So I have the PMDG 737, and I can just barely fly it with 20 FPS on the ground, but in the air I get 30 FPS, and I was wondering what you guys think the system requirements will be compared to the NGX. I'm hopeing that the 777 wont be much more detailed than the NGX, because if it is I might not be able to run it. Also what do you guys think the FPS will be compared to NGX, better, worse, about the same etc?

PMDG has said the 777 will utilize the same fps saving techniques the NGX has, but upgraded.

I would expect better frames due to that, and also due to the overhead panel not being as complicated as the 737.

The 777 OH has less to model, which means less polygons and more frames.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone...typing errors imminent

So I have the PMDG 737, and I can just barely fly it with 20 FPS on the ground, but in the air I get 30 FPS, and I was wondering what you guys think the system requirements will be compared to the NGX. I'm hopeing that the 777 wont be much more detailed than the NGX, because if it is I might not be able to run it. Also what do you guys think the FPS will be compared to NGX, better, worse, about the same etc?

If the T7 is more heavily system wise you'd just have to adapt, by running more conservatively.

The 777 also has a simpler cockpit from a virtual cockpit modelling standpoint. Which will take more of a hit on performance (NGX) than the extra background algorithms (777), so we may even gain some frames.

 

EDIT just noticed 777fan said pretty much the same thing.

I'm hopeing that the 777 wont be much more detailed than the NGX, because if it is I might not be able to run it.

 

Why would you want the 777 less detailed than the NGX? IMO the more realistic and the more detailed, the better.....

You had doubts about not being able to run the 777 with reasonable frame rates, however if it does happen you might have to sacrifice some Addons like REX which are quite demanding. OR you could upgrade some components and/or maybe try overclocking your CPU.

Why would you want the 777 less detailed than the NGX? IMO the more realistic and the more detailed, the better.....

You had doubts about not being able to run the 777 with reasonable frame rates, however if it does happen you might have to sacrifice some Addons like REX which are quite demanding. OR you could upgrade some components and/or maybe try overclocking your CPU.

No mate, you understand it wrong. He will be detailed simulater but just the look of the T7 cockpit isn`t detailed as 737`s cockpit. You have less buttons on T7 as well as OH panel is much more simple than one on 737

What i meant was I hope it is the same detailed, not less, that way I can run it, but what its sounding like by the comments above is the aircraft is less complex so theres as much going on, so more likely better frame rates.

So I have the PMDG 737, and I can just barely fly it with 20 FPS on the ground, but in the air I get 30 FPS, and I was wondering what you guys think the system requirements will be compared to the NGX. I'm hopeing that the 777 wont be much more detailed than the NGX, because if it is I might not be able to run it. Also what do you guys think the FPS will be compared to NGX, better, worse, about the same etc?

 

 

dude, some of us run it on 10fps with default a/c (not me i get 15 ground 30 air but i used to get 9fps) complaining about not having higher than 30 fps aint much of a problem

As long as it's not worse than the NGX I'm satisfied.

I'll be happy even if I need to upgrade to an i9 8550khz machine with 94GB of ram and a 32gig video card running on a 1.2 jigawatt flux capacitor... as long as such a thing exists by release date

 

... I suspect it will run similarily to the NGX, they are after all developing it on similar techology (which is also why the development cycle is apparently shorter as it shares some common elements with the NGX according to posts a few years ago).

What would be nice is if they could take the none visual element of the add-on and offset them to run on a different core. I know FSX isn't multi-core compatible, but who's say complex add-ons cant be.

You all should not be worried about frames but about a amount of memory it uses. Go to the thread in the main fsx forum here at avsim that talks about the new cyvr release from fsdt. It is a growing thread about memory usage with respect to their release and users using the NGX with it. The NGX is using like 800MB of memory which is a lot. Some users including Umberto with FSDT ran some memory tests. If we don't want more and more OOM errors we all need to hope the 777 users less memory.

 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 2

 

 

Considering I can barely get 20 FPS with the NGX on the ground, I wont be running add on scenery, so this is no concern for me.

I would guess that some features, such as alpha protection, run invisibly in the background and take up memory. I wonder if PMDG is designing the T7 (or could design it) so that the user would have the option of turning such features off on a lower-end system.

 

Also, it would be great if some functions could be assigned to a second core on computers with multi-core processors.

 

Mike

Also, it would be great if some functions could be assigned to a second core on computers with multi-core processors.

 

Mike

 

Setting the Affinity Mask to a program can do that but I do not know if a program running into FSX can do the same, I assume it can't but PMDG can be more detailed on this topic.