kiwikat

Flight1 is doing the 200, not the 350. The 350 is much bigger.

So poorly its probably not worth mentioning. :\My 8600m GT 512 mb DDR2 in my old laptop barely ran FSX.

Does the 767 have the same problems the 757 does? I couldn't imagine giving the 757 a gold star award...Perhaps the 767 is magically better?

I get 30-35 fps with the 747X VC on my Q9550 GTX280 machine, so with an i5 and a GTX275 you would be set. Though I never fly with traffic enabled...

It's all relative. When I get 60 FPS with the majority of my planes, getting 30 isn't very smooth. Even 40 is a lot smoother with Track IR. And yes, you CAN see a difference between 30 and 60.Performance isn't the reason I don't like the 757 though. I have yet to do a flight with it where everything has worked properly, whereas the LDS 767 works properly EVERY flight.

Major system issues? I don't think so. Everyone's computer configuration is different.I actually had marginally higher FPS before the update, like 2 or 3 FPS more on average, so around 33 ish. After the new version I only get around 30 in the VC. I get around 35 FPS with the PMDG 747 and over 40 with the MD-11. The only plane in my hangar that gets me worse FPS is the Citation Mustang.

Rather than a particular aircraft, I'd love to see Carenado make their planes friendlier to repaint as well as have an updated VC with 3D gauges. :(

I have to say after installing this patch my altitude selector knob got messed up. Also on my test flight, VNAV didn't work at all. It is like it completely ignored the altitude values I entered. The yaw behavior of the plane seems entirely wrong now too.I didn't see a performance increase either.Back to the LDS 767 and waiting for the LDS 757... :( It is really a shame the CS757 isn't as nice as their 727 or C-130.

Wow!!!I'll be spending much of my time on the forums here. Good to see you here, Fernando! :(

Whyyyyyyyyyy oh whyyyyyyy won't this thread just go away!!!:(

I got mine about a month ago. I haven't had much time to fly it because of school and work, but when I did, I enjoyed every minute. The FPS aren't great, but they obliterate the CS757's FPS. I'd put it about where the LDS767's fps are, maybe marginally higher. At least that's how it is on my machine.Some people say it's the best looking VC yet for FSX. I wouldn't agree with that, but it is certainly one of the nicer looking ones. If you're interested in the 727 and you have a decent machine (fast dual or quad core, nice graphics card), go for it. You won't be disappointed.

Now just get every other developer to do that! :(All honest developers easily distinguish between native and portovers, like that ^^^I just find it sad that there are fs devs out there that knowingly use false advertising. :(

Anything gets better performance than the CS757. The Flight1 Citation Mustang, PMDG 747X, and PMDG MD-11X even beat the CS 757 on my computer.If CS were to allow you to disable the VC cabin like with the 767, maybe FPS wouldn't be so bad with it. Anyways back to the QW bird. Depending on user feedback in FSX as well as the release date for the LDS bird, I may end up getting it anyways. 45 dollars for a portover just doesn't seem to interest me a whole lot. :\I'm going to reserve any more judgment until there's some user feedback. I REALLY want this to work nicely in FSX. And somewhere deep down I really want to get it, despite my reservations!

It is a port. I got that cleared up on their forum earlier today. The FAQ is misleading because one place it says its "Compatible" with FSX and the other place it said it has been tested with "Native FSX SP1/SP2" or something along those lines. It is a portover, so I'll be skipping it and waiting for the LDS 757.It's really a shame too, they did a great job with the artwork and chose to model the more important systems. I think its cool that they still allow a fully automated flight. I wouldn't exactly call it a "lite" product. As I said on their forum, I'll be first in line to get it if they make a native version.

I recently brought this up at an unnamed developer's forum and they acted like I was crazy...Developers really need to be straight forward. It is a FS9 portover or it is a native FSX model. IT ISN'T DIFFICULT!It IS false advertising and the developers KNOW IT. That is WRONG. :(I've been mentioning this on forums for the last year or so. I even contacted AVSIM's reviewing staff and asked them to add it to their reviews. Some reviews have that information and others don't depending on the author. I think that's some pretty critical information!

There is absolutely no way I could list all my FSX addons... it would take a day to write such a post, and would take a whole page itself. :(As for PMDG, I've got the 737 NG, 747X, MD-11X, and J41. Other "complex" jets include the Super 80, Super 80 Pro, CS 757X, CS 727X and LDS 767.Out of those, I fly the LDS 767, MD-11X, and J41 the most.

This is incredibly old news. The poll has been closed for quite some time.If you think that is the current amount of fs9 and fsx users... lol :(Obviously there are only 2500 total people using fs9 and fsx combined. Obviously that represents the whole community. Obviously it represents the total number of paying customers.

I'd totally buy that. PMDG could make a paper airplane and I'd buy it. :(

I was going to suggest that you maybe remove the "6". :( :(

I wouldn't do it. My gaming laptop burnt out after a year and a half of use. I'd rather put that money into building an i7 desktop that will last for years.

That would lead to even more development costs that would never be made back. FSX is here to stay for the forseeable future. It is nice to have a stable platform to sim on. We don't have to worry about switching to anything new anytime soon.

As I've said a million times before. I don't work for any company. This "commercial member" thing only applies to developers afaik. I'm a beta tester now. I don't "run" a single thing. If I got even a penny for all the time I've spent testing and researching I'd probably have a stroke.I'm going back into my hole to hibernate in the PMDG support forum. :(

LMFAO. This thread has become hilarious beyond belief.You sir, are epic fail if you couldn't get 20 FPS in FSX with specs like that. This is the kind of stuff that makes you look completely senseless. The amount of FS9 fanboyism here is absolutely off the charts. You guys do realize that the majority of people reading this thread are falling on the floor and laughing at what you're saying, don't you?I get better FPS with the J41 in FSX than I do with the VRS F-18 in FS9. At least I did until I moved to the failure that is Windows 7... :( I miss Vista now. I miss my 60 FPS in FSX. 60, not 20. Not with a 4 GHz processor or twin 285's either. NOT AT MID-LEVEL SETTINGS!!!It is completely irrelevant what you guys do if PMDG doesn't make the NG2.0 for FS9. The FSX crowd will overwhelmingly support its release. It will be one of PMDG's most successful releases, if not THE most successful- with or without the FS9 a really excited user' sales.The amount of misinformation in this forum is beyond belief. Enjoy your flat earth sim. The rest of the community has moved on.Flame away, that's all you guys do anyways...

Keep your LDS767 and wait for the LDS757. :(

I am also seeing a 5-10 FPS DECREASE with W7 Pro 64 vs Vista Ultimate 64 in FSX DX9. I'll try the 190.07 drivers and see what happens. I thought performance would at least be the same, if not slightly better than Vista. It certainly isn't the truth so far.On the other hand, I'm loving the boot time of W7. I estimate it to be about half as long as my old Vista boot.