PMDG 737NGXu First Impressions and Review!

[Jim Young 2,356]

12 minutes ago, Swe_Richard said:

Correction: It was from Gate 1 I pushed back. Night. Further I was using the following Add ons:

At night, with dynamic lights turned on, I get 13-19 fps in VC but sim still feels smooth.  This is with latest update.  Before latest update, got 8 fps.  Turn off dynamic lights and fps go into the 20's.  External view it goes to 40-50 fps so something in VC.  I intend to do only daytime flights.  Tried the same scenario with dynamic lights on at night with the CS757 and get 29 fps in VC.

[barramundilure 152]

13 minutes ago, Jim Young said:

At night, with dynamic lights turned on, I get 13-19 fps in VC but sim still feels smooth.  This is with latest update.  Before latest update, got 8 fps.  Turn off dynamic lights and fps go into the 20's.  External view it goes to 40-50 fps so something in VC.  I intend to do only daytime flights.  Tried the same scenario with dynamic lights on at night with the CS757 and get 29 fps in VC.

Wow, count me out then. Glad I didn’t waste my money. Will stick with the NGX and put the money into more pay ware scenery instead....

[chapstick 2,757]

29 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

 

Having read all the threads, I suspect that it drops the frame rates by about 20% on average compared with the NGX. And the people who claim no performance impact do so because they had sufficient overhead to be able to comfortably lose this number of frames.

But - would be very interested in anyone with data showing that their frame rates are the same or better with the Xu in a comparison with no other variable changes.

This is correct. I’m happy with the performance I’m getting, but if I unlock my FPS and set up a scenario in default scenery with no DL, I get a 40% drop in FPS compared to the 747-8. But it’s still 60 FPS, which means I have enough headroom to mask that performance hit if my target is 30. 
 

[Shomron 251]

52 minutes ago, Jim Young said:

At night, with dynamic lights turned on, I get 13-19 fps in VC but sim still feels smooth.  This is with latest update.  Before latest update, got 8 fps.  Turn off dynamic lights and fps go into the 20's.  External view it goes to 40-50 fps so something in VC.  I intend to do only daytime flights.  Tried the same scenario with dynamic lights on at night with the CS757 and get 29 fps in VC.

Wow that's bad news as CS757 is the lowest performing when it comes to fps

[OzWhitey 3,353]

1 hour ago, Jim Young said:

At night, with dynamic lights turned on, I get 13-19 fps in VC but sim still feels smooth.  This is with latest update.  Before latest update, got 8 fps.  Turn off dynamic lights and fps go into the 20's.  External view it goes to 40-50 fps so something in VC.  I intend to do only daytime flights.  Tried the same scenario with dynamic lights on at night with the CS757 and get 29 fps in VC.

Thanks Jim.

I have the CS757 and it's borderline for my use scenario - a bit of a performance hog. So a NGXu that is even heavier on frames is unattractive. 

Surprised that PMDG released a performance-unfriendly plane, the last one I bought from them was the 747 and that runs great.

I'm still willing to be convinced otherwise, but despite Kyle claiming that those reporting performance issues are a non-statistically-significant minority, I'd feel more confidently if even one person had actually tested NGXu and NGX and reported equivalent or better frames. So far I've not seen that data.

 

 

[JoeFackel 760]

7 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

I have the CS757 and it's borderline for my use scenario - a bit of a performance hog. So a NGXu that is even heavier on frames is unattractive. 

May sound smartassy but if you have performance issues with your 9900k/1080ti combo than your troubles lay in your settings, not in the addons.

[Jim Young 2,356]

On 11/21/2019 at 8:04 AM, barramundilure said:

Wow, count me out then. Glad I didn’t waste my money. Will stick with the NGX and put the money into more pay ware scenery instead....

It works well during the day and the real fault is dynamic lighting provided by P3D.  The techs at Lockheed need to fix.

[Michael Moe 494]

2 hours ago, OzWhitey said:

Has anyone who claims not to have performance issues actually tried a frame rate comparison with the NGX?

• Rob A got a 20% reduction (I think - either compared with the NGX or the 747). Lots of other people report a reduction in frame rates, though most haven't reported a percentage comparison.
• Robert Randazzo says its easy on frames.
• Kyle says that it's obviously not going to be good on frames because there's lots of raindrops on the window and dynamic lights and an EFB, duh!

Having read all the threads, I suspect that it drops the frame rates by about 20% on average compared with the NGX. And the people who claim no performance impact do so because they had sufficient overhead to be able to comfortably lose this number of frames.

But - would be very interested in anyone with data showing that their frame rates are the same or better with the Xu in a comparison with no other variable changes.

Seems about right here,

EKCH GATE A20 : NGX 52-54fps , NGXU 40-42fps (FSLAbs A319-320 41-45fps)

Time 12:00 yesterday , no AS or traffic , same settings (cold and dark btw)

Michael Moe

Edited November 21, 2019 by Michael Moe

[ha5mvo 240]

@Michael Moe

could you guys add the cpu/gpu usage %tage to that?

Also, perhaps choosing C&D isn't the best scenario as it reduces a lot of the cpu/gpu load one would have under normal circumstances

[Kilo60 660]

word not allowed, I’m afraid I might have to remain in a holding pattern on this AC until it gets further optimized or additional settings are added can be turned off in the config for better performance...  

[Shomron 251]

34 minutes ago, Jim Young said:

Wish I had too but someone has to purchase.  It works well during the day and the real fault is dynamic lighting provided by P3D.  It was not programmed well and must be turned on if you want lights at night on the runway.  I heard PMDG is working on a fix but seriously doubt they will find one.  The techs at Lockheed need to fix.

But what makes the NGXu suffer more compared to the other complex aircraft already out there which have DL

[OzWhitey 3,353]

1 hour ago, JoeFackel said:

May sound smartassy but if you have performance issues with your 9900k/1080ti combo than your troubles lay in your settings, not in the addons.

Yeah, it sounds “smartassy”. My 9900K is running a well-tuned, stable overclock on water, and i’ve been flying P3D since version 1, week 1 so I’m pretty confident that I know where the sliders are. 🙂
 

People use sims in different ways. Presumably you fly in pancake mode, so a potato will come close to running your sim if you turn the settings down low.

I haven’t flown pancake for years, so I need planes that perform well. NGX is OK, have been flying CS 732 just now which is is “meh”, the CS 757 is a bit too heavy to be pleasant but just flyable. 
 

If the NGXu is 20%+ heavier on frames than the plane it replaces, it risks becoming a “hangar queen” for me - which is not a great outcome for a plane that costs AUD$140!
 

 

[OzWhitey 3,353]

35 minutes ago, Michael Moe said:

Seems about right here,

EKCH GATE A20 : NGX 52-54fps , NGXU 40-42fps (FSLAbs A319-320 41-45fps)

Time 12:00 yesterday , no AS or traffic , same settings (cold and dark btw)

Michael Moe

Thanks michael, so far the data is consistent, and it’s consistently no good!

If others are testing, I’d agree with the suggestion that the best test is with engine running and screens on. I’d also turn the dynamic lights off and disable the EFB, which is a fairer test of the underlying plane without the new addons.

[carlito777 712]

On 11/20/2019 at 5:23 AM, Rob_Ainscough said:

Baseline PMDG 747-8 (73 FPS avg)

NGXu  FPS -20.5%  (58 FPS avg)

777X  FPS +2.7% (75 FPS avg)

FSLabs A320 FPS -20.5% (58 FPS avg)

FSLabs A319 FPS -16.4% (61 FPS avg)

Thank you, Rob! Very helpful. Seems to support what others are saying that it performs roughly as good as the FSL A320. That's a dealbreaker for me on my ancient machine (4770K@4.5GHz + GTX1070), as this means that I can't sustain a stable 30fps+ which is crucial to get a fluid sim on my 4K@30Hz monitor. Next year I will buy a new machine once the requirements for Flight Simulator 2020 are known. Then it might be worth a try.

[Michael Moe 494]

16 minutes ago, carlito777 said:

Thank you, Rob! Very helpful. Seems to support what others are saying that it performs roughly as good as the FSL A320. That's a dealbreaker for me on my ancient machine (4770K@4.5GHz + GTX1070), as this means that I can't sustain a stable 30fps+ which is crucial to get a fluid sim on my 4K@30Hz monitor. Next year I will buy a new machine once the requirements for Flight Simulator 2020 are known. Then it might be worth a try.

Exactly and same setup .I do have 1080ti and 4k at 25hz because 30hz is a no go 

Michael Moe