It’s down to only 34,000,000 $, you mean even lower than that!

33 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

I have basically the same PC as you and with the Fenix I get 30 FPS stable at most airports (except for the big hubs) with 100% AIG traffic and all settings to ultra, resolution 2k and 200 terrain LOD. If you are "unable to use the product" you either have some serious problems on your PC or your definition of "unusable" is "not 50 FPS everywhere".
Yes, the Fenix is more taxing than the 737 but not like this. I suggest your use the setting to make the displays driven by your GPU in the Fenix App if you haven't already.

EDIT: My specs: 1080ti, Ryzen 5600, 32 GB Ram

Comfortably get 30FPS at Heathrow and 50 in the air maybe at times. 2070 Super I7 10700. 

6 minutes ago, FrankR409 said:

It’s down to only 34,000,000 $, you mean even lower than that!

Well. Slightly. Take away the zeros and we talk. Maybe. Still undecided. No instabuy for me

Just now, DAD said:

Well. Slightly. Take away the zeros and we talk. Maybe. Still undecided. No instabuy for me

It’s available now for 49.99

1 minute ago, DAD said:

It’s available now for 49.99

Not insta-buy for me either. I’m happy with the -700, as it fits more into my profile of flights that are 1 to 1.5 hours.  I did a non scientific survey of KMDW traffic today, and saw no 900’s either scheduled to come or go.  

It's not just for longer hauls, but for bigger markets as well.  We take -900ERs SEA-JNU for instance, SEA-BUR etc.

24 minutes ago, DAD said:

It’s available now for 49.99

Called it, its probably the best deal out of all the variants but I will stick with the baby 600 for now.

Edited February 7, 20233 yr by jbdbow1970

21 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

It's not just for longer hauls, but for bigger markets as well.

I was surprised to see them used now on the PAE-LAS route, quite an upgrade from the E175.  Although I do sort of prefer the E175 since there's no middle seats.

20 minutes ago, BrianW said:

I was surprised to see them used now on the PAE-LAS route, quite an upgrade from the E175.  Although I do sort of prefer the E175 since there's no middle seats.

Any flying moving from a regional to a mainline is always good news for everyone in the industry.  I imagine it's not a -900 every day, but glad to see it's supporting them now.  

20 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

I have basically the same PC as you and with the Fenix I get 30 FPS stable at most airports (except for the big hubs) with 100% AIG traffic and all settings to ultra, resolution 2k and 200 terrain LOD. If you are "unable to use the product" you either have some serious problems on your PC or your definition of "unusable" is "not 50 FPS everywhere".
Yes, the Fenix is more taxing than the 737 but not like this. I suggest your use the setting to make the displays driven by your GPU in the Fenix App if you haven't already.

EDIT: My specs: 1080ti, Ryzen 5600, 32 GB Ram

The answer to the equation here is your Ryzen 5600. 

That is a good processor and light years ahead of my c.2015 i7-4900k.    But, none of your statements above address the fact that in comparison to other aircraft, such as the PMDG737, where I get a consistent smooth gameplay and 50 FPS, the Fenix performance is dramatically worse.  The "turning down settings", "something's wrong with your system", etc arguments just carry no weight, when you are comparing like-for-like with a similar product.    My settings are irrelevent, where I am comparing the PMDG737 and the Fenix A320, for overall performance and enjoyment.

My definition of unusable is not "it's not 50 FPS everywhere".  I can completely enjoy the sim running at 30 FPS, as long as the gameplay is smooth.  In this case it's not even the FPS which are the problem per se with the Fenix. It's the stutters and lack of smoothness with the gameplay. (I use TrackIR which is also a factor).

No doubt my CPU is largely responsible, as I'd guess Fenix's interface to the ProSim suite, with all it's high fidelity calculations is quite CPU dependent.   But again, it doesn't matter if I am using a c.2001 Intel Celeron 2.0Ghz potato with integrated graphics, if I am getting 50 smooth FPS with the PMDG and a stuttery 20 FPS with the Fenix.

You can't compare PMDG to Fenix in terms of performance. PMDG is just a ported over product. Not built from the ground up per se for MSFS. If they did then I would imagine you might be worse off with them as well. There are people out there that get the same performance for both aircrafts. I am one of them that gets roughly the same performance over both. So something is obviously wrong somewhere and it may not be even the Fenix but definitely you're system. Maybe send Fenix support team some logs or what ever and see if they have any other tips for you to try but too compare two different aircrafts written differently is silly.

If you kept up to date on things you would of seen they are rewriting displays etc to hopefully help with people who do suffer with performance issues. Like I said not just me but others own both aircrafts and don't get the problem you are having. So you need to compromise somewhere and do a little digging on your system.

Edited February 8, 20233 yr by carlanthony24

1 hour ago, JYW said:

The answer to the equation here is your Ryzen 5600. 

That is a good processor and light years ahead of my c.2015 i7-4900k.    But, none of your statements above address the fact that in comparison to other aircraft, such as the PMDG737, where I get a consistent smooth gameplay and 50 FPS, the Fenix performance is dramatically worse.  The "turning down settings", "something's wrong with your system", etc arguments just carry no weight, when you are comparing like-for-like with a similar product.    My settings are irrelevent, where I am comparing the PMDG737 and the Fenix A320, for overall performance and enjoyment.

My definition of unusable is not "it's not 50 FPS everywhere".  I can completely enjoy the sim running at 30 FPS, as long as the gameplay is smooth.  In this case it's not even the FPS which are the problem per se with the Fenix. It's the stutters and lack of smoothness with the gameplay. (I use TrackIR which is also a factor).

No doubt my CPU is largely responsible, as I'd guess Fenix's interface to the ProSim suite, with all it's high fidelity calculations is quite CPU dependent.   But again, it doesn't matter if I am using a c.2001 Intel Celeron 2.0Ghz potato with integrated graphics, if I am getting 50 smooth FPS with the PMDG and a stuttery 20 FPS with the Fenix.

. Half a year ago I had a Ryzen 3500 which would be closer to your CPU and it was the same as it is now, about 5-10 FPS difference between Fenix and 737, not 30 FPS difference like you. It's not like the PMDG is low on CPU calculations either, that's why I am quite sure your situation is fixable. That's why I said use the Fenix app to push the displays on your GPU to take weight of the CPU. Have you tried this?

Edited February 8, 20233 yr by Fiorentoni

1 hour ago, JYW said:

It doesn't matter if I am using a 1982 Sinclair ZX spectrume, if I am seeing a smooth 50 FPS with the PMDG and a stuttery 25 FPS with the Fenix.

Have you tried the following performance tweaks?
https://kb.fenixsim.com/fps-performance-improvement

As I don't have integrated grahpics on my CPU, I set the displays to render on my GPU, rather than CPU.
Additionally, I moved all Fenix-related processes off from the first 2 cores of my CPU, to allow MSFS to run unimpeded.

50 minutes ago, carlanthony24 said:

PMDG is just a ported over product. Not built from the ground up per se for MSFS. If they did then I would imagine you might be worse off with them as well.

Apart from 'port-over' being a very loose term in the community these days, this doesn't make sense. If anything, a complete rebuild of an addon for a specific platform using its native techniques would result in better performance rather than worse. An example are some AI traffic models included in AIG that are still the older FSX model that are harder on performance, whereas the native MSFS models are far less taxing on performance since they're built using the latest, sim specific techniques. This argument supports the opposite of what you're saying.

22 minutes ago, Nixoq said:

Apart from 'port-over' being a very loose term in the community these days, this doesn't make sense. If anything, a complete rebuild of an addon for a specific platform using its native techniques would result in better performance rather than worse. An example are some AI traffic models included in AIG that are still the older FSX model that are harder on performance, whereas the native MSFS models are far less taxing on performance since they're built using the latest, sim specific techniques. This argument supports the opposite of what you're saying.

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

Edited February 8, 20233 yr by carlanthony24