Sign in to follow this  
maca11

744 v3 FPS

Recommended Posts

Dear all who already fly the new one,

How is it with FPSs ? is it same as with PMDG 777 better, worse ?

many thanks for any indication !

JM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I would also like to know. If anyone has the capt sim 777 I would like a comparison with that as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear all who already fly the new one,

How is it with FPSs ? is it same as with PMDG 777 better, worse ?

many thanks for any indication !

JM

 

Better just an amazing plane also regarding VAS :-)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


I would also like to know. If anyone has the capt sim 777 I would like a comparison with that as well.

 

PMDG's variants have always run at a higher FPS than CS 777 (in P3D), same applies to 744.  I'd say the 744 is about the same maybe a tad better in FPS than the PMDG 777.  VAS usage is high on my setup, higher than the PMDG 777.

 

Per other sources (not my find), recommend setting P3D water setting to High rather than Ultra to save on VAS.

 

A few oddities here and there, feels over powered and too much wing flex and the flex animation is coarse, CS 777 has the best Wing flex I've seen in any big wing heavy.

 

Haven't tried it with latest P3D HF3.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PMDG's variants have always run at a higher FPS than CS 777 (in P3D), same applies to 744.  I'd say the 744 is about the same maybe a tad better in FPS than the PMDG 777.  VAS usage is high on my setup, higher than the PMDG 777.

 

That's very much my experience doing some casual and limited testing this evening.

 

At EGLL gate 431 (no weather) and once stable, the 777 gives me 27.5fps (average) and 3010mb VAS, the 747 27.3fps and 3265 VAS. Removing Orbx England saves me about 200kb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From UK2000 EGCC v2, i would say slightly worse than the 777 for both FPS and VAS, but leagues ahead of the FSL A320.  About 300mb better than the FSL A320 VAS wise, FPS around 20 dipping below 15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it to run better than 777 and definitely better than 737, so far very impressed with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll pile on here and confirm that my FPS with the Queen is similar to the T7 on P3D.  While VAS is higher, it isn't a problem for any of the routes I tend to fly.

 

My PC specs are in my signature.  P3D is loaded with FTX Global, FTX openLC Europe and NA, FS Pilot's Mesh, most FSD and FlightBeam airports, a couple flyTampa and Aerosoft airports, ASNext, and EZDok 2.0.  I fly using a single 27" monitor at 2560x1440.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the 747 seems marginally better than the PMDG 777 for FPS.

 

Can't comment on VAS as I never have issues with it.   I fly with mediumish settings, eg autogen at 'normal', very little AI, and no road traffic (known resource hogs in FSX:SE).  In airliners I prefer to put my computational power towards the complex airplanes themself, and weather/clouds.    I avoid known VAS heavy addon airports, but it's just fine flying into most addon airports.   Just flew Cargolux from Aerosoft Luxembourg to FlyTampa Athens - no issues whatsoever and 40 FPS solid in the VC, on the ground at both airports.

 

For a small but measurable FPS boost, I set the PFD and ND VC displats to '10' in the PMDG settings.  Still perfectly fluid but I believe the default value (they are 'dashed out' by default) is 15, so a little saving.

 

If I were to rank a few well known addons for FPS friendliness, the league table would look something like this:-

 

(1 is better FPS, 7 is worse)

 

1. Majestic Q400

2. Aerosoft Airbus A319-A321

3. PMDG NGX

4. PMDG 747 v3

5. PMDG 777

6. TFDi 717

7. FSL A320-X

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit off topic but one question, I am interested in the FSLabs A320, how much worse is its FPS compared to PMDG? Let's say you get 30 FPS in the 777, what would it be in the A320?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit off topic but one question, I am interested in the FSLabs A320, how much worse is its FPS compared to PMDG? Let's say you get 30 FPS in the 777, what would it be in the A320?

 

I'd say about 20-23.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear all who already fly the new one,

How is it with FPSs ? is it same as with PMDG 777 better, worse ?

many thanks for any indication !

JM

for me its same fps,around 30-35 on VC , i7,gtx 970,16gb ram 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say about 20-23.

And what is the difference in fps between the Areosoft Bus and the 747?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Running a rig with an i7-6700k at 4.5 Ghz, a gtx 970 with 16 gigs of RAM and I'm getting about what everyone else is reporting: around 40 fps with medium settings while running AS2016 with no addon scenery and very little if any ai traffic. As someone else said, I too prefer to put my computing power into the simulated aircraft and weather instead of airport scenery or ORBX. Especially if I'm at FL 360 most of the time. Of course the dreaded mouse pointer drop brings it down to about 25-30 fps when it's on screen but as soon as I bring the pointer to my other monitor the fps goes right back up. Too bad Aces studios couldn't have addressed this before it was was dissolved. I don't have much hope that this issue will ever be resolved. Ah well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear all who already fly the new one,

How is it with FPSs ? is it same as with PMDG 777 better, worse ?

many thanks for any indication !

JM

 

FSX:

 

I've flown the 747-400 several times now on short hauls ie 60-90min fligh-time.

 

Frames and smoothness in abundance.

 

Little issue with the "Disable_Preload=1" texture anomaly.

 

Otherwise, QOTS2 thus far has shown some slight FPS increase (10-20%) over the PMDG 777.

 

 

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what is the difference in fps between the Areosoft Bus and the 747?

 

 

 

 

err  of  course  you will get  better  fps  using  the  aerosoft airbus   than the pmdg 747 not  hard  to work out  why :wink:  you would  have been better off asking whats the difference  between the fsl  and  pmdg747

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My test bed is the threshold of my main airport, sky clear, VC: with the 777 I got about 34-37 fps, with the 747 I have 30-34 fps. I haven't changed anything, therefore I suppose the 747 is slightly heavier, even if very smooth when flying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what is the difference in fps between the Areosoft Bus and the 747?

 

In my amateur testing the A320 was about 2-3 fps better than the 777/747, which puts it slightly behind my 737.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 feels over powered

 

 

Rob,

 

just out of interest - if you say it feels over powered, what kind of loads and fuel loads are you finding it?   This is really just out of interest - no sarcasm or anything :-).

 

 

The reason I ask is because when I did a flight in the CPA livery from FAOR-VHHH with pretty much a full complement of pax and good lot of cargo, and about 85-88% fuel, it felt right to me.   I used TOPCAT to do the takeoff calculations for me and the performance from the 5558' MSL runway and the temperature and density altitude were all on the numbers, also during the climb phase.   

 

To be honest, as far as wing flex is concerned, I haven't even looked at it lol - all my attention is strictly in the VC during flight.

 

Regards

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you can do to significantally boost the fps in the VC (brought 2-5 additional fps on my i3570@4.3 GHz with an GTX1070), is to limit all displays (PFD, ND, etc.) to 15 in the performance menu of the CDU. The displays will still be very smooth and stutter free, but the boost in performance brought some gain in overall smoothness inside the VC and a bit of additional headroom for heavy scenery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you can do to significantally boost the fps in the VC (brought 2-5 additional fps on my i3570@4.3 GHz with an GTX1070), is to limit all displays (PFD, ND, etc.) to 15 in the performance menu of the CDU.

 

I am not in my 747 at the moment, but aren't displays fps already at 15 by default?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not in my 747 at the moment, but aren't displays fps already at 15 by default?

PFD and ND are not, at least they weren't on my install.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this