737 NGX fps question

[Efussander 0]

Also, for the people who saw terrible stuttering in the AOA video....Consider the possibility of playback stutters. When I watched it, I saw two instances of stutters in the whole video, and I was specifically paying attention to that. But then again, I have a very good Internet connection most of the time. If you have a less than ideal Internet connection, the "stutters" that you saw might just be the result of playing an HD video on a slower connection. Just my ¢2.

[Spaceman3 1]

Also, for the people who saw terrible stuttering in the AOA video....Consider the possibility of playback stutters. When I watched it, I saw two instances of stutters in the whole video, and I was specifically paying attention to that. But then again, I have a very good Internet connection most of the time. If you have a less than ideal Internet connection, the "stutters" that you saw might just be the result of playing an HD video on a slower connection. Just my ¢2.

Yeah, that's possible. Although the sound was smooth. It really looked like it was just low frame rates with random hickups or lag which kind of scares me. I really hope this plane is a tad better performance wise than the J41 and MD11 that I own. Smoothness is probably the most important feature to me and I'd gladly trade off cabin temperature simulations for frame rates. I wonder if they could enable a simplified simulation mode. Probably too much work though. But disabling a lot of that minutia that you'll never notice would probably help performance.Scott Cooper

[JaneRachel 530]

Yeah, that's possible. Although the sound was smooth. It really looked like it was just low frame rates with random hickups or lag which kind of scares me. I really hope this plane is a tad better performance wise than the J41 and MD11 that I own. Smoothness is probably the most important feature to me and I'd gladly trade off cabin temperature simulations for frame rates. I wonder if they could enable a simplified simulation mode. Probably too much work though. But disabling a lot of that minutia that you'll never notice would probably help performance.Scott Cooper

Quite seriously, hand on heart, the beta team are not seeing any stutters at all with the aircraft. It is smooth as silk. All of us will attest to that. That said, I do a lot of FRAPS videos for PC Pilot Magazine and FRAPS causes my FSX to stutter when making the videos. Non of us are seeing poor framerate issues, lag or stutters in any shape or form on ANY of our test machines. Honestly, I think people are overanalysing stuttering from the video making process. If I remember, Nick pointed out on these forums when not using FRAPS he has silky smooth operation..The video is NOT indicative of performance in FSX. Hopefully that sets some mind at rest,JR

[mwilk 1,107]

It's very rare that you see an FS video that doesn't stutter. John Venema over at ORBX has done some incredibly smooth videos. I think it's just the nature of the software that is being used.

[martin-w 3,249]

Also, for the people who saw terrible stuttering in the AOA video....Consider the possibility of playback stutters. When I watched it, I saw two instances of stutters in the whole video, and I was specifically paying attention to that. But then again, I have a very good Internet connection most of the time. If you have a less than ideal Internet connection, the "stutters" that you saw might just be the result of playing an HD video on a slower connection. Just my ¢2.

Absolutely! To confirm, I saw only two episodes of minor stutter in the entire video.Everything else was smooth. And I'm beyond fussy.It's your Internet connection chaps.Martin Wilby

[Guest]

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.

Within 737 NGX FMC it has been mentioned you can set some graphic details or they can be set somewhere else within the 737 NGX settings. I ask you :Which is in your opinion the 1 or 2 graphic settings that have the greatest impact on fps within 737 NGX ? This way we can know what to turn off in case our HW supported 737 NGX @ no more than 20 fps, without fiddling hours to discover it. Thx AoA HW is a top performer one and I bet that only 15% of 737 NGX buyers have such a hw power.Mark Fosseth

[Tabs 2,790]

It's the same as always in FSX - autogen, weather, traffic, water. Those are the main FPS-affecting settings for the sim itself.The NGX sees a slight boost if you use the analog standby instruments instead of the ISFD, turn off the FO displays, turn off ND terrain mode etc. Basically anything that's producing extra GDI+ drawing for the CPU. I'll tell you right now though, my system is 2 years old in October aside from the video card and I'm turning off none of those things and perfectly happy with the smoothness.

[steve inwood 67]

Brilliant to here that Ryan, I don't seem to have an issue at all unless i use REX 2.0 weather engine, it appears that REX 2.0 seems to put an awful amount of unwated cloud about and for me it works if i just use rex textures and AES weather engine. I was talking to some of the guy's in this forum about a small thing called an external frame limiter 1.02.. well i have tracked it down installed it and to be honest there is a great difference. very happy with that guys thank you.. Great forum people always willing to help !

[modano 20]

fsx itself is a fps killer,but a modern pc should be able to handle it.i think the pmdg 737 is going to run better than the ifly 737,and then im happy.not that the ifly is running totally bad it,s not but pmdg,s would proberly run a bit better.by the way do you gys have an idea of the price. :(

[steve inwood 67]

I think tomorrow is the day of an idea of cost sure ive read that somewhere fella

[Guest]

Everyone has its own hw and fsx addons and its own fps range within being satisfied.I tend to consider my self satisfied if fps do not drop under 20, despiting airports, weather etc.... You ? How many fps do you consider the lowest limit ?Mark Fosseth

[ZachLW 37]

Everyone has its own hw and fsx addons and its own fps range within being satisfied.I tend to consider my self satisfied if fps do not drop under 20, despiting airports, weather etc.... You ? How many fps do you consider the lowest limit ?Mark Fosseth

Low limit for me is 25fps. Any lower and TrackIR is clunky feeling and the aircraft handles differently.That was barely managable with my older i7 960 system, but my sig can keep up in most situations. I'm confident the NGX will fair better than the Ifly. No bashing intended, but the Ifly eats up frames compared to other contemporaries with heavy scenery. If this turns out to be true, I'll be extremely happy with performance.

[Guest]

Low limit for me is 25fps. Any lower and TrackIR is clunky feeling and the aircraft handles differently.That was barely managable with my older i7 960 system, but my sig can keep up in most situations. I'm confident the NGX will fair better than the Ifly. No bashing intended, but the Ifly eats up frames compared to other contemporaries with heavy scenery. If this turns out to be true, I'll be extremely happy with performance.

Your HW configuration is a " no compromise " one...... You should stay around 30-35 fps, even if FSX is dated like a granny and uses mostly the CPU, 1st core only most of all......Mark Fosseth

[pixel9 0]

Sorry, but you all are making me laughing out loud...FPS FPS...and all I can see in your signatures are system specs that are far far better than my ones are. For my sake, I'm running FSX, REX Overdrive and EZCA on an AMD Athlon 64 x2 4600+ with 4GB RAM and a Nvidia GTX 265.I don't want to offend someone, but I please do me a favor and calm down on your FPS discussions. I will buy the NGX regardless of my specs and will see what I will come up with finally.best regards,toby

[Guest]

Sorry, but you all are making me laughing out loud...FPS FPS...and all I can see in your signatures are system specs that are far far better than my ones are. For my sake, I'm running FSX, REX Overdrive and EZCA on an AMD Athlon 64 x2 4600+ with 4GB RAM and a Nvidia GTX 265.I don't want to offend someone, but I please do me a favor and calm down on your FPS discussions. I will buy the NGX regardless of my specs and will see what I will come up with finally.best regards,toby

Your config is no bad at all, I am not surpised your game smoothness is good....btw which is your lowest fps limit ?We are not racing like kids on who is the most powerful, we are chatting about which is the lowest acceptable fsx fps limit instead. What's your ? You must have one, just tell us.thxMark Fosseth