FPS. What FPS do you get?

[tf51d 284]

I'm also one seeing lower FPS in the 777 compared to the NGX. Perhaps I need to do some tweaking.

I don't have a monster system like many do today, just a lowly 3.0 Ghz C2D system with a GTX 460. Add to that I currently stuck on 32bit vista. So usually I have to do things like reduce texture size in the cockpit to get acceptable performance, and for me that's anything above 11 or 12. With the NGX I get about 12fps in most situations. That is until I tried turning the Hi-Def 3D Cockpit setting in the aircraft section of the FSX settings. Now I get 18-20 on the ground and about 26 in the air. The 777 is even better, I get 20-22 on the ground at KDFW with 100% UT2 traffic, and 30 (locked setting) in the air. Trust me, you will hardly see the difference graphic wise. That is just about the best performance of any complex aircraft in my hangar, including the Q400 which also does well. So far I hadn't had to reduce textures, but if I start seeing OOM's I may have to. So far it looks good, I'm happy!!

 

Tom Cain

[dk_ 196]

I can honestly say that with a top notch computer, i'm actually seeing better performance with the 777 than the 737. Even with heavy detail in the cockpit and HD textures, im averaging around 38/40 FPS. An awesome concept by PMDG. I definitely tip my hat to them. Worth every cent! 

[IAF747 8]

I am seeing slightly better performance than the NGX.

Same here, I love it! Sounds like a 777, feels like a 777, looks like a 777, so ....it must be a 777!!

 

Thanks PMDG! :-)

[Brenchen 51]

I have a 4.8GHz system, running 19-21FPS on ground with REX (no weather engine), sometimes drop to 15FPS at ORBX YBBN.

[martin-w 3,235]

Frame rates are way lower than NGX for me.

 

Stock EGKK, no weather, medium slider settings. 3770K at 4.4GHz, GTX 580, 26 on the ground. Not much better in the climb. Not acceptable to me.

 

No where near the NGX on my system.

 

I will do some more testing later, so I'll reserve judgment till then.

[sidh 29]

My fsx is like women sometimes it works great and sometimes I don't understand  what's inside it..

[Ugo 4]

Even for me framerate is less in the T7 than the NGX. I've read the introduction, and setted my FSX.CFG with Word Not Allowed Guide.

 

My specs are: 

AsRock P67 Ftal1ty Professional, Intel i5 2500 3.30 GHz (overclocked to 3.70 GHz), 8 Gb RAM, NVIDIA Geforce 560 Ti. I use a NOCTUA air coller for the CPU.

 

Sometimes for about 10/12 seconds (always on ground), the framerate drops to 18-20, and after return to 29/30, the value i choose with my external locker.

 

I've tested it in OMDB Scenery by FlyTampa where with NGX I've always have 30 in framerate.

 

What do you think about it, suggestions?

[trancesetter 5]

Specs don't matter but I get about 1/2 frames more with the 777 compared to the NGX. However, the 777 feels much smoother, and with that I mean a lot smoother. My system isn't that great and definitely not FSX or even Windows optimized (iMac).

[tf51d 284]

Have you guys tried my suggestion (Post 31)?

[Ugo 4]

Have you guys tried my suggestion (Post 31)?

 

Hi Tom, you suggest to resize VC Textures, correct? How can i make that? I've find the VC Texture Folder, wich programme do you use and how much do you resize them?

 

Cheers

[Brenchen 51]

I don't have a monster system like many do today, just a lowly 3.0 Ghz C2D system with a GTX 460. Add to that I currently stuck on 32bit vista. So usually I have to do things like reduce texture size in the cockpit to get acceptable performance, and for me that's anything above 11 or 12. With the NGX I get about 12fps in most situations. That is until I tried turning the Hi-Def 3D Cockpit setting in the aircraft section of the FSX settings. Now I get 18-20 on the ground and about 26 in the air. The 777 is even better, I get 20-22 on the ground at KDFW with 100% UT2 traffic, and 30 (locked setting) in the air. Trust me, you will hardly see the difference graphic wise. That is just about the best performance of any complex aircraft in my hangar, including the Q400 which also does well. So far I hadn't had to reduce textures, but if I start seeing OOM's I may have to. So far it looks good, I'm happy!!

 

Tom Cain

 

I think I do find a difference... Mainly in the instrument displays, the actual MFDs you see the text is more fluffy...

[tf51d 284]

Hi Tom, you suggest to resize VC Textures, correct? How can i make that? I've find the VC Texture Folder, wich programme do you use and how much do you resize them?

 

Cheers

No I meant the externals. Looking at the VC textures, they already are downsized from what they were in the NGX (1024x1024 vs 4096x4096) They are mipmapped, which I find interesting. So it doesn't appear to need it, The externals are 4096x4096, which can be downsized. I wouldn't do it though unless I had to to prevent OOM's or performance was so bad, which in the case of this bird, isn't the case. I did have to do it with the CS777 which didn't perform a fraction of what I'm getting withe this 777. So I'm sending it into the virtual boneyard.

 

Tom Cain

[cloudswimmer 24]

Worse than the NGX for me quite a bit. Only way I can enjoy this is with photo scenery/Autogen off, and lowering my LOD back down to 4.5. Probably going to shelf the T7 till an overclocked Haswell upgrade.

 

Asus P8P67Pro

I7 Sandy @5.0ghz

8gb of Corsair Vengance

EVGA 670 4gb

Dell U3011 @ 2650x1600

 

Win 7 X64

FSX Gold

NickN Tuning

Opus

Rex

MSE and FTX-G Scenery

[3-2-1-Now 126]

NickN Tuning

Ditch the tweaks (except for HIGHMEMFIX=1), realize that AutoGen and AI Traffic (all) create problems, and get rid of them.

 

On my lowly, stock speed AMD with mid-end parts I get 30 FPS just sitting on the ground. In the air I get an easy 50 FPS.

 

Tweaks and overclocking will not fix fundamentally broken code. FSX is poorly coded and NOTHING can change that.

 

I LOL at all the Intel users overclocking the life out of very expensive processors to only complain of poor performance. You never see AMD users complaining. . In my case I'm very happy with the 777.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

[cloudswimmer 24]

Ditch the tweaks (except for HIGHMEMFIX=1), realize that AutoGen and AI Traffic (all) create problems, and get rid of them.

 

On my lowly, stock speed AMD with mid-end parts I get 30 FPS just sitting on the ground. In the air I get an easy 50 FPS.

 

Tweaks and overclocking will not fix fundamentally broken code. FSX is poorly coded and NOTHING can change that.

 

I LOL at all the Intel users overclocking the life out of very expensive processors to only complain of poor performance. You never see AMD users complaining. . In my case I'm very happy with the 777.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

Nope sorry I disagree. I literally see a big difference between my tweaked fsx.cfg and running a stock config. I've spent years trying em all, Bjote, Word Not Allowed, NickN, and others. Some are bogus, some are not.Right now my systems running the smoothest it has ever. Did a complete OS and FSX install just last week, and going from the stock config to my tweaked was instantly noticeable. I do this 16 hours a day 24/7 (I'm disabled) Frame rates arent the issue. When I can put my track hat on and its smooth as butter, and there are no micro stutters, Im there. I also have a box running a 965 BE btw. I lol at the peeps who claim ll tweaks are useless. Btw what screen resolution you run?