G'day Guys and Gals,Everyone seems to be reporting improvements in Frame rates over previous pmdg stuff, however the NGX VC seems to be sucking my frames down alot....i usually get around 20 and now im down to around 8 in the VC.The PMDG md-11 runs well on my computer.....any suggestions to help improve it? I've tried lowering all my scenery and traffic but no real improvment....Thanks , John

i'm having slightly lower performance as compared to the 747-8i too.. fsx.cfg is tweaked using the ******* tool. external limiter locked at 30fps. in the VC at uk2000 gatwick airport on runway 26L, daytime, fair weather, REX clouds, GEX & UTX Europe: 747-8i: avg 27 FPS737ngx: avg 20 FPS the ngx seemed to fly less smoothly too, more microstutters were detected. i'm wondering why everyone else seemed to be having much better performance in the ngx??

This is what I'm not getting how some people are having great FPS and others don't. I'd love to hear anything from PMDG about it coz if this is how this airplane going to perform on a high end machine then this will be the biggest disappointment for me,

i'm having slightly lower performance as compared to the 747-8i too.. fsx.cfg is tweaked using the ******* tool. external limiter locked at 30fps. in the VC at uk2000 gatwick airport on runway 26L, daytime, fair weather, REX clouds, GEX & UTX Europe: 747-8i: avg 27 FPS737ngx: avg 20 FPS the ngx seemed to fly less smoothly too, more microstutters were detected. i'm wondering why everyone else seemed to be having much better performance in the ngx??

I think it's the placebo - wanting to have more, results into believing having more, and also it being smoother.While I have a really well configured machine, and basically nothing faster out there, and when I fly an aircraft which delivers the FPS, I see no stutters. Give me one that goes below 30, it's choppy, not stuttery.On NGX I can choose refreshrate of 5 for displays and turn off FO displays, and I'll get good frames and also very smooth.Otherwise rather choppy, for instance on the same airport, UK2000 Gatwick.What I also notice, when flying high, I should get good frames, and I do, in both 2D and external, 2D delivery 40-50, external locked 60, but VC still can't deliver more than about 30fps, and that without any clouds.Not to mention sitting on the Gatwick gate gives me around 15fps - come on, this machine ain't weak.

But FSX does have a GB limit, it is a 32 bit application. As of SP2 it is large address aware so 2 to 32 equals 4GB.... The main difference is, that in 32 bit systems even that limit is unattainable and FSX will only see half i.e. 2GB's, which is NOT sufficient and safe.

This will help those guys here who has 12GB and thinking they are used....... Jus open the task manager while flying and you will see that FSX + a bunch of addons NEVER goes beyond 3GB ca.... Windows 7, just started, must occupy around " only " 850MB, if garbage is not loaded. ( Antivirus, adobe kicker, etc etc. ) In addition a 32bit OS usually can't see more than 3.4 GB more or less.... So, to play FSX 4GB are much much more than enough.

I think it's the placebo - wanting to have more, results into believing having more, and also it being smoother.While I have a really well configured machine, and basically nothing faster out there, and when I fly an aircraft which delivers the FPS, I see no stutters. Give me one that goes below 30, it's choppy, not stuttery.On NGX I can choose refreshrate of 5 for displays and turn off FO displays, and I'll get good frames and also very smooth.Otherwise rather choppy, for instance on the same airport, UK2000 Gatwick.What I also notice, when flying high, I should get good frames, and I do, in both 2D and external, 2D delivery 40-50, external locked 60, but VC still can't deliver more than about 30fps, and that without any clouds.Not to mention sitting on the Gatwick gate gives me around 15fps - come on, this machine ain't weak.

yeah i think since we were told that the ngx would perform substantially better than the 747, i was looking forward to silky smooth hand flying of the ngx, but apparently this is not the case now.. i am actually quite satisfied with the performance of the 747 under most conditions, and having the ngx performing worse than it leaves me both puzzled and disappointed...

For me, the performance goes like this: 1st - MD-112nd - 7473rd - NGX However, in smoothness - 1st - 7472nd - MD-113rd - NGX The NGX has a few shared issues with the Airbus X - Mouse lag and CTD on exit.

less for sure

This will help those guys here who has 12GB and thinking they are used....... Jus open the task manager while flying and you will see that FSX + a bunch of addons NEVER goes beyond 3GB ca.... Windows 7, just started, must occupy around " only " 850MB, if garbage is not loaded. ( Antivirus, adobe kicker, etc etc. ) In addition a 32bit OS usually can't see more than 3.4 GB more or less.... So, to play FSX 4GB are much much more than enough.

I do have 12gb ram but was bought for Photoshop cs5 x64 not fsx, and yes fsx,as a 32bit program, does have a ram ceiling. Chris Farrell

Slower in general.Comparison to 747-400X:747-400X:2D: 40 VC: 32NGX:2D: 36 VC: 27 Apples to apples. And yes, there is a mouse issue, the very much same as in the competitor.

I'm seeing the same Word Not Allowed, a bit less w/ the NGX. Do you know if there is a control in FSX to shorten the time interval the mouse pointer displays? When I got the RealAIr Turbine Duke I began leaving the menu bar visible so I can dock the pointer on the bar which functions the same as when the pointer disappears, ie restores better performance. Pretty weird anomaly, the mouse pointer issue. Noel

how do you make the FPS limiter work? I've been having a go at it with no luck :(

I do have 12gb ram but was bought for Photoshop cs5 x64 not fsx, and yes fsx,as a 32bit program, does have a ram ceiling. Chris Farrell

I do not know how much memory Photoshop may needs, anyway when performing ( i guess ) heavy and simultaneous renderings it is enough to check the task manager to see the precise level occupied. Anyway I am aware that some pro graphic programs if heavily stressed may demand lot of RAM. For example Multi-tasking mechanic CADs sessions ( let's say 7 or 8 at least running together on the same pc ) may need some RAM, that's true as well even if modern programs tend to use the GPU memory mainly. FSX handles only few instead beeing it a rusty piece of software.

I do not know how much memory Photoshop may needs, anyway when performing ( i guess ) heavy and simultaneous renderings it is enough to check the task manager. Anyway I am aware that some pro graphic programs if heavily stressed may demand lot of RAM. FSX handles only few instead

Photoshop will take as much as it can get especially when working on massive images ( can be up to 10metres long and 12gb is not enough ), maybe the next version of Flight sim will be 64bit and the ram ceiling will be lifted/higher. Chris Farrell

Photoshop will take as much as it can get especially when working on massive images ( can be up to 10metres long and 12gb is not enough ), maybe the next version of Flight sim will be 64bit and the ram ceiling will be lifted/higher. Chris Farrell

In your case such a high amount of memory is needed and used but for the vast majority of simmers it is a waste of money only.....

For me : Extern view 747-400 = 737NGX 2D Panel 747-400 = 737NGX VC NGX loss 20% in comparaison to 747

If your computer can run 747-400X smoothly, then probably you would have no problems with the NGX. As the VC is very detailed, I have a less FPS compared the the 747.