44 minutes ago, carlanthony24 said:

Not necessarily. FSLTL for instance is quite heavy for people. To be honest pretty sure when PMDG ported the product over as most of the community know it has been. It was a fps hitter as well.... FSLabs could bring products over or rebuild and still be like it was in P3D

FSLTL is heavier on performance than FS Traffic, which however can be down to many reasons, like the number of injected aircraft. Of course it's possible that Just Flight did more, custom optimization on the models than FSLTL did, but it's a technical fact that MSFS-native models are much friendlier in terms of performance than the old FSX/P3D ones.

Developing a new version with platform-specific techniques either brings no improvement or, in most cases, brings improvements. In order to achieve worse performance with a platform-specific build over a "port over" you would have to seriously botch the job up.

The reason I'm putting port over in quotes is that while parts were obviously reused from P3D and some irregularities carried over as well, a not insignificant part had to be recoded for MSFS, which is why it ended up taking a lot longer than originally anticipated. That's different from what the community thinks, which is basically copy and paste of the whole thing.

4 minutes ago, Nixoq said:

FSLTL is heavier on performance than FS Traffic, which however can be down to many reasons, like the number of injected aircraft. Of course it's possible that Just Flight did more, custom optimization on the models than FSLTL did, but it's a technical fact that MSFS-native models are much friendlier in terms of performance than the old FSX/P3D ones.

Developing a new version with platform-specific techniques either brings no improvement or, in most cases, brings improvements. In order to achieve worse performance with a platform-specific build over a "port over" you would have to seriously botch the job up.

The reason I'm putting port over in quotes is that while parts were obviously reused from P3D and some irregularities carried over as well, a not insignificant part had to be recoded for MSFS, which is why it ended up taking a lot longer than originally anticipated. That's different from what the community thinks, which is basically copy and paste of the whole thing.

Well known technical fact who is saying this.... I did not even mention FS Traffic... Like AIG in MSFS most people still complain about the performance has not changed. I don't use AIG in P3D so can't say what it is like compared to MSFS.  

Yeah because RR comes out with so many excuses. people do not believe what he says anymore. PMDG seriously did something when it was ported over at first "maybe". Baring in mind MSFS is more CPU intensive. Like I said FSLabs will bring over products at some point and it could hit harder than P3D it may not, it may improve. No one will know till it happens. 

In regards to the guy having problems with Fenix performance something is not right. Like myself and others have said to him a lot of others with similar specs or lower specs than him have no problems with both aircraft. It seems he doesn't want to accept the fact it could be something on his end he needs to figure out....

8 minutes ago, carlanthony24 said:

Well known technical fact who is saying this.... I did not even mention FS Traffic... Like AIG in MSFS most people still complain about the performance has not changed. I don't use AIG in P3D so can't say what it is like compared to MSFS.  

Yeah because RR comes out with so many excuses. people do not believe what he says anymore. PMDG seriously did something when it was ported over at first "maybe". Baring in mind MSFS is more CPU intensive. Like I said FSLabs will bring over products at some point and it could hit harder than P3D it may not, it may improve. No one will know till it happens. 

In regards to the guy having problems with Fenix performance something is not right. Like myself and others have said to him a lot of others with similar specs or lower specs than him have no problems with both aircraft. It seems he doesn't want to accept the fact it could be something on his end he needs to figure out....

Go ask AI traffic or MSFS devs about the difference between FSX/P3D models and models using the native MSFS standard if you're wondering where this is coming from. I don't know why you're so stubborn on accepting this, especially since it's just an example of a bigger point. I mentioned FS Traffic because there are tons of reports comparing the performance between the two since it came out recently. AIG uses many non-native models in MSFS which make these models harder on performance.

The PMDG 737 performs very well performance-wise for an airliner in that detail and better so than the Fenix, which doesn't mean the Fenix is a problem in terms of performance. It's just heavier. Saying the PMDG 737 would be worse in terms of performance if all of it was entirely built from scratch is nonsensical. What you're implying is that developing something specifically for a platform using its native techniques generally performs worse than something originally designed for a different platform, not making use of the newer, platform-specific techniques which, again, is nonsensical.

This does NOT mean the PMDG 737 doesn't make use of MSFS-specific techniques or wasn't designed for it, by the way, before this gets misinterpreted.

1 minute ago, Nixoq said:

Go ask AI traffic or MSFS devs about the difference between FSX/P3D models and models using the native MSFS standard if you're wondering where this is coming from. I don't know why you're so stubborn on accepting this, especially since it's just an example of a bigger point. I mentioned FS Traffic because there are tons of reports comparing the performance between the two since it came out recently. AIG uses many non-native models in MSFS which make these models harder on performance.

The PMDG 737 performs very well performance-wise for an airliner in that detail and better so than the Fenix, which doesn't mean the Fenix is a problem in terms of performance. It's just heavier. Saying the PMDG 737 would be worse in terms of performance if all of it was entirely built from scratch is nonsensical. What you're implying is that developing something specifically for a platform using its native techniques generally performs worse than something originally designed for a different platform, not making use of the newer, platform-specific techniques which, again, is nonsensical.

This does NOT mean the PMDG 737 doesn't make use of MSFS-specific techniques or wasn't designed for it, by the way, before this gets misinterpreted.

No point asking devs we all know what they will say. It is down to the people that use on what they think... It is obvious you are not reading what I put. "PMDG seriously did something when it was ported over at first "maybe". Baring in mind MSFS is more CPU intensive. Like I said FSLabs will bring over products at some point and it could hit harder than P3D it may not, it may improve. No one will know till it happens. You are literally changing my words. Nothing is being misinterpreted. 

I can already tell where this is going. So we are going to have to agree to disagree.

1 hour ago, carlanthony24 said:

No point asking devs we all know what they will say. It is down to the people that use on what they think... It is obvious you are not reading what I put.

I've read all of it, but I'm not sure what I'm supposedly missing since I'm responding to your assumption that the PMDG 737 would be performing worse if it was entirely built from scratch, which doesn't make sense. The bit about misinterpretation was not directed specifically at you. I thought what I was explaining could be misunderstood.

The performance difference between older FSX-era and native MSFS models is an easily verfiable fact. If you think we should ignore what people with actual knowledge and experience say even if it's just about AI models and instead believe what people with mostly no knowledge about software development think then yeah, I guess we have to agree to disagree.