How much of a frame hog is the NGX?

[Daveo 36]

I tried to run it on 32bit Win XP last year, and despite RyanM giving me a lot of support and help, the NGX was not happy. I personally think a 64bit OS, and a GPU Card with no less than 1GB are minimum standards for the NGX. But it you meet those standards, it performs great. It is for example a lot more FPS friendly than say the F1 Mustang, on my system. Where the F1 Mustang gives me 22 FPS, the NGX will give me 30 FPS. Not a slant toward the Mustang as I love it, but I have to enjoy it with settings pretty low in FSX, to get the fluidity.

 

 

Funny how everyone's unique hardware config and settings plays differently. Mine is running great on WinXP 32. I don't watch the counter but I've seen average frame rates per flight in the FSUIPC log at around 36 or so.

[spesimen 135]

, and on approach I was getting around 20 frames maybe a little less, on the ground it went back to about 24fps but I'm trying to understand if this is normal or if maybe I should be getting better results considering my desktop

Anyway, what kind of frame rates do you all get when flying in the VC on an approach/ground etc?

 

i noticed an issue like this recently also! For some reason i'd been getting 14fps framerates during approaches and departures in particular. parked at the airport or in cruise it is usually in the 25-35 range.

 

The culprit in my case was that after installing sp1c i had forgetten to re-reduce the performance settings, in particular "high-resolution displays" seems to drop me by those huge frames from time to time..it's odd because it is intermittent and seems confined to certain phases of flight..

 

to my eyes the low-res is very usable, it stays mostly in 25-30 range near airports with that and into the 40s-60s in cruise... older 3.6ghz system with gtx 560..

 

cheers

-andy crosby

[Stick 0]

Funny how everyone's unique hardware config and settings plays differently. Mine is running great on WinXP 32. I don't watch the counter but I've seen average frame rates per flight in the FSUIPC log at around 36 or so.

 

I totally agree Dave; I know of other people too who ran it fine on Win XP 32bit.... I think there was something amiss with my old system. I would say though that in general, the NGX will hugely benefit from the memory management improvements of a 64 bit system, particularly Win 7 64 bit.

[Boeing or not going 578]

Funny how everyone's unique hardware config and settings plays differently. Mine is running great on WinXP 32. I don't watch the counter but I've seen average frame rates per flight in the FSUIPC log at around 36 or so.

 

I disagree that they play differently. I highly doubt anyone who sees great performance in FSX with WinXP 32bit is not using a combination of, say, PMDG NGX, detailed addon scenery, real weather, AI traffic, full or near to full sliders. Most people who never have performance issues are running default terrain and default airplanes or addon airplanes with low sliders.

[Daveo 36]

I disagree that they play differently. I highly doubt anyone who sees great performance in FSX with WinXP 32bit is not using a combination of, say, PMDG NGX, detailed addon scenery, real weather, AI traffic, full or near to full sliders. Most people who never have performance issues are running default terrain and default airplanes or addon airplanes with low sliders.

 

Oh yes. You must be correct. I forgot to mention I run clear weather, all default scenery , no AI traffic and all my sliders to the left.

[Kosta 122]

If you combine the right stuff, performance is going to suffer. Also same the other way...

[Stick 0]

If you combine the right stuff, performance is going to suffer. Also same the other way...

 

+1

[Kosta 122]

But as I dislike going against on-topic... NGX is much lighter on frames than some other aircraft like JS4100. Quite on par like MD11 or 747. And no, it's not easy on the frames... it's a very complex aircraft and is going to put much strain on the computer. Some performance settings are supplied with it, but don't expect wonders. You need a powerful system.

[Stick 0]

My PMDG frame rate scale in FSX looks like this :-

 

Higher Frame Rate Performance <--- MD-11 ---- JS41 ---- NGX---- 747X --------> Lower Frame Rate Performance

 

but there's not much in it between the JS41 and the NGX for me. JS41 def a bit lighter though.

[AlphaInfinity 13]

Out of all the complex aircraft simulations, the NGX has the highest fidelity with the lowest "per capita" framerate hit.

[Sekstifire 10]

I'd say the performance is very bad. Worse than the CS757.

[Kosta 122]

I'd say the performance is very bad. Worse than the CS757.

 

That's like comparing apples and oranges.

[BigBadMacys 0]

Hey i need some help guys;

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/380501-simple-question-about-ngx-fps-drop/

[bud7h7 1]

I'd say the performance is very bad. Worse than the CS757.

 

That's like comparing apples and oranges.

 

Normally it would be, but the type of aircraft is irrelevant here. If you own the CS757, and you get 20 fps at KMIA for example, then if Sekstifire is correct, you would get less than 20 fps with the NGX. Simple benchmark, not comparing aircraft per se.