I honestly can't understand how this product made it out of beta testing, with the supposed wide ranging beta team, with poor performance like this. How is it possible that they didn't comment on the fact that flying this in any sort of scenery or bad weather grinds the show to a halt? It is INCREDIBLY frustrating to know that in the 5 (thanks Heffron for correcting me) years since FSX release, I have FINALLY gotten my computer to the point where it would run things at an acceptable level. Technology has finally caught up. And now, PMDG goes and throws us all back in to the stone age. It is no longer acceptable that in this day in age, with the high quality scenery that is available (which I can run fine with my other addon A/C, including PMDG), that an aircraft addon slows it all down. What are we missing PMDG? How is it that not a single beta tester commented on this sort of performance? How is it that Nick from AoA is able to get beautifully streaming performance in the virtual cockpit, loaded up at complex addon airport, and even RECORDING to boot? What is the answer here? And the worst part is that the only fix you suggest is two little tweaks that seem like the FS community have known about since the beginning of time. We are customers that have spend THOUSANDS of dollars upgrading systems. An i7 CPU cost over $250! Purchasing one requires and entirely new mother board and ram as well. It's in the range of $600-$750 just to upgrade those three pieces. We've invested. We've spent. We even shelled out an extra $70 under the impression that this aircraft would perform. You had led us to believe that it would. Near MD-11 performance? Not even close! 747X even? Nope. Unbelievable. You lied to us PMDG. You built an awesome plane that we are going to have to wait another year or more to be able to run well. I suggest you really look closely next time around and figure out what is and is not acceptable. I can handle slightly lower resolution virtual cockpit images if it means the functionality is still up to par and the bird performs well. Just don't put us in a position where we have to consider flying something else when it comes time to fly in to the wonderful airports that we've ALSO spent our hard earned money on. I understand that with a huge leap forward in addon quality like this, it's going to take more resources. But you've hogged them all. This is the first aircraft I remember buying where the file size was SO much larger than any airport scenery I own. How is all of this necessary? I guess I need to start writing some friends at NASA and see if they'll let me install this on one of their computers, just in the hopes of ever getting to see it at higher than 15 fps. How say you, PMDG? What is your answer? Plenty of people have withheld their cash to see what performance would be, and now they are likely glad that they did. This needs to be fixed. Please do so promptly and let us really enjoy it. All of the marketing and talk about how you couldn't wait to let us experience what you've been so excited about for so long.... well we're still waiting to. -Chris Virgilio

FSX was released in 2006. 5 years ago. Anywho, I don't have any problems at all. It might be your FSX setup as I have no i7 at all but I am getting decent frames on my dualcore. How's that?

Have you followed the performance instructions in the introduction? It seems 99% of people complaining about performance saw a significant increase after following the instructions that came with the product. These are also standard tweaks that should be applied to any FSX system.

Sigh, Don't know what to tell ya man...

Have you followed the performance instructions in the introduction? It seems 99% of people complaining about performance saw a significant increase after following the instructions that came with the product. These are also standard tweaks that should be applied to any FSX system.

Did you read the part of my post where I talked about the tweaks. I've made said tweaks. I've done the ******* thing. It had a HUGE impact on my system before the NGX. It was at the point where the MD-11 would never dip below 30 fps ANYWHERE. It was kicking butt. Not close to what I'm experiencing now. -Chris Virgilio

It all comes down to your system man, you cant come in here ranting and raving at PMDG because YOUR system cant handle the addon because of your qaulity of setup or just general settings! My system is not that great and im getting 30-35 FPS in the VC and in spot view im getting 50-60 FPS

Thats harsh mate! I'm running it quite decently on my aging system...

Oh jeez. There are tonnes of people on here running with 2 year old processors and are happy with their performance. Do you really need me to put quotes on here from people? So their testimony says 2 things; 1) you're hardware belongs in the apollo 13 2) you do not know how to optimize your computer. It IS one or the other. Nick knows how because he knows how to optimize!

It all comes down to your system man, you cant come in here ranting and raving at PMDG because YOUR system cant handle the addon because of your qaulity of setup or just general settings! My system is not that great and im getting 30-35 FPS in the VC and in spot view im getting 50-60 FPS

It's nice that you talk about getting great stuff. I can get FPS like that in mid air or at default airports as well. But we're talking about addon airports. I have the same system as just about all of the other guys complaining about FPS on this forum also. There is a serious issue here when PMDG uses Flightbeam's SFO in some of it's images but the flying public can't get around that airport at faster than a crawl. I have every right to rant.

Out of curiosity Chris, whats you video card?

Sheesh. Im running i7 with no problems.

Look, i have a 3 years old dual core, and i run 25-30 fps inside vc at a default airport and around 15 fps average at an Aerosoft airport. That's with 20% Ai traffic and scenery at medium. At think it's a good compromise. There must be something wrong with your set-up. And calm down a bit, you come on a bit agressive here, that will not help anything. This add-on is a HUGE step forward wich uses a FS platform that was never really well designed to begin with. I hope you can sort this out, you would not want to miss on this awsome product. Al.

I honestly can't understand how this product made it out of beta testing, with the supposed wide ranging beta team, with poor performance like this. How is it possible that they didn't comment on the fact that flying this in any sort of scenery or bad weather grinds the show to a halt? It is INCREDIBLY frustrating to know that in the 3 years since FSX release, I have FINALLY gotten my computer to the point where it would run things at an acceptable level. Technology has finally caught up. And now, PMDG goes and throws us all back in to the stone age. It is no longer acceptable that in this day in age, with the high quality scenery that is available (which I can run fine with my other addon A/C, including PMDG), that an aircraft addon slows it all down. What are we missing PMDG? How is it that not a single beta tester commented on this sort of performance? How is it that Nick from AoA is able to get beautifully streaming performance in the virtual cockpit, loaded up at complex addon airport, and even RECORDING to boot? What is the answer here? And the worst part is that the only fix you suggest is two little tweaks that seem like the FS community have known about since the beginning of time. We are customers that have spend THOUSANDS of dollars upgrading systems. An i7 CPU cost over $250! Purchasing one requires and entirely new mother board and ram as well. It's in the range of $600-$750 just to upgrade those three pieces. We've invested. We've spent. We even shelled out an extra $70 under the impression that this aircraft would perform. You had led us to believe that it would. Near MD-11 performance? Not even close! 747X even? Nope. Unbelievable. You lied to us PMDG. You built an awesome plane that we are going to have to wait another year or more to be able to run well. I suggest you really look closely next time around and figure out what is and is not acceptable. I can handle slightly lower resolution virtual cockpit images if it means the functionality is still up to par and the bird performs well. Just don't put us in a position where we have to consider flying something else when it comes time to fly in to the wonderful airports that we've ALSO spent our hard earned money on. I understand that with a huge leap forward in addon quality like this, it's going to take more resources. But you've hogged them all. This is the first aircraft I remember buying where the file size was SO much larger than any airport scenery I own. How is all of this necessary? I guess I need to start writing some friends at NASA and see if they'll let me install this on one of their computers, just in the hopes of ever getting to see it at higher than 15 fps. How say you, PMDG? What is your answer? Plenty of people have withheld their cash to see what performance would be, and now they are likely glad that they did. This needs to be fixed. Please do so promptly and let us really enjoy it. All of the marketing and talk about how you couldn't wait to let us experience what you've been so excited about for so long.... well we're still waiting to. -Chris Virgilio

Yest, your individual poor experience indicates conclusively that this product is crap. Nevermind all those reporting that they're getting good performance and enjoying the product. Your system is the end all be all of pc's, and is perfectly tuned. You would probably receive a better response if, instead of coming on here and making ridiculous accusations and unreasonable demands that generalize your individual experience to the community as a whole, you try to take advantage of the vast knowledge users of this forum have. Perhaps an approach of "Hey guys, this isn't working for me, what are you doing differently than I am?" would actually help you arrive at your desired end state. And you wouldn't look silly.

I have not tweaked FSX apart from the HIGHMEMFIX=1 option and I get an easy 30 FPS with the NGX. NOTE THAT I REALIZE THAT FSX IS POORLY CODED AND AS A RESULT I RUN WITH MOST OF THE EYE CANDY DISABLED! If you max AutoGen, AI and other options, then you are just asking for extremely poor performance from FSX. PM me your e-mail address and I'll send you my FSX config file. Best regards,Robin.

Hi, I know you may not want to here this, but I have no problem. I'm getting 31FPS at FSDT's KJFK. I experience minor drops to 27/24 when changing directions and I'm running a resolution of 5760x1200. Its not PMDG, its on your end.