xgunther

Reread the SP release notes carefully. It is entirely possible to request updated enroute winds and DES winds without having to create a .wx file.

No. Not loading saved flight plans. Typing in KORD, for example, in the departure or arrival airport will yield that error message.

Same problem here. It happens with KOAK, as well. It clearly has something to do with the new runway heading change.

Bummer. I hate 3D cockpits.

try pressing the "return/enter" key on your keyboard while in the black screen.

I haz the same issue. Open a support ticket.

Well then apparently TCAS finds VATSIM traffic less than amusing. Har. Har.

I encounter severe stutters when running ASE with the NGX. It happens during the "depiction output" phase of an ASE WX update. Perhaps try turning automatic updates off, or adjusting to update less frequently.

I can confirm this.

I'll give it a shot once I build a super computer.

The 747X and MD-11 run beautifully. The NGX does not. For me at least.

Uhh...yeah, I'll sacrifice some FPS for wingflex, because that is something that should be simulated, not a high definition smudge. I can easily stick my finger in olive oil and smear it on my screen for the same effect minus the higher demand on my system.

A little arrogant for someone who can't read very well... He is not talking about taking out systems, he is simply asking if it is possible, moving forward, to optimize some of the textures and 3D aspects of the aircraft. You said it pal.

Think again.

Menzies no doubt. :(

You can always push back with the manual FS commands if you really want to stay on that line.

In no way are we implying that PMDG has bad programmers. In fact, we all think you guys are brilliant, this aircraft is beyond amazing. But I'm going to have to disagree with you Ryan. When I load the 747X before the 737NGX I do see a noticeably nicer frame rate. I understand that the two share no code, so it may be something within FSX, I'm not sure. And as my aside: early on, someone on the team had mentioned that the frame rates were comparable to the MD-11. This was the deciding factor for me, but after flying around I quickly noticed that this was not the case, not in the least. And when I fly around on VATSIM, I have people PM me and ask if I am experiencing good frame rates..I say no, and every single person I've spoken to has the same issue. You guys have worked tirelessly on this aircraft, and it shows. But not everyone can afford a supercomputer, especially in this economy, to run it somewhat smoothly, and the MD-11 comparison has left a bad taste in my mouth. Though I admit I should have waited for some user feedback before purchasing it. I apologize for using the term "memory-leak" incorrectly, but I think code optimization should be one of the key points in moving forward. That's my opinion, and you can disagree with me all you want...that's fine; I'll just hold off buying the expansion packs. And one more thing: When a large percentage of your customers are expressing frustration about an aspect of your product, it is rather insulting to act as if we are making it up...that reflects more negatively on a company than "bad programming."

Agreed. It is off, but it is very very slight. If you've ever driven on the 405 past LAX, you'll notice that, for example, the SWA 737's seem to be a bit nose down vs. a 757-76-etc which glide almost 5 degrees nose up attitude. I find this only to be a problem when executing an autoland, but if you fly it manually, the last few hundred feet you can pitch for speed and power for altitude to get a realistic flare.

I think the 2D panels are pretty darn good. But, Mr. Bob Loblaw (ha!) suggests that they didn't include the throttle panel due to code complexities, however this area of coverage is very limited in code complexity. You have throttle positions, fuel cutoff switches, spoiler position, and trim. Doesn't seem like it would be too hard to implement.

I really believe there to be a memory leak somewhere. It is just super weird to me that I can have a pretty constant frame rate, but then it'll drop to 9 fps for a second or two, then back up, then back down, etc etc... I don't have the *best* system, but I get a constant 30-40 FPS with MD-11 and 747x with settings nearly maxed out, but it gets really jumpy for me with the NGX. I have all the settings down to the *bare minimum* and it's still all over the place. And yes, I've done all of the suggested optimization techniques.

Agreed. Please include this in future updates. I get about 4 FPS in VC, so it is a pain to set trim, etc...

The best thing you can do is make update your sceneries. AFCADs are a very minimally invasive way to ensure your airports are up to date. I run a search on AVSIM before I fly to a new airport and install the latest AFCAD.

Wondering about this too. It was 18,000, but it just changed to default 17,000 one day and stayed that way each time I load a new flight. Weird.

It's the American way.

Or download a new recent AFCAD file from avsim!