Can anyone explain why I get 20-25FPS with an addon scenery with the NGX, when the 747 I get around 10-20? Newer software or? Same thing with the Level-D 767, that's virtually a 2-D VC and I get better in the NGX ha.

NGX has had a lot of new optimisations that many other addons and older PMDG addons don't. On the run up to NGX release it was discussed a lot.

Can anyone explain why I get 20-25FPS with an addon scenery with the NGX, when the 747 I get around 10-20? Newer software or? Same thing with the Level-D 767, that's virtually a 2-D VC and I get better in the NGX ha.

 

I get much better performance in the 747 than the NGX,

It's definitely a result of PMDG optimizing their code. Also remember that the 747 was a conversion from FS2004 to FSX. The 747 v2 should run as fast as the current NGX. I also look forward to their 777.

Will there be further work with this? I runa multicore system that doesn't really use my processor that well. The NGX does a better job than anything else I use at the moment, but it could still be improved a lot judging by my task manager. Can we look forward to more optimiation in the future for newer systems or is FSX itself becoming the limit?

I get much better performance in the 747 than the NGX,

 

True here as well, I'd say the 747 has a higher minimum performance rate than the NGX.. sometimes it just drops below 10..

 

So odd.

Also remember that the 747 was a conversion from FS2004 to FSX.

 

Not true - the model and sounds are FSX native (redone, not just a port - the VC and stuff looks the same because the textures didn't change). The systems programming was all redone to use SimConnect instead of FSUIPC - again not just taking the FS9 code and using it in FSX. If you want to see a pretty visible example, watch how long the AIRAC loading takes in the FS9 version vs. the FSX one - it's way faster in FSX due to the recoding.

 

What is true is that we've learned a ton since the 747 was made (it was our first FSX product) about how to better optimize and stuff. VC wise the NGX performs better for me than the 747 does as well.

The NGX frames performance is remarkable compared to the MD11. Good work!

Not true - the model and sounds are FSX native (redone, not just a port - the VC and stuff looks the same because the textures didn't change). The systems programming was all redone to use SimConnect instead of FSUIPC - again not just taking the FS9 code and using it in FSX. If you want to see a pretty visible example, watch how long the AIRAC loading takes in the FS9 version vs. the FSX one - it's way faster in FSX due to the recoding.

 

What is true is that we've learned a ton since the 747 was made (it was our first FSX product) about how to better optimize and stuff. VC wise the NGX performs better for me than the 747 does as well.

My mistake. But I definitely appreciate the work you have put into making the newer products more usable with current systems.

The NGX performs all-around better than the 747 for me as well. However the Level-D 767 outperforms them both when it comes to the VC. It really just seems to be computer specific.

The NGX performs all-around better than the 747 for me as well. However the Level-D 767 outperforms them both when it comes to the VC. It really just seems to be computer specific.

 

I don't believe the LevelD has quite the quality of textures as the NGX or the 747 as far as that goes, though closer. Dont get me wrong, its good but it's no NGX. On my computer, the NGX performance is just as good as the LevelD.

I don't believe the LevelD has quite the quality of textures as the NGX or the 747 as far as that goes, though closer. Dont get me wrong, its good but it's no NGX. On my computer, the NGX performance is just as good as the LevelD.

 

Oh yeah, in terms of quality, the NGX beats everyone by miles. I was just saying that even though it seems that the LD767 is ported from FS9 it runs better than the NGX in the VC but it is pretty understandable how the NGX performs considering the depth and quality of textures that the NGX has.

NGX has had a lot of new optimisations that many other addons and older PMDG addons don't. On the run up to NGX release it was discussed a lot.

 

Jay-

 

The technology "core" that was used in the 747-400 the MD-11 was based around a process that started with our FS9 NG that was released back in 2003. In effect- it was a code-core that was initiated in August of 2002.

 

When we started to seriously consider PMDG's development future post MD-11, there was a very strong consensus within the team that the "code core" we were working with was inferior to what we were capable of, it was not well suited for funcational expansion, it was inefficient and poorly laid out...

 

In short- it was time to clean-sheet our development and come at it with a set of fresh ideas and a completely new approach.

 

Alex Bashkatov led that effort beginning four years ago this week, with a tremendous amount of input from Michael Frantzeskakis, The World Famous Dr. EV(il), and some others...

 

At the end of the day we have a code base that is far more adaptable, and far more efficient. We have eliminated massive inefficiencies in data handling while simultaneously building a platform that will move (relatively) easily from FSX to other platforms...

 

We don't spent a whole lot of time marketing the "core" of our product development process- but you will see the results with the expansion of the product line over the next 14-16 months or so... As each successive product releases- the quality of the others will also improve.

 

We could never have done that with the old methods....

 

(Thanks for noticing tho- the guys were thrilled to see someone did!)

All that coding sounds like a nightmare. Its no wonder it takes so long to develop new stuff. You can really tell the difference in the development cycle between the ngx and the 777.

Indeed, there is a marked improvement over older products! I also noticed the different advances that were made on the 737 NGX after the release and the various SP's that came after!

 

I remember that when I first purchased the NGX, it battled a bit on my system and was really difficult to fly in some of the bussier, larger and more detailed airports.

 

Now, I did not have a supercomputer at the time, but ran fairly decent Core2Duo with a 8800 GTX with 768MB video memory, so some of it was down to my pc's personal performance.

 

When SP1b was released, and PMDG added that marvelous little performance configuration editor, I was over the moon! Playing around with that I got a chance to experience a lot more fps, BUT, even when not dropping the texture quality, I noticed a 5-7 fps increase in my performance. I was thrilled!

 

Then came SP1c, and I was able to run EVERYTHING on high textures and still get 20 fps plus on the ground, and no less than 17 fps at the really busy airports.

 

Since then I have upgraded a bit to a Core2Quad processor with a 480 GTX card and 2GB extra RAM, to bring it to 6GB in total. I can now run FSX with everything set at Ultra High and experience in excess of 20 fps at most airports.

 

I do tone down on the scenery a bit, since I prefer performance to visual quality, and use scenery settings at Medium High, and now the NGX provides me around 25 fps on the ground at the busy airports, and of course way more when I am up there!

 

I have noticed that the 747X's VC tends to be a little heavier on the fps than the NGX, so yes, I have also noticed the huge advances that PMDG have made. Thank you RSR and the PMDG team - I really look forward to the future!

 

Kind regards