Good evening from holland here!

 

Within the first days I've purchased the 747 V3 and, like the NGX and 777, I absolutely adore it! I've done several long and short flights and it's simply overwhelming, even better than your already brilliant 777!

 

However, I've noticed from the beginning, it seems a lot heavier on my system resources than the 777, even though I read everywhere that it should be similar or better. As a comparison, I'm getting 20-22fps in the 777 with ASN and FlyTampa Schiphol, but only 14-15 in the 747. The NGX even gets up to 26-28.

 

As I'm more into performance than eye candy, I've switched off the FO's screens for both the 777 and 747 and I'm using low terrain radar details. Traffic is off, autogen is on very sparse and I've resized the textures of trees and autogen. I'm using DX10 with Steve's fixer and Bloom on. Strangely, the last two items have upped my stability and fps big time! Even my ASN and weather settings are

 

If I could get the same FPS (and smoothness) like the 777, I'd be an even more happy man. Who can lead me in the right direction here's?

 

Pc specs;

i7-6770hq

8gb ram

Nvidia geforce 965m 4gb

 

 

Oh and yes it's a laptop, but it runs the 777 very smooth so I presume it's a setting or a quirk somewhere. All help is appreciated!

I get the same preformance as in the NGX 25-30fps  in CPH Denmark,but this bird is more smooth a dream to fly.

 

i7 6850k

16 gb ram

gtx 980ti

Thanks for your reply! I mainly notice it in thr VC when the mouse is displayed, which is a known issue. It definitely runs alright, it's not bad at all, but just wondering why it seems more heavy than the 777 and definitely more than the NGX.

 

Anyone else? :-)

Dear pmdg,

 

My apologies first of all for not reading this forum's rules. As I am still interested in inputs by the developers, please see my full name attached now. If needed, I will send further details via email directly via the PMDG support.

 

Best regards,

Jeremy Kuiper

Hi. For some strange reason I received my first ever "out of available memory" message after my normal 2 hour flight from FACT-FALE. I have been using the exact same settings and graphics driver, etc..the only change was using the PMDG 747v3. The performance of the aircraft is much improved though from the 777.The only difference from my previous trip using the 747 was "day to night" landing..where "day to day" did not result in any issues. So i'm not saying the new release of the 747 was the cause, but in terms of your thread, go for the 747...it's very immersive and incorporates movement effects (camera shake) which is normally only available from 3rd party developers. And the 747 seems to have a smoother performance on my system, although fps is lower than that of the 777....i only use the 747 now.

worse vas and performance. I am stuck in dx9 fsx that part is my fault. But I am currently regretting not moving up to p3d - David Lee

Thanks for your replies!

 

@Peter: I already purchased the 777 QOTSII, but I am wondering why the 747 has less performance than the 777. It's all smooth indeed, it's seems to be heavier on FPS though, and as well, sometimes even while cruising I get a noticeable framedrop which I don't have in the 777. I'd say this framedrop is there 20% of the time.

 

@David: thanks, so it seems I'm not the only one...  

If you're using DX10, performance hit in cruise is likely from the contrails. They look beautiful but hit performance hard in DX10.

 

Aside from that (I disabled the contrails) FWIW I'm also getting significantly heavier performance from the 747 than the 777, on the order of 5-6 fps worse.

 

James