aircraft, including the 744/8. Fortunately I have $1000 saved away to upgrade to a Sandy Bridge system if need be, but I would rather wait until the Ivy Bridge come out.

@Ryan we know its the most detailed model ever, a lot of emphasis at the begining of 2010 was on performance and "breaking records" so to speak,Anyway, we shall see :)

Your post was deleted because you were making demands on beta testers after we've already said they're not allowed to talk about specific FPS numbers.

Ryan the topic itself was started with the word Request, I made no demands at all. No more "demanding" than this topic on the same topic. I never thought for one second that you would not try and get every fps possible it's just of great interest to many just what we can expect.but nvm @NickThanks Nick, you getting 30-fps at Gatwick sounds great news. Really good news