Perhaps Martin; there's certainly no denying that PMDG have been thinking (and creating) outside of the box for years.

 

But your still not giving us anyhing convincing in terms of how the MJCQ400 is nowhere near the PMDG's compexity level.     PMDG aicraft and the MJCQ400 are on a level where fidelity is concerned, in my opinion.   Yes, the PMDG products have some areas that the MJC does not; but likewise, where is the Q400's audio crew ambience simulation in the NGX ?..... Where is the advanced flight control tuning configuration interface? ......

 

I'm not knocking the PMDG; I am a huge fan.  But I don't agree one iota with your supposition that the Q400 is easy on frame rates because it's so much less complex than the NGX.

 

PMDG may be ahead of the pack in most areas, but I do believe that performance in FSX is one area they would do well to be looking at Majestic and how they've managed to get frame rates and smoothness that almost beats the default C172, in such a detailed, complex simulation.

 

 

Perhaps Martin; there's certainly no denying that PMDG have been thinking (and creating) outside of the box for years.

 

Not just thinking outside of the box, coding outside of FSX, Just like Majestic do, only more so. However... despite both aircraft developers programing outside of FSX, the NGX has much lower frame rate. What does that tell you...? It tells you that the high frame rate in the Q400 is not as a result of the FDE being coded outside of FSX. If it were, then given that PMDG code much of the FDE outside of the sim and a multitude of other elements, the NGX would have super high frame rates too.

 

 

But your still not giving us anyhing convincing in terms of how the MJCQ400 is nowhere near the PMDG's compexity level.

 

I'm not trying to... PMDG are. Did you read the comments on this from PMDG, in the quote above? Here it is again. I separated the points being made. It's very easy to see how the NGX is very math intensive.

 

 

 

I suspect their FPS are higher largely because their VC has a lot less clickspots, animations, draw calls and texture resolution than then NGX does, not because the flight modelling is somehow granting it a ton more frames.

 

As well done as their simulation is, it's also a fact that a Q400 is a much simpler airplane (in real life) than a 737 or 777.

 

Full geometric path VNAV that takes into account both altitude and speed with all manner of soft and hard constraints, variable target descent speeds and limits, autothrottle logic etc is very heavy math.

 

(There's all kinds of calculus and differential equations involved in doing it) Look at what our LNAV is doing too - all the turn prediction curve drawing etc - those aren't static things that get drawn once, they're dynamically generated based on the current flight situation and get recalculated with every "tick" of the aircraft's system timers.

 

Again, very heavy math that the Q400's route line drawing doesn't have to do.

 

If PMDG don't know how much advanced number crunching is required for their own product, compared to a less complex aircraft like a regional turboprop, then no one does. Just the NGX's VNAV alone, is far more demanding in terms of the CPU number crunching required than the Q400. Now add the greater animations, draw calls and texture resolution that the NGX has and you'll get the picture.

 

Where is the advanced flight control tuning configuration interface? ......

 

That's nothing to do with the subject we are debating, namely better FPS in the Q400.

Well the PMDG J41 is slightly less complex than the Q400, so why is that so heavy on frames? It doesn't do any of that heavy math stuff you mention.

Answer to the original question?

Yes, it is.

Simple as that.

Well the PMDG J41 is slightly less complex than the Q400, so why is that so heavy on frames? It doesn't do any of that heavy math stuff you mention.

The J41 was an "interim" project that PMDG knocked up in between major releases. It didn't have anything like the optimisation, and development time as the NGX or Majestic Q400. IIRC,It was also the first VC only PMDG add-on, and PMDG were still developing their VC techniques.

 

IIRC, potential purchasers at the time demanded features like icing and rain on the windshield. PMDG warned that there would be a penalty for this.

 

If I switch off icing etc. in the J41 I achieve high frame rates.

 

It's not really valid to compare an interim project that had less development to the NGX or Q400.

 

Chaps, you have to understand, PMDG employ some very talented programmers, including guys with PhD's in computational fluid dynamics. They understand this stuff way better than we do, so if PMDG tell you that the NGX already does code most of the FDE outside of FSX, and not only that, but almost everything else too then it becomes patently obvious that reason for the Q400's high frame rate resides somewhere other than the externally coded FDE.

I should also add, that I am in no way a Q400 detractor. On the contrary, I have raved about the Q400 from the moment it was released.

 

My only point here, is that we should look elsewhere, other than the FDE, if we wish to determine why the Q400 frame rates are high. Personally, I fully understand the points PMDG made regarding this, you guys are free to make your own mind up.

 

Regarding lack of turbulence in the Q400. I agree absolutely with Dave. Lack of turbulence is one feature, one element that's currently absent. The best way I can put this is as follows... if the Q400 was suddenly wiped from my system, along with all purchasing information, I would rush right out and buy it again, turbulence or no turbulence. It's one of the best add-on's ever for FSX. Having said that, if you happen to be an individual that is desperate for turbulence, and not prepared to wait for Majestic to fix the issue, then so be it, you are free not to purchase.

If PMDG don't know how much advanced number crunching is required for their own product, compared to a less complex aircraft like a regional turboprop, then no one does. Just the NGX's VNAV alone, is far more demanding in terms of the CPU number crunching required than the Q400. Now add the greater animations, draw calls and texture resolution that the NGX has and you'll get the picture.

 

Im going to have to disagree with Ryan on this topic, especially the line drawing part.

 

Multi threading is a very challenging piece of work since one has to prevent threads from trying to read a certain memory space while another thread is writing to it, and in a complex simulation with so many interlinked variables this gets tricky.

 

But when multi threading is properly done, even the most intense graphical calculations or other operations will have ZERO effect on framerates. I have experimented with this myself after I learned what Majestic was doing and once I got things properly organised I was blown away by the results. I will go so far to say that I think Majestic is way ahead of anyone else when it comes to multi threading addon aircraft in FSX and combine that with their highly optimised 3D model and texturing, it is no wonder that it almost outperforms the default aircraft in framerates.

Reading this thread, it feels as if some are accusing Majestic of having produced a too high a framerate :-)

I fly the Dash-400 and the ngx737 and I enjoy both equally.

 

Jos

Im going to have to disagree with Ryan on this topic, especially the line drawing part.

 

Multi threading is a very challenging piece of work since one has to prevent threads from trying to read a certain memory space while another thread is writing to it, and in a complex simulation with so many interlinked variables this gets tricky.

 

But when multi threading is properly done, even the most intense graphical calculations or other operations will have ZERO effect on framerates. I have experimented with this myself after I learned what Majestic was doing and once I got things properly organised I was blown away by the results. I will go so far to say that I think Majestic is way ahead of anyone else when it comes to multi threading addon aircraft in FSX and combine that with their highly optimised 3D model and texturing, it is no wonder that it almost outperforms the default aircraft in framerates.

 

Interesting post.

 

Majestic say this on their website...

 

 

What about framerate? Do I need a top-end PC to run Majestic Dash smoothly?

 

Any PC that can run FSX will be sufficient to run MJC8 Q400. The external FDE and other systems are calculated in other threads than the FSX's one, they can also run on different CPU cores. In fact, the MJC8 Q400 is much lighter on frames than comparable add-ons, it is usually just few fps less than default aircraft.

 

So, PMDG run the bulk of their FDE and other systems outside of FSX, and Majestic run the entire external FDE and other systems outside of FSX. So pretty much the same.

 

But if Majestic are calculating in other threads, and even other cores, and PMDG aren't, perhaps that could validate your theories chaps?

 

Does that make sense?

Answer to the original question?

Yes, it is.

Simple as that.

 

Yeah I'll go with that.

 

I just have no idea where Martin is going with the whole constant repetition about PMDG.....   I think he's just gotten into some circular logic, and has forgotten entirely what the point was he was trying to demonstrate.    (no offence, I'm just kidding :wink:).

So, PMDG run the bulk of their FDE and other systems outside of FSX, and Majestic run the entire external FDE and other systems outside of FSX. So pretty much the same.

 

But if Majestic are calculating in other threads, and even other cores, and PMDG aren't, perhaps that could validate your theories chaps?

 

My point is this. Since Ryan's statement about the line drawing algorithms(graphical calculations) indicated that the navigation display in part has an effect on framerates, then that implies that they are not handling the drawing of the glass graphics entirely outside of the FSX thread. IOW, FSX has to wait for the displays to finish drawing before it can render the next frame instead of displaying the previous texture until it has a new one ready. So in that case, unless PMDG states otherwise (which would indicate that its the texture mapping and modelling that kills frames in PMDG models) PMDG is not entirely outside of the FSX thread especially on the glass display side while Majestic is. Non multi threaded glass displays or other graphical gauges are usually the biggest culprit in framerate loss with too many textures and materials being 2nd.

I just have no idea where Martin is going with the whole constant repetition about PMDG.....   I think he's just gotten into some circular logic, and has forgotten entirely what the point was he was trying to demonstrate.    (no offence, I'm just kidding :wink:).

Well not really. My point was quite simple. PMDG relevance also obvious. PMDG were elaborating upon why Majestic frame rates were higher, and theorising that it was nothing to do with the external FDE because they do the same, the same with other elements of the simulation too.

 

 

 

Jonathon's posts have shed new light on this for me and would make sense.

 

It would make sense that the graphical side of things, glass gauges, invisible systems, being multi threaded that make this add-on perform so well, rather than TomEDDW's suggestion that it was just the FDE.

 

Interesting discussion, we don't have to wind each other up. (no offence, I'm just kidding :wink:).

My point is this. Since Ryan's statement about the line drawing algorithms(graphical calculations) indicated that the navigation display in part has an effect on framerates, then that implies that they are not handling the drawing of the glass graphics entirely outside of the FSX thread. IOW, FSX has to wait for the displays to finish drawing before it can render the next frame instead of displaying the previous texture until it has a new one ready. So in that case, unless PMDG states otherwise (which would indicate that its the texture mapping and modelling that kills frames in PMDG models) PMDG is not entirely outside of the FSX thread especially on the glass display side while Majestic is. Non multi threaded glass displays or other graphical gauges are usually the biggest culprit in framerate loss with too many textures and materials being 2nd.

Apparently the new 777 has significantly higher frame rates than the NGX.

 

Perhaps PMDG are now handling the drawing of the glass graphics entirely outside of the FSX thread. Or perhaps more so than the NGX?

More than likely yes. Also the T7 doesnt have nearly as many parts that require animations and mouse tags etc as the 737 and they have probably made several improvements in the number of textures etc....

Apparently the new 777 has significantly higher frame rates than the NGX.

 

Perhaps PMDG are now handling the drawing of the glass graphics entirely outside of the FSX thread. Or perhaps more so than the NGX?

Sorry,missread your post.

There's less buttons and switches on th 777 than the 737

Also, the J41 supports moving shadows inside the VC + some other features when running in DX10 preview mode.

whereas the NGX doesn't and the 777 probably won't either (i do not know yet). and indeed the J41 was a testcase for the NGX. perhaps they will revisit this addon again i hope.

 

Something tells me that PMDG have since developped their own "sandbox" inside the FSX world that provides them a way to overcome FSX issues and do great stuff inside the VC.

The penalty is perhaps that some DX10 features are impossible like the moving shadows.

How they do it, i haven't the faintest idea, but i think they are just perfecting/ optimizing their techniques resulting in higher frame rates with each release. 

 

However, i was more interested in the argument to defend the statement that the simulation of the NGX is more complex than the Q400. If, in real life, the Q400 is a much simpler machine, then its simulation can be simpler perhaps. granted. But the Q400 has a wheather radar, a complex thrust system, soon to be available push buttons for all fuses etc.

 

Or is it all just clever marketing then?

Stating that the add-on is really intended for real life Q400 students but you folk can make use of it as well is of course the best way to present your product.

 

So are we all fooled ?, or is this Q400 sim really as real as it gets, and therefore an equally real to life simulation as the boeing certified NGX is ?

 

forget about the FPS. don't case how they do it.