PMDG NGX - yay! FSX - boo

[rquick 19]

Well, the NGX is a thing of beauty and it's been a fun couple days getting to know it a little. It has also brought back the reality of how much of a cluster @#$% FSX is. Thanks to the great intro section of the manual and the very helpful configuration tool that it links to, the game works reasonable well in the starkest of conditions and at altitude. Any attempt, however, to spice things up with a medium size airport with some traffic is met with harsh punishment in frame rates. It really just sucks the enjoyment out of what should be great experience. This is certainly no fault of PMDG. It's been a couple years so I guess it's time to plan out another computer build. Although even the latest and greatest will require immediate CPU fan upgrades and overclocking to run FSX with any realism. In the meantime, I'll fly from African desert to African desert. Far, far away from humanity.

[davidzill 8]

The coding for FSX is all jacked up. For instance, the latest combat flight sim, DCS A-10C, runs at a steady 60FPS on my computer with much better terrain, aircraft, and weather graphics. They took the time to program the coding correctly to balance the load between the graphics card and CPU. FSX relies almost solely upon the CPU. Because of this, I am forced to painstakingly make mods to my FSX.cfg file, then reduce most of my graphics options to almost the minumums, and fly only to default airports to get minimum playable fps performance. This is with a 4+ghz quad core, and a 580GTX graphics card.

[G7USL 117]

The coding for FSX is all jacked up. For instance, the latest combat flight sim, DCS A-10C, runs at a steady 60FPS on my computer with much better terrain, aircraft, and weather graphics. They took the time to program the coding correctly to balance the load between the graphics card and CPU. FSX relies almost solely upon the CPU. Because of this, I am forced to painstakingly make mods to my FSX.cfg file, then reduce most of my graphics options to almost the minumums, and fly only to default airports to get minimum playable fps performance. This is with a 4+ghz quad core, and a 580GTX graphics card.

Makes a nice refreshing change to read of someone that isn't attempting to convince everyone who's gullible enough, to believe that they are running FSX with all sliders fully right. lol

[davidzill 8]

No one is running with those sliders all the way to the right and getting FPS above 10-15, unless you have a 7Ghz processor being cooled by liquid nitrogen. I have autogen to none, water zero, scenery complexity to normal, no traffic, and with the computer listed on my signature I can get the 737NGX running 30fps at best at altitude, flytampa airports 10-15fps, etc. Its not PMDG or the 737NGX, it is FSX.

[rquick 19]

I'm considering liquid nitrogen for next system. :)

[ZachLW 36]

No one is running with those sliders all the way to the right and getting FPS above 10-15, unless you have a 7Ghz processor being cooled by liquid nitrogen. I have autogen to none, water zero, scenery complexity to normal, no traffic, and with the computer listed on my signature I can get the 737NGX running 30fps at best at altitude, flytampa airports 10-15fps, etc. Its not PMDG or the 737NGX, it is FSX.

I've got them all to the right. A little tweaking and a decent system can handle that...Then again I hate to make compromises. I'm more than happy with performance.Btw will over fifteen fps in ever scenario

[Scott434 12]

The coding for FSX is all jacked up. For instance, the latest combat flight sim, DCS A-10C, runs at a steady 60FPS on my computer with much better terrain, aircraft, and weather graphics. They took the time to program the coding correctly to balance the load between the graphics card and CPU. FSX relies almost solely upon the CPU. Because of this, I am forced to painstakingly make mods to my FSX.cfg file, then reduce most of my graphics options to almost the minumums, and fly only to default airports to get minimum playable fps performance. This is with a 4+ghz quad core, and a 580GTX graphics card.

Had a few "drinks" today to celebrate the NGX. What a pleasure to be in the cockpit of this work of art. But of course as you and others point out, fsx is pretty much tapped at this point. PMDG had to basically off load the entire aircraft in separate code and just use fsx to host the plane. We might get another few goodies over the next year or so but can't see past that (could be wrong as you never know). I have a theory (of course I do, I've had a few ... hehe). What if MS goes the Apple app route with Flight and wants a cut of the developers small niche market revenue to be a player in Flight? At some point someone needs to develop a FS environment that is scalable and uses modern hardware (multicore cpus and gpus). Image how cool it would be to stop talking about cpu clock speed and waiting 6 years for hardware to be able to be fast enough to cover for ancient software. Anyway, all in all, it has been a great weekend and the NGX is a beaut!!!. Thanks again PMDG!

[ajpongress 467]

No one is running with those sliders all the way to the right and getting FPS above 10-15, unless you have a 7Ghz processor being cooled by liquid nitrogen. I have autogen to none, water zero, scenery complexity to normal, no traffic, and with the computer listed on my signature I can get the 737NGX running 30fps at best at altitude, flytampa airports 10-15fps, etc. Its not PMDG or the 737NGX, it is FSX.

Actually, I have every slider maxed except for autogen & scenery complexity (set @ very dense), and mesh resolution at 5m.Add REX2 textures, UTX, GEX, and ASE and I get 30 frames on the ground at default airports.Payware such as FSDreamteam's KORD and Flightbeam's KSFO drops it to about 17-20 when on the ground. And I didn't need a liquid nitrogen 7GHz processor to do it. :)

[rquick 19]

I've got them all to the right. A little tweaking and a decent system can handle that... Then again I hate to make compromises. I'm more than happy with performance. Btw will over fifteen fps in ever scenario

And... you're running latest and greatest cpu overclocked to 4.8 with a cooler. (although with liquid nitrogen you could probably get to 5.8... ;/ ) That's pretty much what you have to do.

[papagoose 3]

Btw will over fifteen fps in ever scenario

If you ask any other gamer what they think of 15FPS, they will laugh because it is so ridiculously low. That a 5 year old game runs at 15FPS on a 4.8GHz 2600K just says that is is coded absolutely terribly compared to some of the other software that is available. It runs like a console port, only with better mouse support :(

[ZachLW 36]

If you ask any other gamer what they think of 15FPS, they will laugh because it is so ridiculously low. That a 5 year old game runs at 15FPS on a 4.8GHz 2600K just says that is is coded absolutely terribly compared to some of the other software that is available. It runs like a console port, only with better mouse support :(

Hence me saying well over fifteen :)

[wanabflyer 51]

At the moment i am in the early stages of seting up my 737NGX and have only just got through my first flight from KSFO (FlightBeam) to KPDX.I did get on average around 27-30 fps on the ground in KSFO. I have limited to 30FPS and stayed at that for the flight until coming into Portland which is covered by FTX PNW and the freeware downtown Portland by Orbx. Here i had a few dips down into the low teens. I do have some pretty high settings in my FSX graphics options but as far as i am concerned i should be able to without compromise.What really annoy's me is that Microsoft has no intention of improving FSX. What you see is what you get because they are busy working on another totally different platform that all of my great addons like FTX PNW, REX2 and PMDG aircraft to name a few, will be totally unusable on. I would have lined up and payed dearly for A workable improved FSX2 that is compatible with these great addons. I would like to see even more imptrovements in computing so that i don't have to give more money to Microsoft for the next almost unworkable simulator. It would look good on them if every body just stuck with what they have.Just MHO.

[papagoose 3]

Hence me saying well over fifteen :)

Ah my bad, I thought you said 15FPS minimum. My rig is similar to yours, I see about 20-30 everywhere. However, considering that FSX is the oldest game on my computer, and literally everything else runs at >60FPS minimum, I think that says something too!

[Tierborn 45]

I've got them all to the right. A little tweaking and a decent system can handle that... Then again I hate to make compromises. I'm more than happy with performance. Btw will over fifteen fps in ever scenario

Some of these guys are looking for 60fps ...

[Guest 747-fan]

Well, the NGX is a thing of beauty and it's been a fun couple days getting to know it a little. It has also brought back the reality of how much of a cluster @#$% FSX is. Thanks to the great intro section of the manual and the very helpful configuration tool that it links to, the game works reasonable well in the starkest of conditions and at altitude. Any attempt, however, to spice things up with a medium size airport with some traffic is met with harsh punishment in frame rates. It really just sucks the enjoyment out of what should be great experience. This is certainly no fault of PMDG. It's been a couple years so I guess it's time to plan out another computer build. Although even the latest and greatest will require immediate CPU fan upgrades and overclocking to run FSX with any realism. In the meantime, I'll fly from African desert to African desert. Far, far away from humanity.

Funny post, and it sounds very familiar! BTW This is the first addon in years I'm willing to start saving up for a new rig for. Fantastic job, PMDG!