744 v3 FPS

[warbirds 555]

I'd say about 20-23.

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

[744 driver 14]

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.

[XCLTM3 112]

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

[pete_auau 1,152]

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

[jgoggi 65]

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. 

[Freaknout 11]

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.

[Werner747 107]

 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

[Guest Mik75]

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.

[jgoggi 65]

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?

[Guest Mik75]

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.

[jgoggi 65]

Thanks, I will check tonight.

[Guest Mik75]

Thanks, I will check tonight.

Yeah, easy method to gain performance at no noticeable cost! ;-)

[Chock 17,769]

I've had to back my settings off a little bit on FSX-SE for a couple of FS airliners, these being the FSL A320 and the PMDG 747. On maxed-out settings in FSX-SE they were both giving me OOMs on approaches to land after long flights, but having tweaked things a bit, neither causes problems now.

 

As far as the FSX settings go, I've got clouds and texture/mesh on pretty much the highest settings, autogen and scenery complexity are on normal, airline traffic is on 30 percent, road traffic is on 30 percent, the others traffic settings are on 4 percent as I'm not too bothered about boats and GA aircraft although I do like the odd one in there. DX10 makes a big difference to fps for the PMDG 747 and the FSL 'Bus, although DX10 does not play well with some of the scenery add-ons I particularly like, for example, Night Environment British Isles doesn't display correctly in FSX-SE on DX10, which is a shame, so I've not got that on any more which is a bit of a bummer, but I do have two bits of scenery which probably don't help with fps which I'm unwilling to disable, these being VFR photo scenery for the UK and those high tension pylons, power station chimneys and cooling towers you get showing up all over the world with the freebie FSX Power Project add-on, which I understand can be a bit of a frame rate killer, since all that stuff stays in the memory even after it's way behind your aeroplane and out of sight.

 

I'm typically getting around 25-35fps at complex payware airports and up to around 55fps at default and simpler add-on airports. In flight with fairly high settings for weather, REX clouds and a few other bits and bobs, I'm managing to keep it at about 35fps, this is when running with Pro ATC X and Air Hauler 2 both linked up to FSX, and currently Air Hauler 2 is a beta, and it's a bit of a memory hog as it stands. What does help a lot with FS aeroplanes that can make FSX struggle a bit, is FSX Booster Live, so I occasionally use that.

 

Last night I did a test of the PMDG 747 to see if it would OOM on those settings. What I did was set up a flight from EGCC (UK2000 V2 payware) to LEAM (freeware scenery by Adri Gutierrez), then I deliberately tried to cause FSX problems by flying a good deal of the flight on LNAV and VNAV up at 32000 feet with the simulation rate up at 8x, then back to normal, then back to 8x repeatedly for five mins at a time, since that would put pressure on FSX having to load stuff in, and I kept switching between outside and inside views and panning about etc, so it would have to keep loading the VC view and then the external view over and over again and since the displays in the VC are locked to 15fps, but external view is unlimited, switching between views all the time was probably asking for trouble too. Normally that would be enough to cause any fancy payware aeroplane a few issues, but the PMDG 747 didn't even give me an OOM audio tone, let alone run out of memory and close down, so there is no denying that PMDG have done a pretty good job with it in terms of VAS.

 

Here is the landing at Almeria (LEAM) from that flight. As you can see, the PMDG 747 was getting decent FPS at the time, although note that is a replay, so the fps is a little bit higher than it was on the actual approach before I chose to make a replay. I thought that was a pretty good greaser for a hand-flown approach, didn't even use the reversers to stop the thing:

 

[jgoggi 65]

Where did you get that livery?

[warbirds 555]

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

No I asked because I have the Aerosoft bus and want to know what the fps difference is from that to the 747. Of course I know they are better with the bus