Adam T Lutley

If already running at 4.5 Ghz with your 2500K, plopping a 3770K on the same MOBO will net you very little performance gain IMO. The Ivy bridge and Hazwell CPU's have a overclock ceiling of around 4.5 Ghz without de-lidding. The Ivy and Hazwell CPU's are faster clock for clock than the Sandy Bridge examples but I suspect they need to reside on Z77 or Z87 board to realize this improvement. Regards

This is exactly what I did (sort of). Finally deleted my heavily modified FSX cfg. file, got rid of FSX Booster, Bojote's tweaks, etc, and started from scratch. the only modification to my cfg file is: HIGHMEMFIX=1 AffinityMask=14 WideViewAspect=True I then set my NVIDIA inspector settings per Word Not Allowed's guide. All graphics sliders maxed except autogen (very dense) and water effects (high 2x). Traffic sliders are at reasonable settings. I'm using the PMDG NGX at FlyTampa's KMDW with ORBX FTXGlobal , REX, and Just Flight Traffic 360 running as well.Very pleased with the results. 24 FPS on the ground in the previously mentioned scenario with the FPS counter shooting well past 40 in the air away from a busy airport. I try to include as much info as I can when I make FPS claims. The previous posts regarding great performance on their 6 year old Dell or what have you tells me almost nothing if no other information is included. It's wonderful if people are satisfied with FSX performance on their low end systems. Hell, I could fire up my old FSX dedicated AMD Phenom based rig and conduct the exact same test. That PC is no slouch at 3.8 Ghz ,but it would fall flat on its face with that test. Why? because I've been there done that with it and 3 other previous builds. Regards

Autogen is set at very dense, water effects are set at high 2x. Airline traffic 55%, road traffic 25%, general aviation traffic 25%. All others are maxed out. I have light bloom switched off and I'm not using Direct X 10 preview.

Feel $90 is a reasonable price point for what I've heard is a stellar product. 3rd party developers are the only thing keeping the dated FSX platform viable. Is it affordable for everyone, of course not, but what is??

Regarding said YouTube link. I have used FSX Booster and Bojote's tweaking tool in the past. I finally ditched both of them and simplified my approach to my config file. After erasing and allowing FSX to build a fresh one, I made the following alterations: [DISPLAY] WideViewAspect=True [GRAPHICS] HIGHMEMFIX=1 [JOBSCHEDULER] AffinityMask=14 I'm not seeing the jaw dropping performance boost claimed in the video but I'm very pleased, nonetheless. I then tweaked my NVIDIA inspector's settings (slightly modified) per Word Not Allowed's suggestions. I opted not to employ the BUFFERPOOLS tweak. With airport and road traffic set to off and my airline traffic at 55% (using Traffic 360), My FPS never drops below around 22 FPS, even at FlyTampa's KMDW in my NGX, and shoots well past 40 in all of my PMDG aircraft when away from a busy airport, even flying low and slow over an urban area. Feel free to critique or add to this but this seems to have worked for me. Regards

Well, these are my NVIDIA Inspector settings. The only modifications to my config file are the following: [JOBSCHEDULER] AffinityMask=14 [GRAPHICS] HIGHMEMFIX=1 [DISPLAY] WideViewAspect=True These along with reasonable traffic settings have yielded the smoothest sim yet. 20+ FPS even at FlyTampa's KMDW in my PMDG NGX.

Regarding above post, I can hit 50+ FPS in the NGX at cruise. 20ish does sound low. Plan on purchasing the T7 in a couple of days so will test it out and report. My hardware specs are posted. Regards.

Amen to above sentiment!! FPS is dependent on hardware, settings, software used, Graphics settings, and too many other factors to list. It's almost impossible to do a valid comparison, even between 2 similar systems. The only valid comparison might be at the default airport in the same PC with 2 different aircraft. Regards

I believe the APU can be started all the way up to the service ceiling of the aircraft which is around 41,000 ft. Didn't mention that in the original post. Not sure why the 32,000 ft is the listed restriction for using the generator but can't think of a reason why one couldn't use it. Regards

Well, I've never had the means to plunk down 5 grand on a PC. I've had to employ the" insanity from a thousand cuts" method LOL! Specifically, building 5 Flight Sim dedicated PC's (so far) since the late 90's. I feel your pain bro!! all for the elusive 25+ FPS on short final in my PMDG NGX,747,MD-11(take your pick) into KORD,EGLL,KJFK (take your pick) with whatever frame hungry add on software running in the background REX,Aerosoft,ORBX,Traffic360 (take your pick). Great, well written, and entertaining post. Regards

Thanks for the insight.

600w is what is recommended for the NVIDIA GTX Titan, the biggest baddest PSU currently out there. Anything over 750w for a single graphics card setup is overkill. What is more relevant is how many amps the PSU can hold on its 12v rail. Not all PSU's are created equal. A known quality brand with an 80+ gold certification should be used, not the default PSU that comes with the case as they're often sub par. A 1200 watt PSU will cause issues with system stability if it doesn't have a stable power output. That being said, the 770 and 680 you're considering require at least 575w and 550w respectively so 500w is on the low side. There's nothing wrong with future proofing a little and opt for a larger PSU. But that doesn't mean you have to get a 1000+ Watt one either. With your hardware choices I'd consider a 660ti , some decent aftermarket cooling and then OC your 3570K to somewhere north of 4 ghz..That will net you more FSX performance (FPS) for less $$$. Regards

As long as FTX Global eliminates the dreaded repeating textures at altitude I'm in!! The screenshots I've seen around my neck of the woods look amazing. Default FSX never generated a sufficient number of trees to properly represent my hometown of St Louis, MO and other towns and cities in the Midwest and Eastern U.S. The building styles look far more convincing as well.

I prefer Samsung. Not sure but a triple monitor setup might tax an older single GPU, especially at extreme resolutions. regards

Well for me, it would have to be the airports I'm most familiar with. In my case, since I live in St Louis and fly to Chicago weekly, it would have to be Taxitogate's KSTL and FlyTampa's KMDW. Would love to be able to go back in time in the sim and see all the gates occupied with TWA and Ozark birds whilst flying my CS 727. Software developers hint hint....

Well LOL! you've got me there. Missed the 2000ft requirement. Regards

Bear in mind that these are the APU altitude operating limits on the actual aircraft. They may or may not reflect how it modeled in the NGX. Regards.

I have my AI traffic set at 45%. It seems to be a good compromise between performance, while still seeing some eye candy. I've employed Word Not Allowed's tweaks. My specs are posted but my 3770K OC'd @ 4.5 Ghz can't maintain 20 FPS in certain situations. I'm overall, as satisfied with the performance as I've ever been. Your hardware specs are solid so you should be able to eke a few more FPS out of your hardware. Regards

The APU on the 737 NG can be used for electrical power at 32,000 ft and below, pneumatic power at 17,000 ft and below, and electrical and pneumatic at 10,000 ft and below. Now, with regards to the previous posts regarding dual engine starts, using an air cart. Don't see any reason why it wouldn't be "theoretically possible" but why would you? I've never seen it done in real world operations. With respect to the 737 family, performing a #2 eng start is ,with a ground cart, potentially hazardous in several ways due to its proximity to the ground cart and the flexible pneumatic line. Cross bleed starting the #2 eng from the #1 involves opening the isolation valve, advancing power on the #1 eng to achieve at least 30 psi of duct pressure, and performing a normal start on the #2 eng. Happy flying!. Regards

Not sure, however, the CFM56-7b can be had with thrust ratings ranging from 18,500 to 27,300 lbs. The 737-700's I work on sport a thrust rating of around 24,000 lbs, while the 800's in our fleet are closer to 26,000. I suspect that's probably in the ballpark of what PMDG used when modeling the NGX. Just a guess though. Regards

PMDG JS41 is the only one I can think of. 260Kts cruise speed, 890 mile range, 30 pax. Very high quality payware from (where else), PMDG. Regards

Yep! I personally don't believe the AP should be engaged until the aircraft is cleaned up after takeoff or below around 1500 ft AGL unless prevailing minimums dictates its use. I believe one of the factors regarding how SOP's are written relate to today's fuel costs and the belief that crews waste fuel hand flying the aircraft. I've had flight crews tell me exactly that. I don't believe this trend does anything to enhance safety IMHO. Regards

Agreed, I edited my initial post to "advanced stick and rudder skills" immediately after posting original. Regards

I agree with above sentiments but here's more food for thought. In the late 90's and early 2000's it was possible to go from initial pilot training to a commercial pilot's license with 250-400 hours of total flying time straight into the right seat of an RJ at a regional airline. There is no way someone can master advanced stick and rudder skills in that time frame. Regarding previous posts regarding AF 447. Stall margins are far less forgiving in cruise flight above 35,000 ft than they are at less ambitious altitudes requiring a greater adherence to basics like instrument scanning. Regards

Just a few general points regarding the CFM56-7 family. I fly the PMDG NGX most of the time and am employed as an aircraft mechanic with run/taxi certification on most variants of the 737. I also regularly jumpseat on 737 flights.On every takeoff I've seen, the crews employ a staggered throttle lever movement while advancing them up to takeoff power (by staggered, I don't mean a throttle mismatch). This is also the procedure mechanics use when doing ground runs. Throttle levers are brought up relatively quickly to a certain point usually around 45% N1, and then advanced more gradually from there. There are various reasons for this but one primary one is to allow the variable and transient bleed valves to attain their desired settings prior to full throttle advancements. These valves will unload or load the compressor especially during initial engine acceleration. Although the FADEC can control fuel delivery to an incredibly precise value based on factors too many to list, it still employs an array of actuators,bleed valves, etc , all mechanically moving components that require time to move and provide feedback to the engine control system. There is indeed an initial surge in acceleration but I suspect it has more to do with throttle inputs and the previously stated factors, Regards