Okay, so I purchased the 763 2 days ago. It looks great! I especially love the wear and tear on the wings! Everything is just amazing.

The one thing I can't get over, however, is the performance hit. . . I have turned off the cabin, so it's only the vc, but I still can't get close to 20 fps. even with my graphics turned ALL THE WAY down. I feel like there might be a bug because I just have never seen an aircraft that's that hard on fps. Is CS planning on improving frames in upcoming updates? And will I have to pay even more for the 762 and 764 which are coming out later?

My only other problem with the aircraft is proper flight dynamics. Maybe more 'runway dynamics,' but if I load full fuel, and high weights, the aircraft still has no problem getting in the air. It barely takes anytime to get up to rotation speed! The same for landing! I run FSX, and with full fuel, and 85% cargo, I touchdown on a very wet runway with autobreaks 1, and i use very slight reverse, and the plane takes very little runway to stop.

The framerates problem is very important, and I am unable to do flights because of the low performance. (Everyone knows how impossible it is to land when your computer's a slide show!)

Thanks,

-MAtt

Hi Matt,

With regards to the FPS issue, it would be helpful to list your system specs (CPU/Memory/Graphics Card+Memory).

I actually find the 767 to have very good frame rates (my system specs are in my signature).

Captain Sim gives you better looking graphics than most devs, and that's a fact.  It is also a fact that their products will eat frame rates more hungrily.  If you have not learned to get the most out of your system, now is probably a good time to start learning.  A good starting place is http://205.252.250.26/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1208959973.

I have learned to "build my setup around the airplane" instead of finding the "magic settings."  When I'm flying the 767, she's the star of the show!  So some other things get pushed out of the spotlight, like higher scenery, traffic, etc.

I have a decent, but by no means state-of-the-art system, a Dell XPS 430 Dual Core Quad 2.5 w/6 MB RAM and a Nvidia GeForce 9800GT.  I can get very smooth performance with the 767, and my sliders are far from all the way down, I assure you.  So unless you have a system that is really more suited for FS9 than FSX, you might have to spend some time learning and tweaking.  I'll be glad to offer any help I can, and I hope you can get things working well for yourself.

My system specs are as follows:

Processor: Intel Core 2 CPU, 6400 @ 2.13GHz 2.13GHz

Memory(RAM): 2.00GB

System: I'm running Windows Vista 32

I know CS's aircraft are hoggers, but I read somewhere their 767 takes less computer space than their 757, and that's just not the case with me..

Thanks,

-Matt

I'm only running a single core AMD FX57 with 2GB RAM and a 9800GTX+ card on XP Pro.  The 767 is a challenge for frame rates for that system. What I'm finding with version 1.2,is that the integrated radar is a major frame rate hog. If you're running the radar all the time,try shutting if off to see if that gets your frame rates back to an acceptable value. Only 2GB RAM with Vista 32  may be an issue for you as well.

cantland wrote on Sep 8^th, 2009 at 5:07am:

Only 2GB RAM with Vista 32  may be an issue for you as well.

Indeed.

Matt, be sure you look at the link Tim provided in his post, spend a few hours following it all through and you'll have a very optimized system.

However, your hardware is on the low side - FSX depends on alot of Memory and eats CPU's for breakfast, the faster the CPU the better your frame rate. Around 3.0GHz/4Gb memory is where things start to look and feel much better.

Maybe you could look at purchasing more Memory if you don't have alot of money to spend - take your system up to 4Gb and use the USERVA switch in Vista (google for it) to make use of at least 3Gb of it. That should give an improvement.

You could also look at overclocking your CPU, though please do not attempt this if you are unsure about it - it requires purchase of a better heatsink/fan for your CPU, alot of patience, and alot of research online for your particular CPU/Motherboard combination settings.

i also think there is one more thing everyone should try out...it has come to my attention that some sound cards actually make the processes run on the cpu itself, what you can do is try turning the sound off and see how many of you users get a few fps gain, then if you do, perhaps it's time to get a new sound card too..i didn't see any gain in mine but some have reported a gane up to 5-8 fps.

rupesh wrote on Sep 9^th, 2009 at 11:17pm:

i also think there is one more thing everyone should try out...it has come to my attention that some sound cards actually make the processes run on the cpu itself, what you can do is try turning the sound off and see how many of you users get a few fps gain, then if you do, perhaps it's time to get a new sound card too..i didn't see any gain in mine but some have reported a gane up to 5-8 fps.

This is mostly true of soundcards that are integrated into the computer motherboard. A seperate soundcard is definately the way to go.

flilot wrote on Sep 11^th, 2009 at 12:16am:

rupesh wrote on Sep 9th, 2009 at 11:17pm: i also think there is one more thing everyone should try out...it has come to my attention that some sound cards actually make the processes run on the cpu itself, what you can do is try turning the sound off and see how many of you users get a few fps gain, then if you do, perhaps it's time to get a new sound card too..i didn't see any gain in mine but some have reported a gane up to 5-8 fps. This is mostly true of soundcards that are integrated into the computer motherboard. A seperate soundcard is definately the way to go.

yes Flilot, the integrated sound cards do use the cps, but the ones i'm talking about are about the separate sound cards. there are some  separate sound cards that too hand off the processes to the cpu, that is what was so surprising to me.
has anyone tried turning off the sound in fsx and noticed any fps gain?

Hi all,

If someone would post their FSX slider settings for a smooth 767 ride I would appreciate it.

I just tried an app at EDDF and she was extremely choppy even with autogen down to dense and I have built a system that handles the Flt One Mustang and another company 767 with sliders at 75% or 100% with no problem except for some tweaking for the F1 Mustang VC view.

The system I built is fairly good: i7 920@3.8/3Gb RAM@7-8-7-20/Nvidia 260 with nHancer/UTX/UTUSA/GEX/REX textures.

Thanks.

Jack S.
:(

I just purchased this aircraft yesterday and I am having the same problems. I have gone through the KB article that was suggested and selected the flight deck only option. I have also tried turning off the weather radar(added 3-5 fps) but I am getting really low frames even at high altitudes. This isn't a sound card issue, I am using a dedicated sound car and all my other payware aircraft perform fine.

Intel Core i7 920@3.2ghz|ASUS P6T Deluxe mobo|6GB G.Skill DDR3 1600|MSI 260 GTXOC 896|SoundBlaster X-FI Xtreme Gamer|500GB WD "Black" HD|Rosewill 850w PSU|Track IR4|Viewsonic 26 Inc LCD & Dell 2105 FP| Windows Vista 64 Ultimate

Alpha,

Our systems are similiar and after a lot of twiddeling, this is smooth until about 100' on final at KATL and EGKK, the only ones I tested today.

Use this if you haven't: http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=29041

My FSX graphics: frames locked at 30
                          trilinnear
                          lens flare
                          advanced animation
                 Scenery: LOD Large
                               Complexity 80
                               Mesh res 80
                               tex res 1M
                               water low 1x
                               Scenery complexity 75%(very dense)
                               Autogen 50% (dense)
                               Special effects medium
                               NO airport traffic or AI traffic(I use UTX)
                               1920x1200/32
I have used ASA and FSX weather fairly successfully.
nHancer set up as in the tuning guide, EXACTLY.
Drivers: 182.50
Cockpit only.

I think that at some airports I will always get choppy on final until CS gets rid of the messages between the 767 and FSUIPC which I read will help with smooth flight.

I hope Tim C. will chime in with his settings; he claims to have smooth with a DELL@ 2.6 which I find hard to believe but then I'm not looking at his monitor nor he at mine; one of the problems with reviews and other comments in the various forums. I do believe that Dr. Nick really knows FSX!

Hope this helps.

Jack S.
:)

wsciutti,

Thanks but I have spent extensive amounts of time running through Nicks guide and I have my system tweaked to the point to where all my payware aircraft run pretty smoothly. It is just this one that I am having issues with.

Set frames to unlimited and get back to me.  This makes all the difference in the world for me with complex add-ons around airports.

To be safe I ditch all AI.  Use the global setting of "High" and crank down the water no higher than Mid 1.x  That would be my recommended starting point and see how that works.

I don't care for Lens Flare or Light Bloom (usually).  No a/c shadows.  No land or boat traffic.

I haven't found much of a difference with or without the cabin, so I keep it.  By the time you want to play with wx radar, you should be away from the airport and getting smooth FPS.  

I am using nHancer and keep my computer defragged with O&O.

I never have intractable problems with stuttering, and I will tell you the standard I use.   If I can taxi and look from one side the other of the vc smoothly, i.e. without jerking, then it is acceptable to me.

I have a Dell XPS 430 2.5 Core 2 Quad with 6 MB RAM & a GeForce 9800GT.  At KATL I'm good in the 767.

There are too many variables to guarantee everyone is going to have the same experience.  All I can tell you is how I set up and get smooth frames with the 767.  You're going to have to make your own trial and error experiments.

This IS one of the most FPS-challenging airplanes around.  It's like a big budget picture that cost a lot, but at least you can look at the screen and say it's all up there.  You should NOT expect the same performance as some other payware a/c.  That is not unusual at all.  The question is whether you can run it smoothly with some acceptable configuration on your system.

Tim,

Thanks for checking in. Pls note my 757 post 'FINALLY'.

I will reinstall the 767 and try your suggestions; my experience with unlimited at 3.8 is very jerkey. I can, however set the original 2.6/2.8 with a 21 multi, and see what happens. Perhaps the 920 can be OC too much for FSX but Nick indicates the greater the horsepower the better the results. I can use 75% auto,etc/ low 2x water/ac shadows/and UTX when OC with all payware except the F1 Mustang( the computations for the G1000 chew up a lot of cycles as do the superb graphics of the 767+ the FMS).

Thanks again.
Will report later today.
Jack S.

PS If you are interested in actual 756/767 pilot procedures(I can't name the airlne - my son flies FO and will move to 767ER intenational in Jan and has gotten his old man in the 757/777-400/737 sims in Atlanta), send an email.
:)