The Prepar3d PMDG 777 is a MUST OWN

[fsxnate 0]

Hi all,

 

anyone who reads this forum and has Prepar3d but does not have the Triple 7 is missing out.  Honestly, if your a big jet kinda guy the Prepar3d Triple 7 from PMDG is hands down THE BEST aircraft I've ever flown in my simulator.  It is simply smooth, reacts quickly and realistically (functions and navigation in the VC), flies like a dream.  I expected high quality since it has PMDG stamped on it but this blows away my FSX PMDG 737, MD 11 all day, and any other add on for that matter.  Thank you for this wonderful aircraft and please anyone just buy it, you cannot go wrong.

[fsxnate 0]

Hi all,

 

anyone who reads this forum and has Prepar3d but does not have the Triple 7 is missing out.  Honestly, if your a big jet kinda guy the Prepar3d Triple 7 from PMDG is hands down THE BEST aircraft I've ever flown in my simulator.  It is simply smooth, reacts quickly and realistically (functions and navigation in the VC), flies like a dream.  I expected high quality since it has PMDG stamped on it but this blows away my FSX PMDG 737, MD 11 all day, and any other add on for that matter.  Thank you for this wonderful aircraft and please anyone just buy it, you cannot go wrong.

[pilotter 254]

thanks, how are the fps compared to Aerosoft busses. Not that I want to compare the two for functionality etc, but just wondering about fps.

[viper1740 25]

FPS in P3D are non relevant. They will deceive you in almost every possible way. You could be at 9 fps and still have the quality of 30 fps on FSX. In other words, don't compare sims and its software by measuring FPS because there will be a difference. The important thing is that it works. P3D is designed to use hardware that FSX would never handle. Additionally it uses DX11 technology.

[pilotter 254]

FPS in P3D are non relevant. They will deceive you in almost every possible way. You could be at 9 fps and still have the quality of 30 fps on FSX. In other words, don't compare sims and its software by measuring FPS because there will be a difference. The important thing is that it works. P3D is designed to use hardware that FSX would never handle. Additionally it uses DX11 technology.

that's not what I am asking, but thanks for the info.  :blink:

[jfri 42]

 

 

I expected high quality since it has PMDG stamped on it but this blows away my FSX PMDG 737

 

In what way is it much better then the 737NGX for FSX ?

 

Jan Friberg

[viper1740 25]

I'm glad we are all entitled to our own opinion :-)

[gmoneyprs 2]

the Prepar3d Triple 7 from PMDG is hands down THE BEST aircraft I've ever flown in my simulator.

 

Agreed. Granted the choice of available P3D-ready/approved isn't very big, the PMDG 777 blew me away. It raised the bar in so many ways, least of which is systems modeling.

 

 

thanks, how are the fps compared to Aerosoft busses. Not that I want to compare the two for functionality etc, but just wondering about fps.

 

Speaking of systems modeling, the performance is really, really good considering. It's definitely not as good as the Aerosoft busses but, again, so much more is modeled. There is another 777 on the market for P3D and the systems modeling isn't nearly as deep and it's still riddled with flaws. And the performance is not as good the PMDG. Comparing similar scenarios (weather, location, etc.), the PMDG is outperforming the other 777 by about 25% FPS wise  on my system (e.g. one scenario where it was 23FPS vs. 29FPS). But back to Aerosoft, they could be another 15-20% on top of that (mid to high 30s in that same scenario), although I am one of the folks affected by the weather radar. The PMDG seems very efficiently-coded and, even with my high settings, I've never encountered a slideshow scenario (I largely stay away from mega cities and poorly-coded addon airports).

 

Hope that helps...

[sgreen91 182]

The fps are lower in P3D. You will need to adjust your settings if you require sufficent fps.

I have different cfg files one is called PMDG the other GA. This is to maintain at least 15-20 fps for me in the 777.

 

The 777 is or will be the toughest on fps in P3D. So for me it's the test bed for performance.

[duggy35 4]

Whoa! Since when can you offer an opinion on AVSIM?

 

All the threads I've read so far about the 777 point to P3D being the root cause of the improved flying experience, across multiple aircraft types/publishers.

 

Steve McLaren

[vc10man 732]

FPS in P3D are non relevant. They will deceive you in almost every possible way. You could be at 9 fps and still have the quality of 30 fps on FSX. In other words, don't compare sims and its software by measuring FPS because there will be a difference. The important thing is that it works. P3D is designed to use hardware that FSX would never handle. Additionally it uses DX11 technology.

Well, well stated. Ever since I switched to Prepar3D, I've lost count of the number of posts I've seen all with this great obsession with FPS. What you have observed and so clearly stated is spot-on. Makes a change to see a cogent point being made.

[gfd 15]

This is just my experience. I find that the 777 runs at about 3-4 FPS slower than the Airbus. It uses about 150 more MB of memory. These are two very different aircraft and should not IMO be compared directly. Also, please don't get all bent out of shape with my numbers. They are not meant to spark debate. A question was asked and an answer was given. The 777 is an amazing simulation. The Aerosoft Airbus is, in its own right an, excellent aircraft.

 

If you read Mathijis' comments on the Aerosoft forum, a deliberate decision was made not to model certain aspects of the aircraft. That's OK. The FADEC and fly by wire systems on the Airbus are very good. PMDG deliberately decided to give us a plane that very closely models the real world vehicle. Just about everything on the real plane is modeled. Vive la différence.

 

[pilotter 254]

Speaking of systems modeling, the performance is really, really good considering. It's definitely not as good as the Aerosoft busses but, again, so much more is modeled. There is another 777 on the market for P3D and the systems modeling isn't nearly as deep and it's still riddled with flaws. And the performance is not as good the PMDG. Comparing similar scenarios (weather, location, etc.), the PMDG is outperforming the other 777 by about 25% FPS wise  on my system (e.g. one scenario where it was 23FPS vs. 29FPS). But back to Aerosoft, they could be another 15-20% on top of that (mid to high 30s in that same scenario), although I am one of the folks affected by the weather radar. The PMDG seems very efficiently-coded and, even with my high settings, I've never encountered a slideshow scenario (I largely stay away from mega cities and poorly-coded addon airports).

 

Hope that helps...

 

Thanks, that was what I was looking for.

 

 

436 posts

Joined 11 Years, 2 Months

Posted Today, 01:33 AM

The fps are lower in P3D. You will need to adjust your settings if you require sufficent fps.

I have different cfg files one is called PMDG the other GA. This is to maintain at least 15-20 fps for me in the 777.

 

The 777 is or will be the toughest on fps in P3D. So for me it's the test bed for performance.

 

same, this will tell me enough, thanks

 

 

Members

 

3,836 posts

Joined 5 Years, 2 Months and 5 Days Ago.

Posted Today, 01:53 AM

viper1740, on 21 Feb 2015 - 12:24 AM, said:

FPS in P3D are non relevant. They will deceive you in almost every possible way. You could be at 9 fps and still have the quality of 30 fps on FSX. In other words, don't compare sims and its software by measuring FPS because there will be a difference. The important thing is that it works. P3D is designed to use hardware that FSX would never handle. Additionally it uses DX11 technology.

Well, well stated. Ever since I switched to Prepar3D, I've lost count of the number of posts I've seen all with this great obsession with FPS. What you have observed and so clearly stated is spot-on. Makes a change to see a cogent point being made.

 

 

yes also thanks, but after 10 years of flightsim i know what fps does, and 9 does not eat the cake. I have track IR.

[jgoggi 65]

The 777 in FSX, at least for me, is wonderful as well, and very fluid in my system. I can't believe that 9 fps means fluidity, try 30-40 fps and you will see the difference also in the immersion: high fps (>30-40) gives a kind of "three dimensional" sensation that low fps don't provide at all...  

[peppy197 165]

High_FPS=TrivialPursuit