Thanks for removing my post That did not give me a chance to answer Your reply....I don´t know which tests You did on FPS versus polygon counts nor do I question the skills of Your developers, but Your answer left me standing back looking kind of stupid.I´m working as a FSX developer myself so I have some kind of knowledge about polgon counts versus framerate. This is how it works (better read carefully cause there might be something to learn): Realtime graphics nowadays is built from single geometric triangles inside the graphics cards. At the end there is a texture assigned to it and after that all is displayed together on the monitor. Thats explained in the simple way. It is even cascading more complex in detail. Those triangles consist of corner points, called vertices by the 3D artists. The area between the vertices is filled with pixels by the GPU and displayed on the monitor afterwards. For a smooth aircraft fuselage you need a lot of small triangles, to blend visually to a flowing form. Each vertice needs computation time by CPU and later the GPU of the graphics card. Before that needed calculation time is not spend, nothing can be displayed at the monitor. So when we define that for a larger number of vertices (N) we need the term "N x computation time", that shows that the time needed for a single frame depends by logic strongly by the number of total vertices. A bit it can be seen as its product. And you tell me it would not be? I cant follow your thoughts. And imagine that we need by nature around 30 Frames per SECOND to be really satisfied... Beside the pure geometry there are also the textures. An extra calculation pass is also to do for night maps, specular and bump maps. Then the computation time is (Number of vertices/polygons x color pass time x specular pass time x bump map pass time). So you see if not properly done the amount of computation time can easily be brought to astronomical numbers if the artists not know what they do and use geometry in a wasting manner. So in the end the pure graphics side aim is: - to use a minimal number of vertices/polygons possible with optimal visual appearance (please see that all your modeled seats in the exterior view are also taken into consideration for the ground shadow calculation...these are hundreds of seats or...alone an additional Cessna in polygons or even more) - use a minimum possible number of texture passes (each is an own drawcall, thats like a punishing round in biathlon each, as the final monitoring must wait for those) - use flat hierarchies in animation because of the matrix transformation (ever heard of that?) So with all this fresh wealth of knowledge I wish you can satisfy you costumers again in the future. Kind regardsFinnJ

What have you developed for fsx?

#####????? Passenger seats in the external model..... do you want seats on the wings?? Mind you FR would probably try that one

Your topic is still there: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/344839-737-ngx-model-files-i-wonder

What have you developed for fsx?

Twin Otter XHughes H-1F-16 XCatalina XAirbus XHuey XGlider XDimona X

#####????? Passenger seats in the external model..... do you want seats on the wings?? Mind you FR would probably try that one

I just wondered why they model passenger seats in the external model where You hardly can see them.If they had used them in the internal model it would have made sense, though I don´t personally want them there for FPS reasons.

Your topic is still there: http://forum.avsim.n...-files-i-wonder

Sorry, but it was gone after a while. A search did not show my original post - could be me - apologies if so. My goal is not to question the quality of the 737 NGX - I find it very good and thoroughly done. I just found it weird to spend effort modelling the seats in the external model, while not using them in the internal model - also knowing about what such high polygon counts do to FSX. Ryans answer just shaked me a bit, cause all 3D modellers (at least professional ones) know what impact polygons has on FPS. I´m still happy with the PMDG 737 NGX And to take it in advance....I know You can´t compare the PMDG 737NGX with the Airbus X - system depth is alot lower on the Airbus (at least relative to realworld aircraft systems), but the 3D model is very efficiently done on the Airbus X. Best regardsFinnJ

Twin Otter XHughes H-1F-16 XCatalina XAirbus XHuey XGlider XDimona X

Yeah, I did a quick search after posting & found that you do xml for Aerosoft

Sorry, but it was gone after a while. A search did not show my original post - could be me - apologies if so.

It's pretty easy to lose topics on this forum. With 100-200 new topics every day, you can go back 4 or 5 pages & still be looking at today's replies. Yours is still there, it just hasn't seen any new replies.