FPS. What FPS do you get?

[Hirdy2013 104]

I'm getting better than the ngx. Pretty much stuck on 30fps.

[miguelpp 25]

Not better tan the NGX, in my case. On the ground , the performance is regular (some micro pauses during take-off roll). Also, on landing there´s an annoying micro stutter  at touchdown....

 

Best.

 

 

Miquel Egea.

[zack2108 0]

I get around 15 at EGLL with uk2000 and FTX England, In the air an average of 28,

for me it fluctuates between 22-35 fps 

 

On the whole around 15% better than the NGX

 

i5 760

1GB GTX 460

8 RAM

[swadeep 2]

At cruise when my vc views are looking at pfd and mfd and top half is windows i am getting 23-25fps only!!! when i change views to look only the cockpit, ie looking down at fmc etc and no visual of outside then 30fps. i don't have this with NGX. so i must say so far NGX maybe performing better. anyone know why this is?

 

thanks

swadeep

[martin-w 3,235]

After a reboot, I'm seeing at EGBB...

 

In the NGX... average of 40.5 frames per second.

 

In the 777... average of 35 frames per second.

 

So about 15% or so less in the 777.

 

So what happened to the PMDG claim of better frames in the 777? Something is amiss here for some of us!

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.

 

Nonsense from you as usual.

 

40 frames per second I get in the NGX. With some traffic and high autogen. So no, my system runs great thanks to one or two tweaks and overclocking.

 

BP=0 is also a superb tweak that makes a big difference on many systems.

 

As I know you so well. I'm aware of your tendency to contribute to threads with unhelpful nonsense.

[RiceySpicey 586]

My FSX is locked at 40fps and I get that all the time in the T7 - its performing excellently for me!

[martin-w 3,235]

My FSX is locked at 40fps and I get that all the time in the T7 - its performing excellently for me!

 

There's something amiss for some of us it seems.

 

Did you change any performance settings in the FMC?

[RiceySpicey 586]

There's something amiss for some of us it seems.

 

Did you change any performance settings in the FMC?

 

Nope, have not touched PMDG's performance settings. Read their Introduction, made sure my settings matched theirs and all is well on my PC. I was able to run the NGX locked at 30fps most of the time too though. Like Kyle said, its all in the config

[3-2-1-Now 126]

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?

 

1600x1200

 

Best regards,

Robin.

[FSX1234 0]

I use the 1/2 locked at 30 and have been trying the 777 at Dubai, i am finding that in external view its quite smooth but as soon as i get in the VC it is not smooth at all and FPS counter is droping near 21-22 where as in the ngx it used to pretty much stay at 30 FPS. I have no traffic at all and this was using standard FSX weather. Strange. I understand the VC will take a bit of a hit but i didnt think it would be this much.

 

Regards Chris Harwood

[Q_flyer 766]

For me perforamance is, generally, slightly better than in the NGX.... (but not as high as in the MD-11, but no disrespect to my old MD-11 bird, but look at her VC texturing compared to the 777s!).... :smile:

 

Sitting at the gate at EDDF (default), with average settings (autogen reduced to 'Normal') I was seeing a ver smooth 29.9 FPS most of the time (locked at 30 FPS)

 

I am however seeing some moments where frames come down to a slightly jerky 21 or 22 for 3-5 seconds, before returning to the smooth 29.9 FPS......  it seems (to the novice observer) that something is happening during those moments; some maths, or CPU cycles, or some sort of algorhythms that are momentarily taxing the system a bit more.

 

However the fab thing is, these are only happening on the ground;   once I'm all set up and by the time I reach the threshold, I'm as smooth as butter!

 

The Performance  settings are accessed via the "PMDG Options" button in the FMC....   I set my Captains screens all to 10 FPS (enough for the screens), and as I do not look at my F/O screens, I set those to 2 FPS..... (why waste frames on the F/O side?).

[AirborneZed 168]

I'm getting about the same frames.

[Adam T Lutley 12]

I get a bajillion...

 

Seriously - this is all dependent on your hardware.  Aside from being a...wagging match, what's the point?

Amen to above sentiment!! FPS is dependent on hardware, settings, software used, Graphics settings, and too many other factors to list. It's almost impossible to do a valid comparison, even between 2 similar systems. The only valid comparison might be at the default airport in the same PC with 2 different aircraft. Regards

[Nyxx 6,993]

Same as the NGX

[martin-w 3,235]

Amen to above sentiment!! FPS is dependent on hardware, settings, software used, Graphics settings, and too many other factors to list. It's almost impossible to do a valid comparison, even between 2 similar systems. The only valid comparison might be at the default airport in the same PC with 2 different aircraft. Regards

 

 

The only valid comparison might be at the default airport in the same PC with 2 different aircraft. Regards

 

And that's precisely what myself and some others are doing.

 

Myself and others are comparing the NGX to the 777, on our own systems, on the same hardware, at the same airport, all variables the same with exactly the same settings

 

The cliam was that the 777 would be somewhat better in terms of performance, it's not for some of us, it's less by 15% for me. Some issue or other is at work.

 

I'm in the cruise at the moment at 33,000. Frame rate is way less than the NGX. I'm normally at 40 something, not 20 something.

 

Something is sapping performance.