For me it is the use of multi panels not speed of computer, after spending 30 hrs or more in level D flight sims the Multi panel 2D display is the most realistic , PDF ND and FMC are actual size.

percy lee

Get over myself? I don't even know where to start on how idiotic that comment is. Paul, I've seen many people with i7's overclocked to the max, 16 gigs of RAM, and GTX 680 video cards who have trouble getting above average frame rates in FSX. Think I'm lying? Go search around. The fact is, FSX is not optimized for newer hardware. That's why you'll see people with nVidia 9600 cards having phenomenal frame rates. Also, many people cannot afford a new computer (just look at the economy). I have a pretty decent machine. I can run Crysis and Crysis 2 on mostly high settings without any problems, but when I go into a payware airports with AI traffic and heavy duty payware planes, the frame rates tend to drop a little in the 3D cockpit., So next time you decide you want to make rude and disrespectful comments, keep them to yourself.

That was exactly my point in my original post on this thread. I wasn't demanding PMDG make a 2D cockpit. All I stated was that I sometimes get framerate drops in the VC, nothing more, and I was attacked for it. For the most part I can run it smoothly, especially in the 2D cockpit. However, when I start throwing in other high performance stuff like the payware ai and airports, there is sometimes a drop in fps.

thank you for further demonstration of importance of using 2d panels in FSX platform that is not optimized for new hardware and cant take heavy and complex 3d party add-ons with realtively and satisfactory FPS results so 2d panels give an alternative walk around this old coded 3d application....

 

from wikipidia: Hardware Compatibility

A common criticism of FSX is its apparent requirement for very high performance hardware, and generally being more dependent on a computer with a higher CPU clock speed, with relatively poor utilization of multiple processing cores. There is also a bug which involves an incompatibility with Windows 7 where it causes a 'Fatal Error', which Microsoft has yet to correct.^[

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Flight_Simulator_X#Hardware_Compatibility}

C'mon guys.

 

VC or 2d. It's a matter of taste. Nothing to argue about that.

Further, it all depends on what PMDG puts in the market. If it's only VC, get over it. If you think your PC doesn't meet the specs or you don't like it. Just don't buy it. Try another sim.

Would you ask landrover to build a 2x2 version only because you don't like the 4x4 or can't afford the gas that goes in it ???

I just love 3D, don't you ;-)

The wants of many outweighs the wants of a few

Jeff

Seems that alot of people have problems with their fps, here iam quite satisfied of what iam geting with my average pc and the only thing i can think of is that i havnt touched my fsx.cfg other than the standard cfg tweaks that are mentioned in the ngx introduction manual. So wondering if people are overdoing the fsx,cfg tweaks

The fact this thread has become this large underlines 2D is not dead.

No, it's not. My windows desktop is still 2D.

Keep going fellas!! :t0152:

I've seen many people with i7's overclocked to the max, 16 gigs of RAM, and GTX 680 video cards who have trouble getting above average frame rates in FSX. Think I'm lying? Go search around

I haven't seen anyone with that problem.

I have seen plenty of people running NGX on machines with no overclocking, and on laptops, and on Mac's, and Core 2 Duo's, and on AMD's...

So do you think I am lying? Or perhaps you are you suggesting all of these people were deliberatly trying to make you look foolish?

 

Of course, the easiest thing of all is to turn off the framerate monitor. This is no longer 2004. Framerates are not how you measure performance in FSX.

I choose 2D because I perfer 2D as it gives me the most relistic view as my computer runs at 4.5 gigs with two top end vidio cards and has nothing to do with frame rates.

percy lee

2D people:

Please stop pulling the "realism" card. 2D depiction (note, not display) is not realistic for a 3D environment (the fact that it's displayed on a 2D panel is irrelevant). If you'd like to argue that point, make sure to include a description as to the contradiction between your statement and the success of CAD and other 3D game programs.

 

You can claim preference all you want, for as long as you want, but the realism card is not going to work. Sorry.

2D people:

Please stop pulling the "realism" card. 2D depiction (note, not display) is not realistic for a 3D environment (the fact that it's displayed on a 2D panel is irrelevant). If you'd like to argue that point, make sure to include a description as to the contradiction between your statement and the success of CAD and other 3D game programs.

 

You can claim preference all you want, for as long as you want, but the realism card is not going to work. Sorry.

 

+1

2D people:

Please stop pulling the "realism" card. 2D depiction (note, not display) is not realistic for a 3D environment (the fact that it's displayed on a 2D panel is irrelevant). If you'd like to argue that point, make sure to include a description as to the contradiction between your statement and the success of CAD and other 3D game programs.

 

You can claim preference all you want, for as long as you want, but the realism card is not going to work. Sorry.

 

Dont tell me I am wrong you do not know what I see and how I interpert what I see, I am interested in only the flight instruments not a bunch of usless cockpit clutter. For you to compare whate I see to 3Dgames shows you do not have a clue as to what you are talking about....Please have a good day...percy lee

I haven't seen anyone with that problem.

I have seen plenty of people running NGX on machines with no overclocking, and on laptops, and on Mac's, and Core 2 Duo's, and on AMD's...

So do you think I am lying? Or perhaps you are you suggesting all of these people were deliberatly trying to make you look foolish?

 

Of course, the easiest thing of all is to turn off the framerate monitor. This is no longer 2004. Framerates are not how you measure performance in FSX.

 

I don't suggest you're lying, but most of the people on here were defending me. I even stated in one of my messages that older hardware is more optimized for FSX, that's why you see people with older graphics cards having better frame rates than those with newer cards in some instances.Have you gone around and searched to see those who were having trouble with FPS on high performance machines? Because people are out there who are having problems. I did a google search for "fsx lag high end pc" and found that nearly every result on the first page was from people with high end hardware having FPS issues in FSX. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it isn't true.

 

I'm glad you mention laptops, because I run one. I have an Asus i5 processor 2.4 ghz turbo to 3.0 ghz, 6 gb DDR3 RAM, and a Nvidia 540m GT 1 GB card. I can run most games on high settings with no problem, yet on occasion have problems with FSX. My machine is less than a year old.

I choose 2D because I perfer 2D as it gives me the most relistic view as my computer runs at 4.5 gigs with two top end vidio cards and has nothing to do with frame rates.

percy lee

 

There's nothing realistic about using 2d panels if you have to click about every click spot to start from cold and dark, and taxing in 3d is so much easier than using 2d.