How's fps compared to Ngx and/or milviz 737?

You can read my system specs in my profile. Of my hanger, this is one of the hardest on my FPS. Borders on unusable around my worst airport, but generally fine. I don't own the NGX but I have the Milviz 732 and it's easier of the frames than the DC-9.

Coolsky DC9 Classic (FSX) ..... I just got it a week ago. Great aircraft!

I was reading the manual and doing some setups / testing this morning.

With 2 monitors 1920x1080 each, Eastern livery (McPhat), TML4096, KDTW (Blue Print Simulations), FPS locked at 30, I got VC 25 FPS. Spot view 29 FPS.
 

My Win 7-64 PC specs

550W power supply

Motherboard : Gigabyte Z68A-D3H-B3
Realtek audio

Intel Core i7 2600 3.40GHz / 3.70GHz Quad core, 8 threads.

Win7-64 Home Premium
16GB RAM
Two 1TB hard drives

Viewsonic, 2 monitors
VX2250WM-LED

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti 1GB

DirectX 11

I'm only getting a very slight few frames perf hit in FTX PNW scenery, with both McPhat Studios internal cockpit 4096 textures and McPhat Studios external 4096 textures, with 4096 REX clouds.

 

All overkill I know but I like to torture Microsoft Windows computers.

 

Same basic spec as the guy above but with GTX 680 vid card.

 

There is a LOT going on in this simulation.

 

Shame this plane doesn't get more attention. This really looks to be a nicely feature, systems plane.

 

After I master my recent CS sale purchases, this will definitely be on my top list to buy.

 

That blue/green VC really rubs me the wrong way for some reason, looks like flying a surgical room or something. I'll probably HAVE to buy the DLC textures to change that.

I was such a HUGE fan of the Coolsky MD-80 Super 80, and so I bought this DC-9 very optimistically, but like some others have said, I no longer fly it, because I cannot get performance that I am happy with.   I find it stuttery and I get periods of low frame rates.   On my system it is way harder on frames and stutters than the NGX, AXE, and even the PMDG 74-400X.   :(

 

I'm not a frame rate counter - as long as it is consistant and smooth; 23-24 FPS is fine for me.... but with this aircraft I get variances between 25 and 15 FPS; which makes for a stuttery experience. :(

 

I note that the DC-9 has a McPhat created VC, and obviously the texturing is far superior to that in the Super 80 but I guess this may also be the reason why the Super 80 was super smooth on my system, and the DC-9 is a bit of a hog.

And it seems random because I get wonderful performance. It's one of my all time favourites, I just wish they'd add a TCAS to make it RVSM compliant and able to fly in more airspace realistically. I don't see the harm in making it an option.

 

Also note I don't have the Macphat VC textures.

Coolsky Super 80 (installs for FS9 and FSX):

In their FS9 version you can choose to fly the 2D model cockpit only or the VC model (has VC and and 2D).

I noticed when testing their Fs9 VC Model a problem with the Drop Down Menu.
It happens When I have the drop down menu option turned "ON" so it will be available in the 2D and VC cockpit.

Basically, after switching views (e.g. to Spot view then back to cockpit view) the drop down box occupies a large area.

Has anyone else see this?

Screenshots of the normal drop down and the real large one.
 

 

 

Also note I don't have the Macphat VC textures.

 

Hi Lee,   Worth pointing out that although yes McPhat sell the UHDT Optional VC, also even the standard supplied VC is made by them too.

From the beginning when this addon came out about a year ago, their was always graphical abnormalities.  Many patches and updates have come out since release date.

 

On my setup it runs pretty good.  Problem is that the cockpit was made by McPhat, and Coolsky did the rest. It was joint venture between the 2 developers.

 

Wou7ld I buy it???  Yes...

Hi Lee, Worth pointing out that although yes McPhat sell the UHDT Optional VC, also even the standard supplied VC is made by them too.

Of course. I just meant for performance talk that I don't have them. As it might make a difference.

Of course. I just meant for performance talk that I don't have them. As it might make a difference.

 

I made that same choice.  Performance and fps is as good as NGX, no stutters, but I didn't want it to then quite possibly degrade by stepping up to the UHDT textures.

I was such a HUGE fan of the Coolsky MD-80 Super 80, and so I bought this DC-9 very optimistically, but like some others have said, I no longer fly it, because I cannot get performance that I am happy with. I find it stuttery and I get periods of low frame rates. On my system it is way harder on frames and stutters than the NGX, AXE, and even the PMDG 74-400X. :(

 

I'm not a frame rate counter - as long as it is consistant and smooth; 23-24 FPS is fine for me.... but with this aircraft I get variances between 25 and 15 FPS; which makes for a stuttery experience. :(

 

I note that the DC-9 has a McPhat created VC, and obviously the texturing is far superior to that in the Super 80 but I guess this may also be the reason why the Super 80 was super smooth on my system, and the DC-9 is a bit of a hog.

I think it's down to the textures. I picked up the UHDT cockpits along with UHDT external textures from McPhat and if both are set to 4096x4096..... and REX clouds are HD 4096..... and ORBX is run with high Autogen, and lots of air/ground traffic in PNW with KSEA, well..... surprise! We've hit a limit! The UHDT cockpits can be installed at 2048x2048, btw, and on the SD external models with a tweak, so those are other options.

 

I can still run it with all that, but of course with a penalty in FPS during takeoff.

 

Fortunately you have control over the mix, it's just a matter of where you want to see 4096 detail. It can't be everywhere, clearly. Unless you're flying out in the boondocks.