Hi Folks;

I am thinking of purchasing the PMDG 747 V3 and was wondering how the performance (VC panel) is in terms of FPS killer. I have the 777 and I actually had to stop using it because of issues at detail add on airports. I am using the iFLY 747 which is also a big FPS killer but it's a little better that the 777. I have read a lot of reviews (including the one that was done by someone for this forum) but no verdict really on the FPS performance that I remembered

I have the old PMDG 747 which is great on FPS but it's really dated, that's why I got the iFLY while waiting for V3

I know that there is a PMDG section on this forum but that seems to be more for customs who already own the product. I am just looking for input.

 

Thanks.

Kindest Regards.

Forshaw.

2 hours ago, forshaw said:

Hi Folks;

I am thinking of purchasing the PMDG 747 V3 and was wondering how the performance (VC panel) is in terms of FPS killer. I have the 777 and I actually had to stop using it because of issues at detail add on airports. I am using the iFLY 747 which is also a big FPS killer but it's a little better that the 777. I have read a lot of reviews (including the one that was done by someone for this forum) but no verdict really on the FPS performance that I remembered

I have the old PMDG 747 which is great on FPS but it's really dated, that's why I got the iFLY while waiting for V3

 

Thanks.

Kindest Regards.

Forshaw.

First, there is no version 3, only the current version (v2) which is the one on sale now. Hence the reason it’s called Queen of the Skies II and not III. They are working on the expansion -8 right now but that is not a 3rd version and will install to version 2.

As far a performance goes, on my rig 2600K at 3.85, GTX 670 2GB, 8GB RAM, i usually get 25 to 30 FPS into places like UK2000 Heathrow and FSDT JFK with 70% traffic. However I also get about the same performance with the NGX and their 777.

Perhaps when you fly the 777 you have some settings turned on that need to be dialed down, like road traffic or scenery density to improve FPS.

I recently completed a flight in the PMDG 747 a couple of days ago from FSDT Chicago O'Hare to FlightBeam KIAD with ActiveSky for P3DV4, ASCA, MegaScenery WVA, VA, and PA, and UltimateTraffic Live enabled.  There was a lot of rain in the Wash Dulles area which is never good for FPS but here are the results based on the FSUIPC log.  My system (see specs in signature) was overclocked to 5.0GHz:

Minimum frame rate was 11.0 fps, Maximum was 82.8 fps
Average frame rate for running time of 3720 secs = 53.7 fps
Maximum AI traffic for session was 280 aircraft

A couple of weeks earlier, I flew the same flights without overclocking (4.3GHz) and these are the results of that flight:

Minimum frame rate was 5.2 fps, Maximum was 62.3 fps
Average frame rate for running time of 2757 secs = 38.2 fps
Maximum AI traffic for session was 301 aircraft

About a month ago, a had my best scores in the PMDG 747 on this route:

Minimum frame rate was 11.3 fps, Maximum was 136.1 fps
Average frame rate for running time of 2844 secs = 57.5 fps
Maximum AI traffic for session was 299 aircraft

All of my settings on the graphics page are maxed out.  All on the World page are maxed except I hate autogen as it provides no immersion, and a frame rate hog after loading most of its objects (takes a while for that).  On the lighting page, no HDR and shadows low.  No cloud shadows!!!

 

8 hours ago, cmpbellsjc said:

First, there is no version 3, only the current version (v2) which is the one on sale now. Hence the reason it’s called Queen of the Skies II and not III. They are working on the expansion -8 right now but that is not a 3rd version and will install to version 2.

As far a performance goes, on my rig 2600K at 3.85, GTX 670 2GB, 8GB RAM, i usually get 25 to 30 FPS into places like UK2000 Heathrow and FSDT JFK with 70% traffic. However I also get about the same performance with the NGX and their 777.

Perhaps when you fly the 777 you have some settings turned on that need to be dialed down, like road traffic or scenery density to improve FPS.

That's not too bad given you current hardware set up. Mine is a little more beefier but I have a lot of add-on and more hardware taxing airports. Yes I did have to turn down my settings but didn't help that much I don't use any AI traffic, airport traffic road cars, ships etc. They are all 0. You will see my detail information in my response to Jim.

Thanks very much for the information and putting things into context in relationship to the other add-on aircraft. I can gauge what to expect. 

 

Forshaw.

3 hours ago, Jim Young said:

I recently completed a flight in the PMDG 747 a couple of days ago from FSDT Chicago O'Hare to FlightBeam KIAD with ActiveSky for P3DV4, ASCA, MegaScenery WVA, VA, and PA, and UltimateTraffic Live enabled.  There was a lot of rain in the Wash Dulles area which is never good for FPS but here are the results based on the FSUIPC log.  My system (see specs in signature) was overclocked to 5.0GHz:

Minimum frame rate was 11.0 fps, Maximum was 82.8 fps
Average frame rate for running time of 3720 secs = 53.7 fps
Maximum AI traffic for session was 280 aircraft

A couple of weeks earlier, I flew the same flights without overclocking (4.3GHz) and these are the results of that flight:

Minimum frame rate was 5.2 fps, Maximum was 62.3 fps
Average frame rate for running time of 2757 secs = 38.2 fps
Maximum AI traffic for session was 301 aircraft

About a month ago, a had my best scores in the PMDG 747 on this route:

Minimum frame rate was 11.3 fps, Maximum was 136.1 fps
Average frame rate for running time of 2844 secs = 57.5 fps
Maximum AI traffic for session was 299 aircraft

All of my settings on the graphics page are maxed out.  All on the World page are maxed except I hate autogen as it provides no immersion, and a frame rate hog after loading most of its objects (takes a while for that).  On the lighting page, no HDR and shadows low.  No cloud shadows!!!

 

Hi Jim;

Thanks for providing the detail information it really helped. Now for the sad part my PC is not at heavy as yours so a lot of tweaking would be required with my add-ons..

Processor: i7-4790K Processor (4x 4.0GHz/8MB L3 Cache Over Clock to 4.4Ghz (Corsair Hydro Series H60 Liquid CPU Cooling System)

Memory:16 GB [8 GB x2] DDR3-1866 Memory Module-G.SKILL Ripjaws X

Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 - 6GB - SSC

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-Z97X-Gaming 5 --- 1x PCIe 3.0 x16, 4x USB 3.0, 6x SATA-III 6Gb/s-

My add ons are AS16,  REX4 Texture Direct with Softclouds and ATC. On a cloudy day and flying into JFK (Drzewiechi Design) will be a big challenge in terms of settings. BTW: FSDT is a little better than Drzewiechi on FPS.  I keep my setting at medium (Auto Gen is low). My issue has always been descending, approach and landing like everyone else I guess.

I have 4x Sparse Grid Supersampling setup in my NVI Inspector but I disable it for clouds in the DX10 fixer which really helped. Maybe the 747 VC panel will look great with 2x SGSS and that reduction would be great help.

Basically what I gathered from your results and CMP's input is I shouldn't be worse off than I am now with iFLY 747 and the PMDG 777. I will have to play around to get the sweet spot. I was hoping that the -8 was closer for release, I would just wait for that.

Thanks again folks.

Forshaw.

I once had the i7 4770K until I recently upgraded to my current system.  I used the settings as shown in the AVSIM FSX Configuration Guide.

4 hours ago, forshaw said:

BTW: FSDT is a little better than Drzewiechi on FPS. 

I have to disagree with you on this one.  FSDT KORD has always been one of the most frame rate intensive that any other airport including DD's NYC and JFK.  In fact, a flight from KIAD in Washington DC to KORD is nearly impossible for me to complete as my FPS drop dramatically and I barely had enough VAS to land.  With Active Sky, it was impossible and I always had to turn off AP and manually land (or try to land). 

My post above with my FPS settings were with P3DV4 so really shouldn't be compared with FSX.  I apologize for posting those logs but, as a moderator, I was sent to your post for approval as you are a new member and I didn't realize the forum I was in.  Still I had little problems with the PMDG 747 in FSX in regards to FPS but did have issues with running out of Virtual Address Space (VAS).  When you run out of VAS or it gets very low (less than 500 mb), FSX will start to go into a slide show and it will crash if you run out of VAS.  This happens mostly on descent and landing.  It is the major reason why I moved from a 32 bit application like FSX to a 64 bit application like P3DV4.  I can now crank up my settings and do not have to worry about running out of VAS.  It makes the hobby of flight simulation so much more enjoyable.  P3DV4 is based off of FSX and, in fact, has many of its files still installed, including autogen.  

With my i7 4770K, I was overclocked to 4.2GHz.  I also had the GTX 780 which is still a very good video card as FSX and P3D use the CPU more than the GPU. 

You state you have REX4 TD and I hope you do not have those settings set to the max.  I kept mine no higher than 2048.  Any texture addon is there to provide you with better textures and REX does a great job but you have to be careful with the settings, the FSX.cfg settings, and the NI settings.  Again, try the settings I set up in the AVSIM FSX Configuration Guide.  The 4x's Sparse Grid SS will eliminate most shimmering but at the cost of producing a heavy load on your system and FSX performance.

Back several years ago, around 2007, FSX was first released and most could barely get up to 15 fps with FSX, especially if we installed any commercial airport scenery.  Many were very happy to be able to lock their FPS at 25 or 30.  We had to keep our settings very low in order to do this.  It wasn't pretty but we were able to use the sim and not have any crashes.  Then, technology allowed us to slowly increase our settings and getting to 30 FPS was getting easier and easier but at the cost of running out of VAS.  Then, one of our members wanted us to try the /3GB switch which gave us one more GB of VAS out of 4GB's provided by Microsoft Windows.  Early on we did not realize Microsoft only gave us up to 2GB's of VAS.  Today, 32 bit application users can use most of the 4GB's of VAS but not all of it.  Windows 7, 8 and 10 allowed better management of VAS.  Still we now have powerful systems and we think we can get the latest scenery and then crank up the setting to max but that only decreases your chance for a successful flight as it only expedites the use of VAS.  Now you have to be very careful.  In the FSX Configuration Guide, page 22, I show you how to monitor VAS during your flight.  If you find you are running low on VAS, then you will have to disable Active Sky during the descent/landing phase and see if this helps.  You might also have to go and turn off the DD scenery and use the default to land.  I know, not pleasant thoughts but these are things you have to watch out for when using FSX or any 32 bit application.

I might also add that I can get over 300 fps at Las Vegas with the default Baron on runway 26R.  Then, after installing addons like FSDT's KLAS and MegaScenery AZ, the highest I can get is around 40.  So, things do go downhill with addons.  Nothing wrong with FSX.  With the default settings and default FSX, you can fly anywhere with lots of performance.  You can even crank up the settings higher but, as soon as you introduce an add-on, things go South and that's no fun.

Best regards,

Jim

1 hour ago, Jim Young said:

I have to disagree with you on this one.  FSDT KORD has always been one of the most frame rate intensive that any other airport including DD's NYC and JFK.  In fact, a flight from KIAD in Washington DC to KORD is nearly impossible for me to complete as my FPS drop dramatically and I barely had enough VAS to land.  With Active Sky, it was impossible and I always had to turn off AP and manually land (or try to land). 

LOL sorry Jim but I have to disagree on this one. I have both sceneries (DD's & FSDT) v2 for JFK and I must say DD is worse. Now I can't speak  for any other airports since i don't have FSDT at any other airports. I have KBOS, KSFO, KSEA and KMIA from others and they are all great and not as heavy on FPS like FSDT or DD.

No worries about thinking I had PD3 instead of FSX. and thanks of your detail explanation I appreciate it..

And yes i am fully aware of all of the FSX limitations. I have been using FS since in the 80's (DOS Sublogic) and then into FS for windows and all the way into now. After FSX was released, every edition will work fine until you do the add-ons and then it was down hill. You then do some tweaks and then you are fine. Then some more add-on comes along PMDG (and others don't want to single out PMDG), REX4, AS, Airports (HD)  etc. etc and then it's down hill again and then some more tweaks or down grading settings to enjoy a nice flight. So I know too well of the headaches😄

In terms of my setting yes my clouds are at 2048, yes I have used and am to some extent still using you settings posted on the site, thanks. In terms of the  4x's Sparse Grid SS it works great for me and as you mentioned very little shimmering.I go with 2x and the images aren't that shape and then there is the shimmering, so 4x is my mark.

In reference to P3D V4  I have been seriously thinking of it recently and given the things I need to do to get a smooth flight in FSX and your insight using PD3 I may actually hold off on the FSX PMDG v2 and just decide on the P3Dv4. PMDG does not include PD3 as part of the FSX overall purchase as you know they are 2 totally separate products with one coasting  more. It's not the money for the PD3 itself, I figure I will have to set aside approximately $450.00 on day one just for the software + maybe 2 good Aircraft addon PMDG and QW 787 and a few add-on airports. I may just wait for the PMDG -8 to come out and then do the PD3 purchase and PMDG -8 at the same time. 

I have got some thinking to do, It's not a matter of if but when I will go for PD3.

Thanks again.

Kindest Regards.

Forshaw.

 

PMDG 747 > daylight > IFly version (I’ve been told its glorified freeware).

Plus you get the -8 which will be incredible. 

8 hours ago, forshaw said:

 but I have a lot of add-on and more hardware taxing airports.

I’m sorry for the misunderstanding when I used FSDT KJFK or UK2000 Heathrow as examples. I just picked those two as they are notorious as being FPS heavy areas but didn’t mean to imply that those are the only addons I’m using.

This was in combination of the PMDG 747/77, AS16 w/ASCA, UTX US/UE, ORBX Global w/US and EU Landclass packages, UT2 + WOAI traffic. I own pretty much all FSDT, FlyTampa, LatinVFR airports, dozens of other Aerosoft, ORBX and various 3rd party vendor airports, tons of photoscenery and some ancillary utilities running.

So when you say “but I have a lot of add-on and more hardware taxing airports”, I’m not sure you’re running many other addons that I’m not, but for some reason I’m getting good performance with the T7 and 747. 

Since you’re running a higher clock speed you should be getting better performance than I am with similar settings.

 

34 minutes ago, forshaw said:

I may just wait for the PMDG -8 to come out and then do the PD3 purchase and PMDG -8 at the same time. 

I have got some thinking to do, It's not a matter of if but when I will go for PD3.

For your info (if not aware already), Lockheed Martin updates their simulator about every 2 years.  You can see this from the release of P3DV1.  Two years later, P3DV2, and so on.  Microsoft did the same thing with their flight simulator series with FS2000, FS2002, FS2004, and then FSX/Acceleration before they abruptly quit.  Within the two years, there are updates to each version but nothing major.  We are nearing the two year mark for P3DV4's end, in May 2019.  If you purchased P3DV4 now, the PMDG -8 will surely be compatible but there are no promises if you ever upgraded to P3DV5 (or whatever name Lockheed will give it).  The next version of P3D will require a new purchase if you decided to buy it.  I like P3DV4 but I intend to upgrade to V5 when it is released as it usually is programmed for the latest technology and I enjoy playing with the latest.  So, it could be very costly to move to P3D right now and maybe waiting until V5 would be a better move.  Just a thought.

I guess the fact I love the DD scenery causes me to look at the scenery differently.  I like the FSDT/FB stuff too but I thought DD did a tremendous job with WashX and SeattleX.  New York X and the NY airports are somewhat more intense on performance but I don't see it as much with my current system that is very powerful.

Best regards,

Jim

21 hours ago, Raging Bull said:

PMDG 747 > daylight > IFly version (I’ve been told its glorified freeware).

Plus you get the -8 which will be incredible. 

Understood, I wasn't comparing the two I was just inquiring about the FPS on the V2 since I was looking to get it. I have the PMDG  737/777 & 747 V1 so I do like the PMDGs. I also have the iFLY and i wouldn't call it a glorified freeware. It is good for what it was intended to do and it's the best of the rest at least in my opinion.

Yes the -8 would be cool.

20 hours ago, Jim Young said:

For your info (if not aware already), Lockheed Martin updates their simulator about every 2 years.  You can see this from the release of P3DV1.  Two years later, P3DV2, and so on.  Microsoft did the same thing with their flight simulator series with FS2000, FS2002, FS2004, and then FSX/Acceleration before they abruptly quit.  Within the two years, there are updates to each version but nothing major.  We are nearing the two year mark for P3DV4's end, in May 2019.  If you purchased P3DV4 now, the PMDG -8 will surely be compatible but there are no promises if you ever upgraded to P3DV5 (or whatever name Lockheed will give it).  The next version of P3D will require a new purchase if you decided to buy it.  I like P3DV4 but I intend to upgrade to V5 when it is released as it usually is programmed for the latest technology and I enjoy playing with the latest.  So, it could be very costly to move to P3D right now and maybe waiting until V5 would be a better move.  Just a thought.

Thanks for the heads up you make a good point. I will definitely wait for V5 since it's not an emergency and I am not in a hurry. I have got enough to play within in FSX until the new ones come out. I am also looking to get the QW 787, the reviews looks pretty good. I have got their 757 and that was well built, these folks know their "onions."  

21 hours ago, Jim Young said:

I guess the fact I love the DD scenery causes me to look at the scenery differently.  I like the FSDT/FB stuff too but I thought DD did a tremendous job with WashX and SeattleX.  New York X and the NY airports are somewhat more intense on performance but I don't see it as much with my current system that is very powerful.

I also have the DD scenery and airports for New York's JFK, LGA and NJ  which I also love very much and they look so great. I don't have the Seattle X since I already had the Taxi2Gate KSEA when that came out. I never really fly into Washington so I am not going to get it. If they come out with KORD, I will definitely get it.

Again, thanks a lot for all your input and advice, I really appreciate it.

Forshaw.