Regarding the icy runways: I wouldn't make such a statement, without having tested it myself. So, what did I do? Setting temperature below 0°C and precipitation to medium in both sims and made a braking test. Result: in FSX same braking distance as in dry conditions (possibly a litte bit longer), in XP much longer.

 

I agree that, overall, ground handling is better in X-plane 10 than in FSX. In FSX I am forced to use a tweak, through FSUIPC, which modifies the default drag scalars, but the end result is not good. I prefer X-Plane's ground handling, even with the overdone wind effects.

 

Ice accumulates in your cell in FSX without the aid of any external program, you just can't see it. Using some tools you can actually determine the amount of accumulated ice ( weight ).

 

 

And the system-depth has been too much maxed out (exagerated) in my opinion, so that the impact on framerates are huge, even on my Titan.

Please be careful about making unsubstantiated claims.  The "systems" in the Saab have little to no impact on performance. I should know, I programmed those systems and tested it extensively  On the other hand, texture size, render settings, HDR, and many other things can affect your frame rates... regardless of which graphics card you have.

 

Jim

Lead Programmer

LES Saab 340A

On the other hand, texture size, render settings, HDR, and many other things can affect your frame rates... regardless of which graphics card you have.

 

Please don't mention the Saab 340, ok?

 

You're being very cruel!!!!

 

I will only be able to get it next month !!!!!!!!

 

Regarding the FF 777, there are a few things I have to admit...

 

1) I really must give it another try, although I know for certain some of the limitations, as confirmed on a thread I started at the .org and Filip kindly answered.

 

2) I got mad at the lag in update availability between the .org and Aerosoft store, from where I got it. I think it is unfair for customers to be treated differently. This also put me in a really bad mood with this aircraft.

 

Anyway, I have taken the time to set a very short route, in both FSX and X-Plane 10.22 64 bit, using the PMDG 777 and the FF 777. I will try to fly it and test, over each flight, the various aspects of the simulation, and report back when possible, probably on a new thread.

 

When I referred to the FMC limitations, I was not clear. I am unable to edit any entry that is the next waypoint - the FMC doesn't allow us to :-/   !

Winds aloft ( and temp ) data are automatically fetched, but I really do not understand the source or how it is done. I am using METAR up to 6000' from from there up the GFS Python plugin, but I wasn't able to confirm that the GFS-generated winds were "captured" when I make a request from the route info page...

Please be careful about making unsubstantiated claims.  The "systems" in the Saab have little to no impact on performance. I should know, I programmed those systems and tested it extensively  On the other hand, texture size, render settings, HDR, and many other things can affect your frame rates... regardless of which graphics card you have.

 

Jim

Lead Programmer

LES Saab 340A

 

Jim, i just have some problems when developpers are giving the fault to X-plane itself or to the renderings we are using. The fact is, that no other aircraft that i know has such impacts on the framerates. And not just a little but massively more impact!

Since the systems, as you said, should have no big impact on framerates, i can tell you that the JAR 320 has excellent textures as well and hasn't this kind of impact. And if you are telling me (as an owner of the most powerful graphiccard available on the market) to just turn some settings down or even to deactivate HDR (even it's exactly the reason why i use X-Plane), so it's just NOT OK for me and some of us. Or you should at least have announed it before. That would have been fair. I think most of us know and accept that a new very complex aircraft will have some impacts on the framerates. But the way the HDR-function is affected here is just too much. And i am not complaining just to complain. If i had an old system, ok, that would have been the time to change it. But i just purchased a brand new i7 4770 with the GTX Titan 2 months ago. So it's just not normal, that a new aircaft has such an impact on a high-end machine.

 

I really admire your huge work but i hope that you will understand my/our frustration about the framerates?

When I referred to the FMC limitations, I was not clear. I am unable to edit any entry that is the next waypoint - the FMC doesn't allow us to :-/ !

Winds aloft ( and temp ) data are automatically fetched, but I really do not understand the source or how it is done. I am using METAR up to 6000' from from there up the GFS Python plugin, but I wasn't able to confirm that the GFS-generated winds were "captured" when I make a request from the route info page...

Hi jcomm

 

Thanks for the infos. II am not sure i fully understand what the problem with waypoints is, but you should be able at least to enter a new fixpoint and delete the ones you don't want. After having define a new waypoint, let's say TRA180/07, you can activate it in the scratchpad and click in the flightplan on the left side the place where you want to insert it. That should work.

 

The winds used here are the ones that are currently available in X-Plane at you position. It doesn't matter if you use the XP-winds or the real ones (NOAA-plugin). The FMC will just show the ones who are currently available around you.

if you are telling me (as an owner of the most powerful graphiccard available on the market) to just turn some settings down or even to deactivate HDR (even it's exactly the reason why i use X-Plane), so it's just NOT OK for me and some of us. Or you should at least have announed it before. That would have been fair. I think most of us know and accept that a new very complex aircraft will have some impacts on the framerates. But the way the HDR-function is affected here is just too much. And i am not complaining just to complain. If i had an old system, ok, that would have been the time to change it. But i just purchased a brand new i7 4770 with the GTX Titan 2 months ago. So it's just not normal, that a new aircaft has such an impact on a high-end machine.

 

I really admire your huge work but i hope that you will understand my/our frustration about the framerates?

 

We all hunger for higher-quality graphics and faster frames.  Regardless of the simulation platform or which airplane we are piloting on a given day. 

 

Turning down the sliders is simply the OPPOSITE of our inner desires.  We want SHARPER images, smoother flow, and stutter-free flight.

 

Sadly, neither of our gaming platforms can match the graphics of developers like RockStar, primarily due to the obscenely large budgets devoted to games like Grand Theft Auto or Battlefield, etc.

 

A quick visit over to YouTube and 10 or 15 minutes viewing the trailers for 'today's' video games will show with stark contrast the difference between a gaming platform that is fully-optimized for todays powerhouse graphics cards in SLI, and the higher-end overclocked PC to run them.

 

XPX and FSX both suffer from the one-GPU card limitation, and while X-Plane is supposed to be able to take advantage of as many cores as a PC has available, it remains to be seen if the game will scale up accordingly when a massive number of real cores are available (not hyper-thread cores).

 

I think the bottlenecks on both platforms are not solely CPU dependent.  If a GTX Titan can crawl like a baby, even with 8 gb of VRAM on the gaming card, something is really not right.

 

Frustrating?  Beyond words.  Imagine if you had TRIPLE Titans in SLI.  NO use on XPX -or- FSX.

Jim, i just have some problems when developpers are giving the fault to X-plane itself or to the renderings we are using. The fact is, that no other aircraft that i know has such impacts on the framerates. And not just a little but massively more impact!

Since the systems, as you said, should have no big impact on framerates, i can tell you that the JAR 320 has excellent textures as well and hasn't this kind of impact. And if you are telling me (as an owner of the most powerful graphiccard available on the market) to just turn some settings down or even to deactivate HDR (even it's exactly the reason why i use X-Plane), so it's just NOT OK for me and some of us. Or you should at least have announed it before. That would have been fair. I think most of us know and accept that a new very complex aircraft will have some impacts on the framerates. But the way the HDR-function is affected here is just too much. And i am not complaining just to complain. If i had an old system, ok, that would have been the time to change it. But i just purchased a brand new i7 4770 with the GTX Titan 2 months ago. So it's just not normal, that a new aircaft has such an impact on a high-end machine.

 

I really admire your huge work but i hope that you will understand my/our frustration about the framerates?

 

We're working on some optimizations in various areas at the moment and results look promising.

We're working on some optimizations in various areas at the moment and results look promising.

That are really great news! Thanks for this info. Because i really would like to "LIKE" this Saab ;-)

PMDG 777 wins by a mile. 

 

-Better flight model

-More features

-Insanely accurate exterior model ( Ramzzess 777 has noticeable flaws in the exterior model )

 

Not going to go deep in here but go for PMDG 777. You won't be disappointed.

 

I do not agree.

I've them both and they BOTH looks great.

 

The FPS impact is lower with the 777 Pro but I think this is a FSX impact and not the plane.

I think that the 777 PRO seems more "by the book" but it's very subjective and I may be wrong.

 

The best advantage of the 777 PRO is the price.

 

Anyway both are great products and very nice planes.

I think that the 777 PRO seems more "by the book" but it's very subjective and I may be wrong.

 

No the PMDG is more prototypical. The 777 Pro has a few graphic issues in the cockpit. It has a EFB, but it isn't a realistic model. Also it has a fictitious TO/GA switch on the MCP, understandable compromise of a sim. PMDG does this also but uses an invisible click point on an existing screw, maintaining the prototypical look of the cockpit. Function wise the 777 Pro misuses the Accept-Canc-Rjct buttons, which is used for the electronic ATC, not modeled in either sim. The 777 Pro uses them for the EICAS recalls. (There's no function in the PMDG T7, which uses the proper controls on the FO side for recall. Other than that the systems are quite comparable, though I think the nuances of the PMDG T7, like the start up sequence, the timing of how the systems work for example setting the Hydraulics, as well as the simulated loads from ACARS into the FMC are more realistic IMHO. 

Holy thread revival, Batman!

As far as I am concerned, I am much more interested in GA aircraft.

What about the fmc,is it interactive from the 3d cockpit or only as a popup 2d interface?

What about the fmc,is it interactive from the 3d cockpit or only as a popup 2d interface?

 

Both, and one of the better FMCs in XP.

Both, and one of the better FMCs in XP. [/quot

 

Thanks so much,Dave,I will definitely buy it now