PMDG QUEEN OF SKIES PERFORMANCE IN GENERAL

[addman 33]

Alright, thanks for the info. I find that performance comparison between different aircraft will yield the most reliable results because it won't be hardware dependant. Might hold off on this one then.

 

Cheers!/Andreas

[Werner747 107]

Alright, thanks for the info. I find that performance comparison between different aircraft will yield the most reliable results because it won't be hardware dependant. Might hold off on this one then.

 

Cheers!/Andreas

Andreas, what it comes down to is that you would know how yiur own pc performs. So if yoh have the NGX or the T7 and you are getting maybe 20 fps, you won't suddenly get 40 fps with the new Queen. That is just not realistic. But, if you know that you are getting 30 plus fps on payware scenery airports with your NHX pr T7, you will get the same or better with the new queen. It is on par wirh the T7 technology wise, but it is better and smoother. I am telling you this from experience.

 

So, if yo are getting good fps with previous products you have nothing to fear.

 

Regards

[pcubine 143]

I don't see any difference in FPS when comparing the NGX, T7, and 744. I get 29.5-30 at cruise and it varies at payware airports between 20-30 depending upon the weather. FSX is capped in game at 30 FPS. During the whole of beta testing I never got an OOM. I got the warning dings once at EHAM after a 10 hour flight from KLAX.

[Not_Boeing_Not_Going 1]

I have fslab and get 18-22 fps, i hope the new queen will have the same performance!

[Navigator43 25]

Excellent aircraft I get 25-30 FPS on the ground at Fly Tampa's Montreal. But I got my monitor set at 30 hz with AS16 running

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

FSX-SE in DX9 mode: Love the VAS figure, but fps could be better. It's smooth, though, so performance-wise it's very similar to the FSL A320-X. (But the B747 has two additional engines.      )

 

Oliver Maertens

[Not_Boeing_Not_Going 1]

FSX-SE in DX9 mode: Love the VAS figure, but fps could be better. It's smooth, though, so performance-wise it's very similar to the FSL A320-X. (But the B747 has two additional engines.      )

How many fps do you get with both aircrafts ? Which aircraft has the clearer displays?

[Werner747 107]

In vanilla FSX I get around 35-38 fps on the ground and when cruising it shoots up to around 55-60 fps. At payware airports 25-30 fps on the ground. That said, I use medium higb settings for graphics. More interested in acurately aimulating the plain than looking at golf courses ans pools I fly over on approach lol.

 

Regards

[Peter Webber 339]

Mine is smooth as silk. I get similar fps to the 777 but the 747 is definitely smoother. Very sleek similation this.

 

Regards

Fully agree. I get 18-21 fps in VC as with the 777, but it is a lot smoother than the 777. i don't even need to look at the fps counter in this simulation..

[GCBraun 2,390]

VAS is great. Even using VR, I am getting around 2600-3000mb during the whole flight between addon airports. I am also using AS2016+ASCA and PTA. FPS is always around 90 on VR.

[Navigator43 25]

Awesome PMDG another wonderful aircraft

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

How many fps do you get with both aircrafts ? Which aircraft has the clearer displays?

 

Tough question for me, because I fly the bus from the 2D cockpit only.

 

I'd say the displays in the bus are larger, so easier to read, but that could have just been modeled according to RW differences.

My fps in the A320-X and in the B747 are pretty much in the same ballpark as Peter Webber's in his post above. This statement is in favour of PMDG, who need to render a VC for me, while FSL only do the 2D rendering for me.

I tried to improve the fps in the B747 by changing the performance options but to no avail on my system with the scenario I had chosen. So for me it's going to be either low but smooth frames, or a different graphics profile that lowers scenery features down to some "airliner level". (My oberservations above reflect very high scenery settings in order to find out about the worst case VAS footprint. Pleased to see that I can hardly break the "VAS barrier" with the B747, and even if I try, I still have a smooth experience fps-wise.)

 

Oliver Maertens

 

On a sidenote:

PMDG really got a grip on the native FSX dynamic head movement with their B747. Control of its flaws has greatly improved from the B777. In the B747 the VC views can be handled just as easily and flawlessly as a 2D view, but with additional eye-candy like better textures and PMDG effects like "custom" shaking and sun flare.

[Not_Boeing_Not_Going 1]

Tough question for me, because I fly the bus from the 2D cockpit only.

 

I'd say the displays in the bus are larger, so easier to read, but that could have just been modeled according to RW differences.

My fps in the A320-X and in the B747 are pretty much in the same ballpark as Peter Webber's in his post above. This statement is in favour of PMDG, who need to render a VC for me, while FSL only do the 2D rendering for me.

I tried to improve the fps in the B747 by changing the performance options but to no avail on my system with the scenario I had chosen. So for me it's going to be either low but smooth frames, or a different graphics profile that lowers scenery features down to some "airliner level". (My oberservations above reflect very high scenery settings in order to find out about the worst case VAS footprint. Pleased to see that I can hardly break the "VAS barrier" with the B747, and even if I try, I still have a smooth experience fps-wise.)

 

Oliver Maertens

 

On a sidenote:

PMDG really got a grip on the native FSX dynamic head movement with their B747. Control of its flaws has greatly improved from the B777. In the B747 the VC views can be handled just as easily and flawlessly as a 2D view, but with additional eye-candy like better textures and PMDG effects like "custom" shaking and sun flare.

I fly the fslab a320 with 2d cockpit only because the vc is hard on fps. I wish that pmdg had implemented 2d cockpit so that enable people with normal rigs to have the chance to fly this bird.

[RichieFly 723]

P3D here.

 

I find the Queen is a better performer than the FSL's A320x by about 20-30%.

 

I strictly use VC in both aircraft. Not really apples to apples, but just a fyi. The A320's textures are insanely detailed.

[Beardyman 604]

747 performance is very good.

On my old and not impressive computer ( old generation i7 overclocked to 3.8, 6 GB RAM1600, Win7/64, 2GB NVIDIA760 ) i have smooth simulation on FLYTampa airports ( not EHAM, but EKCH, LGAV, OMDB ) with ASN, Ai ( 25 planes - limiter set in FSUIPC ), ORBX Global/Vector, PTA, REX textures, Radar Contact.

On FLYTampa airport i have around 30fps inside ( unlimited fps ), when i am cruising high above - 40fps ( with 2 layers high cloud coverage ).

I was a bit worry that my computer will not handle 747, but no worries