I was thinking about purchasing the 737 but i wanted to know how is the frame rate compared to what you get with the 707,767,757?

Thanks in advance

CoolP wrote on Jun 14^th, 2012 at 3:54am:

Same for me.

Not a big system there, but are you running any other addon planes so far? It's hard to judge the system, so I'm looking for a comparison. The 737 isn't really hard on the frames, but I don't know how the textures and maybe some addon scenery of yours add up on e.g. those 512mb of video ram with the mobile GPU.
Well, in general, the planes without any FMC and digital displays should be the best in terms of fps.

Edited:

Oh, so you already have the 707? Well, if that one works fast enough, there's no problem to be expected with the 737.  

Looks good! Hope you get a lot of joy with it.

The 737 is fun for flying short flights. I mostly fly 2 - 2.5 hours in it. I have done a few flights in the 4 - 4.5 hour range as well.

@markoz:
I flew a few legs with it and it was really short haul like less than an hour (the shortest being Marseille-Barcelona not even 500km I think), I really love that plane!

@CoolP:
Quote:



Quote:

I don't know, as far as i can remember the airport vehicules always had these sprinkles, and I don't want to reinstall my fsx just for a few sprinkles.

Quote:

Already did! it's an awesome addition!

I want to add though, this plane does not like old hardware.
Pete

It should. Been saving for a long time. The GTX 670 though is the best bit. On my older computer(AMD athlon Dual 5200 2.7Ghz and 9400GT), I could manage 10-15 FPS in the CS 737 VC, keep in mind, I had no weather, medium to low scenery, no AI either. With this newer computer, I don't think I'll have any of these problems again. It is odd though as planes like the CS 707 performed extremely well. It is odd as the 707 likes older hardware. But the best plane for FPS is the new BAe146(not the Avro released, the other one).
It is odd to find some work much better than others.
But I just got fed up with bad performance, so I thought I'd save up. Also to do tri monitor. I have big plans for the future.
Pete

I think it sits around how much RAM you have. FSX would like RAM if it could.
Pete

I get great frame rates with the 737. Better than I do with the 707, 757, 767 and 777. Weird!

Pete your right FSX is a pain in the proverbial. I have heaps of RAM and dual core 64 bit system but FSX is realy an MS XP program not a true 64 bit multi-core program. I tried getting windows to pretend it was and make it compatible with WIN 7 but that just produced more problems than it was worth, so I reset it. I recently installed a series of updates from MS which produced some pretty stuffed windows behaviour (the draw part not the programs) it has taken all night to resolve the problems including a system restore. Boy am I tired of this sort of crap from MS.

I am getting ready to migrate across to PREPAR3D and hopefully kiss good bye to FSX I know I will not be able to run a few of the aircraft in my hangar but really at this point I don't care I just want a reliable and stable system and program that is updated properly.

As for the FPS, go figure, I can't work it out, I have fiddled with just about everything I can think of including the FPS limiter internal and external, all I know is that my system technically is capable of unlimited but gets the jitterbugs real bad so I keep it limited to 22 fps internally and 30 externally. For some reason that seems to work for me.

[HP Dual Core 4.0GB RAM, 3.7GZ, 1TER HD and INTEL 2GB Video Card)

The advantage to migrating to P3D (IMO) is that it will get better as time goes by. And because it's core is FSX, it should not be too hard for the developers of addons for FSX to move them across to P3D (like other devs are already starting to do). It would be great if Captain Sim did too, not tthat it matters too much, I am able to use most, if not all, of their addons in P3D (with a little tweaking).