Your eye can't see any difference over 30fps, I have mine locked at 30 (1/2 the monitor refresh rate of 60).

I lied a little.  I really like the work PMDG did with the T7.  But I really don't like the lines/shape of the exterior model of the real deal.  The quintessential tube liner!  I wish to heck they would do the racy 757-200 which has fabulous lines and fabulous climb power.   The 747 is such a total beauty & the 787 looks beautiful too.  T7?  Giant, high-tech hot dog w/ wings!  Someone needs to make a livery w/ a hot dog in a bun theme!   I haven't reinstalled my old PMDG 747 and don't know if I will as I only have room for one heavy in my virtual airline.

 

 

 

Actually, the difference isn't that great.  An FPS or two is all, but all the little bumps add up ;o)

 

 

 

I've got a couple hours in the air now flying thru FTX PNW and don't see VAS getting below 1.4Gb w/ largest free chunk at 1.3Gb and I'm using quite high settings overall, heavy weather etc.   I use a 6-core CPU and assign fsx.exe to run at higher than normal process priority, and assign all of the other apps running to support FSX on the 6th core, leaving FSX to run on the first 5 for what it's worth.

 

6 cores is way better than 4.  I only have 4.

We said significant, which it is for FSX, archaic software that we endeavor to squeeze as many frames out of as we can.

Nobody said it was gigantic.

Gigantic or significant doesn't matter to me, because I'm lucky enough to experience frame rates right up to my locked 50 FPS.

And trust me, most people most certainly can discern frame rate above 20. Try panning around the VC AT 20 and then compare it to 35+

In cinematography 25 FPS is smooth to the human eye due to the blurring nature of the medium. In video games you need 35+. Unless the individual is remarkably insensitive to such things.

 

It's possible to get 100fps in FSX, I have done it.  I had to turn off all the high end graphics, and fly over default scenery to default airports.  Some folks are fine doing that.  

I bought a GTX Titan $1000 USD single-GPU video card, and got like 3 frames per second better than my GTX 690 card.  Packed it up and back to Amazon it went.  

It's possible to get 100fps in FSX, I have done it. I had to turn off all the high end graphics, and fly over default scenery to default airports. Some folks are fine doing that.

Well yes, I would agree with you.

 

I absolutely detest low frame rate. If I had to suffer 20 FPS all the time I would give up FSX. To make sure I get high frame rate I have my sliders set sensibly. Some are high, some are mid way. AA is at reasonable level, a level that's acceptable to me. I don't fly with add-on airports that in my opinion are excessively demanding. Hyper detailed airport add-on's I avoid.

 

I do fly with REX, GEX, and UTX.

 

That's with... 17 3770K at 4.4 GHz. GTX580.

 

I'm more interested in flying the aircraft, the systems etc, rather than eye candy, but having said that, the sim looks great to me.

 

It's down to personal preference at the end of the day.

I bought a GTX Titan $1000 USD single-GPU video card, and got like 3 frames per second better than my GTX 690 card.

 

I went from 280GTX to Titan--but only in part for FSX.  I can say unequivocally, it gobbles up 2048 bit HD clouds out to 110m using the highest AA settings possible in Inspector with a hitch.  Nice to be done w/ GPU upgrades to help FSX struggle thru its old code!

I went from 280GTX to Titan--but only in part for FSX.  I can say unequivocally, it gobbles up 2048 bit HD clouds out to 110m using the highest AA settings possible in Inspector with a hitch.  Nice to be done w/ GPU upgrades to help FSX struggle thru its old code!

 

Clearly you would see a gigantic improvement going from the 280 to the Titan.  I already own the GTX690 and prefer the double GPUs, even though there is "only" 2GB of VRAM on each GPU.  (4GB total, but only 2 available to each processor).  The Titan has 6GB of VRAM, and greatly benefits in XPlane, but still, even in XPlane, I didn't see a reason to dump the GTX690.  FPS were only a tad higher, not a HUGE difference.  I prefer to use one of my 2 GPUs for Anti-Aliasing, which it does quite nicely in FSX.  The REX HD clouds are worth every penny and a game-changer IMHO, plus it's real-time NOAA weather.  You get the same temps and pressures in FSX that are happening live at NOAA metar stations.

The REX HD clouds are worth every penny and a game-changer IMHO,

They do look impressive, I've been a long time advocate of REX.

 

Do you find then unrealistic though? Sure they look great, but in reality clouds don't look as detailed as that. It is water vapour after all. Hence why I don't use the super high def clouds. Just prefer the realism of lower def clouds.

They do look impressive, I've been a long time advocate of REX.

 

Do you find then unrealistic though? Sure they look great, but in reality clouds don't look as detailed as that. It is water vapour after all. Hence why I don't use the super high def clouds. Just prefer the realism of lower def clouds.

 

Whatever floats your boat.  I just get a major charge out of flying through Rex weather!  Plus, rumors are flying that REX team is working on the follow-on product which will dwarf all prior efforts on their part.

follow-on product which will dwarf all prior efforts on their part

 

 

They are working on Simair. Not heard about anything else. Sounds interesting.

For me, the 777 is 18% better in terms of frame rate than the NGX.

 

What's messing many up is the PFD and ND refresh rates that are high straight out of the box. Hopefully PMDG will fix this so that new users aren't initially scratching their heads.

 

Smoothness for me isn't an issue on my system. But if I had to comment, I'd say it was smoother. There's less on the VC to model, and less click spots required, hence better performance.

 

Noel... if you have any issues with the T7 on your system, I'll eat my smelly underpants.

 

 

I'm new user of 777 , what is PFD and ND refresh, how do I correct ,getting poor fps, thanks

Well yes, I would agree with you.

 

I absolutely detest low frame rate. If I had to suffer 20 FPS all the time I would give up FSX. To make sure I get high frame rate I have my sliders set sensibly. Some are high, some are mid way. AA is at reasonable level, a level that's acceptable to me. I don't fly with add-on airports that in my opinion are excessively demanding. Hyper detailed airport add-on's I avoid.

 

I do fly with REX, GEX, and UTX.

 

That's with... 17 3770K at 4.4 GHz. GTX580.

 

I'm more interested in flying the aircraft, the systems etc, rather than eye candy, but having said that, the sim looks great to me.

 

It's down to personal preference at the end of the day.

I have almost the same setup could you show us your fsx.cfg and nivida settings when you have time.?

atb

gc.

I have almost the same setup could you show us your fsx.cfg and nivida settings when you have time.?

atb

gc.

 

Have someone doing a job on my roof today.

 

When I get a free moment, and can get to my FSX PC, I'll send the cfg to you via PM.

Thanks Martin.

Done.

I love my T7 and the Performance i'm getting on my PC.  I just flew into KJFK (FSDT V2, Drzewiecki Design New York X, FTXG, OpusFSX, Autogen Normal, Scenery Complexity Very Extreme, Car Traffic 20, AI Traffic 25%, LOD 4.5, Visibility 80)   with fps above 20 and under 30 all the way to the gates.  I must be alittle lucky compared to others who have OOM and lower fps.

 

 

Your eye can't see any difference over 30fps, I have mine locked at 30 (1/2 the monitor refresh rate of 60).

That is one of the most bullshitty statements on the internet. It all depends on the speed of motion. Try taxiing at 1 KTS in FSX and the 1 FPS will look just as smooth at 100 FPS. Now try it at a higher speed and you'll see the difference. 

If it was true, then why are there TV with up to 240 Hz? The difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS is VERY noticeable, and maybe you should try it yourself. Above that, the difference will start to get less noticeable but it's still there. 

I have been running VSync + 30 FPS for a long while and although I'm happy with the smoothness, the blurryness that occurs during fast motion is still bothering me a little. That's where 60 FPS will be noticeable.

Frames rate is different from monitor REFRESH rate, but I'm sure you knew that. Frames locked at 30 with V-sync or 1/2 Monitor Refresh V-sync (Adpative) is a concession to overall smoothness in FSX as you rightly agreed with in your statement that you use that yourself.

 

In X-Plane 10 I am able to run at much higher frames. That said, the overall effect in FSX is still superior at this time, IMHO.

 

I'd be careful with using emotive language. Your parents might not like it.