2 hours ago, OzWhitey said:

Lots of airbus fans here!

Lets be honest, though. This plane is a frame-rate hog, and it’s not very smooth for the frame rate you get. Performance is a lot worse than the NGX.

I happily fly the NGX. The FSL bus, I install, fly for a day or two, and then uninstall again because the performance stops me enjoying it, in my particular usage scenario.

Now, of course there’s heaps of people in this thread who love the airbus and are willing to put up with its very high demands. But you asked about relative performance, and the simple answer to that is that it’s worst performing aircraft that I own. The PMDG NGX/777/747 are significantly better, the Maddog is better and the Majestic Q400 is in a different league altogether.

 

Well,  I jumped in and bought it,  before you posted OzWhitey ...  your points are noted and with TrackIR and 3rd party scenery it is not very smooth with me either.  I wonder what tricks there are to get it smoother...  it is a great plane otherwise as stated, the level of realism is first class.  I found the display graphics a bit dull (4K screen) and it's a bit hard to read the figures but maybe that can be adjusted although other aircraft I have are ok .  This is my initial view but that may change after using it for a while and getting used to it...   

I saw mention of FSLSpotlights would these help brighten the displays..   ?

 

*** EDIT ***   After another trial and slight adjustment the displays are ok...   I also turned down my maxed out graphics settings and things did improve a lot with the "smoothness"...  was a more enjoyable flight.  Maybe compromise with the settings in future with this a/c...

Edited July 1, 20196 yr by aerostar

 

 

 

2

1 hour ago, OzWhitey said:

Lots of airbus fans here!

Lets be honest, though.

 

No, it's not. 

1 hour ago, OzWhitey said:

Lots of airbus fans here!

Lets be honest, though. This plane is a frame-rate hog, and it’s not very smooth for the frame rate you get. Performance is a lot worse than the NGX.

I happily fly the NGX. The FSL bus, I install, fly for a day or two, and then uninstall again because the performance stops me enjoying it, in my particular usage scenario.

Now, of course there’s heaps of people in this thread who love the airbus and are willing to put up with its very high demands. But you asked about relative performance, and the simple answer to that is that it’s worst performing aircraft that I own. The PMDG NGX/777/747 are significantly better, the Maddog is better and the Majestic Q400 is in a different league altogether.

 

Maybe it is, or could it be that we go for the most advance simulation out there and 30+ FPS (At FT EHAM with TENL) is for me not a high demand lol

It all depends on your local pc simulator and for me local it's not a performance hog at all, so you see different experience to yours 😉

Edited July 1, 20196 yr by awf

1 hour ago, OzWhitey said:

Lets be honest, though. This plane is a frame-rate hog, and it’s not very smooth for the frame rate you get. Performance is a lot worse than the NGX.

I happily fly the NGX. The FSL bus, I install, fly for a day or two, and then uninstall again because the performance stops me enjoying it, in my particular usage scenario.

When was the last time you've flown the FSL A320? I agree it used to be a performance-hog in its early P3D days, but this has been significantly improved with the last recent updates. While still not as smooth as Maddog or Dash8, for a high fidelity addon the perfomance is absolutely fine now imho

Comparing it to the PMDG NG is a joke. A 9-10-year-old classic it is, but the FSL is state of the art in-flight sim'ing, yes it gives me 10% FPS loss compared to the PMDG and is about 300% more sophisticated and complexed.

I have an old PC can run at 26FPS locked and can enjoy any airport and it does not drop below that 26 locked. I even use 4xSSAA and have auto-gen trees at max.

But if you want to max your FPS and enjoy watching all them numbers fly the Q400 and knock yourself out. If you set your sim up right you can enjoy the FSL as much as any aircraft out there. 

Comparing it to the q400 or the Maddog is a far cry comparing apples to apples.

And "let's be honest" this topic is a release announcement, not let's compare FPS to the Q400 topic is it?

Edited July 1, 20196 yr by Nyxx

Flightsimlabs arrived to break the monopoly the NG from PMDG. New Age. A320-x is another reality in terms of simulation.

1 hour ago, aerostar said:

Well,  I jumped in and bought it,  before you posted OzWhitey ...  your points are noted and with TrackIR and 3rd party scenery it is not very smooth with me either.  I wonder what tricks there are to get it smoother...  it is a great plane otherwise as stated, the level of realism is first class.  I found the display graphics a bit dull (4K screen) and it's a bit hard to read the figures but maybe that can be adjusted although other aircraft I have are ok .  This is my initial view but that may change after using it for a while and getting used to it...   

I saw mention of FSLSpotlights would these help brighten the displays..   ?

 

*** EDIT ***   After another trial and slight adjustment the displays are ok...   I also turned down my maxed out graphics settings and things did improve a lot with the "smoothness"....  was a more enjoyable flight.  Maybe I'll compromise with the settings in future when I fly this a/c...   systems wise it is great...

 

Edited July 1, 20196 yr by aerostar

1 hour ago, Woozie said:

When was the last time you've flown the FSL A320? I agree it used to be a performance-hog in its early P3D days, but this has been significantly improved with the last recent updates. While still not as smooth as Maddog or Dash8, for a high fidelity addon the perfomance is absolutely fine now imho

I installed it last Wednesday, uninstalled it on Friday. I was hoping that it was better now, but much the same it seemed.

Now that it is updated, I’ll download it and try it again!

I’m not saying its rubbish, but the poster asked about relative performance. If you’re flying in a situation where the NGX is borderline, the FSL A320 is non-viable.

if you love the airbus and are happy to compromise, i’ve no doubt that you can make it work.

1 hour ago, Nyxx said:

Comparing it to the PMDG NG is a joke. A 9-10-year-old classic it is, but the FSL is state of the art in-flight sim'ing, yes it gives me 10% FPS loss compared to the PMDG and is about 300% more sophisticated and complexed.

I have an old PC can run at 26FPS locked and can enjoy any airport and it does not drop below that 26 locked. I even use 4xSSAA and have auto-gen trees at max.

But if you want to max your FPS and enjoy watching all them numbers fly the Q400 and knock yourself out. If you set your sim up right you can enjoy the FSL as much as any aircraft out there. 

Comparing it to the q400 or the Maddog is a far cry comparing apples to apples.

And "let's be honest" this topic is a release announcement, not let's compare FPS to the Q400 topic is it?

I think you may want to go back and read the thread, mate.

I was replying to a potential buyer who SPECIFICALLY asked for a comparison to the NGX re: frame rates. So, the comparison is not "a joke"!

Whether you get 26FPS or 260FPS is largely irrelevant to someone else. The scenario was that he's on the fence as he's heard that the performance is worse than the NGX, and if it is, he didn't think it would suit him.

Is the performance worse than the NGX? Yes, it is. You just admitted that in your post.

Everyone uses their sim in different ways. If plane 'x' is the heaviest frame rate hog they can tolerate, plane 'y' is not a good fit for them if is even more resource intensive. Particularly if plane 'y' costs $140 USD.

It's not a Boeing versus Airbus thing, or a PMDG versus FSL contest.  

 

 

 

2

37 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

I think you may want to go back and read the thread, mate.

I was replying to a potential buyer who SPECIFICALLY asked for a comparison to the NGX re: frame rates. So, the comparison is not "a joke"!

Whether you get 26FPS or 260FPS is largely irrelevant to someone else. The scenario was that he's on the fence as he's heard that the performance is worse than the NGX, and if it is, he didn't think it would suit him.

Is the performance worse than the NGX? Yes, it is. You just admitted that in your post.

Everyone uses their sim in different ways. If plane 'x' is the heaviest frame rate hog they can tolerate, plane 'y' is not a good fit for them if is even more resource intensive. Particularly if plane 'y' costs $140 USD.

It's not a Boeing versus Airbus thing, or a PMDG versus FSL contest.  

I have them all, my point is you can enjoy them all if you set your sim up right and not wanting to watch an FPS counter. 

I said it was 10% worse I never put numbers to it did I?) and that does not make it an "FPS hog" as you keep calling it. Don't twist my words and don't call me "mate"

I run the FSL as smooth and as well as the NG and that's what counts. Not what FPS I could get that I don't need or are wasted.

I see no reason why someone cannot run the FSL if that can run the NG alright. That's is the point and has nothing to with "Boeing versus Airbus thing, or a PMDG versus FSL contest" Another pointless remark.

Edited July 1, 20196 yr by Nyxx

I did ask for a general idea as to the way it performed in relation to the stalwart PMDG 737 and others ,  I have a few ,  PMDG 737  MJ Q400 TFDI 717  etc. and the Aerosoft A320....  I have had constant problems with the AS A320 and  that's why I considered the FSLabs  as a replacement.  I now am in the position of having paid for 2 aircraft of the same model.... 

....thanks to OzWhitey and everyone for their advice and input.  I understand that the hardware of our machines is being stretched by the ongoing complexity of the software and  although I really like having my scenery sliders and shadows etc maxed I also like a well modelled aircraft that flies as it should therefore now I have to compromise, I guess...   will experiment with both A320's for a while and go from there ...    

Edited July 1, 20196 yr by aerostar

6 minutes ago, aerostar said:

I did ask for a general idea as to the way it performed in relation to the stalwart PMDG 737 and others ,  I have a few ,  PMDG 737  MJ Q400 TFDI 717  etc. and the Aerosoft A320....  I have had constant problems with the AS A320 and  that's why I considered the FSLabs  as a replacement.  I now am in the position of having paid for 2 aircraft of the same model.... 

....thanks to OzWhitey and everyone for their advice and input.  I understand that the hardware of our machines is being stretched by the ongoing complexity of the software and  although I really like having my scenery sliders and shadows etc maxed I also like a well modelled aircraft that flies as it should therefore now I have to compromise, I guess...   will experiment with both A320's for a while and go from there ...    

If you need any help, its here for you. Always happy to help with sharing settings and anything else that would help.

People bragging about high FPS is pointless giving a guild % wise is far more helpful to give you an idea of what it would translate to your PC and settings.

Edited July 1, 20196 yr by Nyxx

 

23 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

I said it was 10% worse I never put numbers to it did I?

 

10%...I'm pretty sure that's a number, particularly when we're talking about relative performance.

Aerostar has brought it now at any rate. Hopefully it will work out.

Enjoy your flying, chaps! 🙂

Are you really that pedantic? 10% gives a much better idea than this below that really gives no idea what in comparison he could hope for. He knows what FPS he gets with the NG he now has an idea of what to expect unlike this below that give him no idea what he will get compared to his question on the NG.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, OzWhitey said:

 But you asked about relative performance, and the simple answer to that is that it’s worst performing aircraft that I own. The PMDG NGX/777/747 are significantly better, the Maddog is better and the Majestic Q400 is in a different league altogether.

 

22 hours ago, aerostar said:

...  been thinking about getting this plane,  the reports of poor frame rates have put me off so far.    Can anyone give an idea of how they compare to eg. the Aerosoft A320 or the PMDG 737...   are you satisfied with the frame rates,  do you have to avoid large detailed airports etc 

 

Using 8700K @ 5ghz and 1080ti

if  you have  no issues  running  the pmdg ngx on  your  system   than  you  should  have no issues   running  the  fsl  at all  you might  see  a  slight  drop in  fp  but  nothing  to  worry  about  unless  your  a  fp  watcher:)