hi there!

got a question regarding the 767 ... currently i own the 757 aswell as the C130. The C130 performs great on my Box with no Framerate Issues whatsoever(flying ORBX Scenery)...however the 757 still gives me headaches as its impossible for me to land in any bigger city as the framerate drops to below 10 quite often during approaches ... this even outside ORBX sceneries ...

thing is ... im considering getting the 767 aswell but at the moment im reluctant due to the fact that i dont really need another bird that i cant land at major airports due to it being a "hardware hog" ...

so the question is, what are you experience with this plane(framerate wise) to the other 2 mentioned. is it as hardware hungry as the 757 or lightweight like the C130(or maybe somewhere in between) ?

767 frame rates are similar to the 757 frame rates. I don't know your computer specs, but you can turn the sliders town just a bit to increase the frame rates though. The Orbx FTX scenery still looks great, even if you don't quite have the settings they recommend. One of the best ways to gain frame rates is to decrease the settings of the Aviation traffic and Land and sea traffic.

Hope this helps.

Mark

Specs are:
Q6600 overclocked to 2.8Ghz
8GB Memory
GTX280
15k SATA Drive(OS running on a seperate drive)

tweaking the scenery settings hasnt done much good(maybe +3FPS on average in the 757 but i have to really turn it down quite a bit to achieve that ... low autogen ... very little cloud distance ... and so on) ... traffic is set to around 20% for aviation and <10% for land vehicels and ships ... any lower and ill be flying in a ghost world  ;)

the 757 also gives me problems while ORBX is deactivated and i just fly europe or north america(Europe with UT). UT doesnt seem to make a lot of difference tough, hardly noticeable.

i will admit as much that the 757 is a helluva lot more detailed then my other planes but its still kind of a let down ...  

well ... i guess thats a "better not" for the 767 ... shame ...  :(

Yeah it's a pity. I think the Captain Sim 767 is the best one available. And yes I own the other two developers 767's. I never fly them (no longer installed in FSX), I always fly Captain Sim's. ;D

Mark

Hi there,

The 767 is a bit harder on frames than the 757. I usually get 20-25 frames while using the 757. My frames drop to 17-20 when using the 767. It's not a big difference on my system, but if your framerates drop to 10 on the 757, then you would probably get around 5 FPS on the 767, which makes it impossible to fly.

Regards,

I have a PC listed in my signature. I bought it only to fly FSX without problems, but it did not solve anything. When I fly the default 737 (everything set to medium with no traffic - air and ground too), I have about 45-60fps, but when I fly the 767, the fps drops down to 8-18fps. I do not fly it, because I can´t. I installed only the flight deck, but it does not help.
FSX is ugly peace of unoptimised software and I cannot understand why it does not work properly on a high-end pc bought five years after the release - it is not normal. I have no problems to set newest games to the highest possible settings and still have 60fps, but FSX - set to lowest settings with no airtraffic and still have problems on the i5+HD5850.
I do not think it is mistake of Captain Sim, but the problem is the software it is made for - FSX.
I really hope the new MS Flight will be greatly optimised and playable without the tweaking circus. I hope MS will do better job with Flight than with FSX. When it will work correctly, I will buy the CS767 for the Flight again, because it is best possible to buy and nothing compares it.
The one thing I can do is to wait for it - or to learn the ATPL in reality...

You can bet that MS will make flight the same way FSX was made basically to only run well on PC made 10years from now so don't hold your breath for a smooth ride with flight

Yes, thats why I called it badly optimised.
Decision to make something playable on pcs 10 years after release is very bad. Why should MS do it when it releases new versions every 3-5 years after release? I do not know what MS was thinking about in the 2006.
Yes, they thought we will have 20Ghz processors now, but we have only 3,5Ghz max. I hope MS will learn from their mistakes and do it playable on high end machines now, not five-ten years later. If they will think this way in the future, people will be angry, because nothing they release will work smoothly and properly... :(
For example why should they release "Windows 12" now, when it could not be run on today high-end pcs? Noone would like to buy it. Why should I play the FSX in 2017 when Flight will be seven years on the market? Why should I play Flight in 2025 when Flight II released eight years ago? I do not think it is good decision to make it this way...

As I said - hope they will learn from it, because they cannot know what type of machines we will have in 2015...

hello All Simmer
I have the same problem frame rate in fsx
What I learn in past 4 years is no matter what comp spec do you have is never enough to play fsx on max setting!
Microsoft when release FSx doesn't care about all the addons we will install on it after .
I did one test 2 years ago I install fsx without any addons and I try to play on high setting and this was working just  fine about 30 fps all the times I think is enough.
when we start install new airport and aircraft FPS drop down drastically and we need to minimize the setting to play the game.
Today I buy new video card nvidia geforce 480 gtx just to play fsx with high setting and frame rate better  then 8 fps on Egll mega airport heathrow.
Unfortunately my power supply is to weak to give enough power my graphic card so tomorrow I will need to buy 850 watt monster
and hopefully I will be able to play FSX on setting better then medium low :)

let you know how's  it going .
regards
Chris

kiniu wrote on Dec 13^th, 2010 at 10:41pm:

hello I did one test 2 years ago I install fsx without any addons and I try to play on high setting and this was working just  fine about 30 fps all the times I think is enough. when we start install new airport and aircraft FPS drop down drastically and we need to minimize the setting to play the game. Today I buy new video card nvidia geforce 480 gtx just to play fsx with high setting and frame rate better  then 8 fps on Egll mega airport heathrow. Unfortunately my power supply is to weak to give enough power my graphic card so tomorrow I will need to buy 850 watt monster

You are on the right track for sure, this is a link to a different thread offering a fix for this same exact issue...

http://www.captainsim.org/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1291943175

Also a good power supply calculator from newegg and easy to use.

http://c1.neweggimages.com/BizIntell/tool/psucalc/index.html?cm_sp=Cat32_PowerSupply_left-_-PowerSupplyFinder030510-_-http%3a%2f%2fpromotions.newegg.com%2fproductfinders%2fpowersupply.jpg

PC's are far under powered and a good solution to many problems is providing the right power source to your PC,My ATI is 500W minimum and my PC came with 475W! The i7 uses around 250W! Do the math, that doesn't include the monitor or anything else I have, you will be upset at how much you've missed by not doing it sooner.
Good Luck 8-)

i7 CPU  920  @ 2.67GHz, 2668 Mhz,
RAM9.00 GB DDR3 1600
ATI HD 5870

Hello all simmer

So finally I can run my fsx smooth and be a happy person
I bought new power supply for my BRAND NEW graphics card ge force 480 GTX and I have to say this was good choice
On ORBX scenery YBCS I have 30 frame on Boeing 767 and more after airborne
On Mega Airport Munich EDDM only 16-19 but is better then 7 before!
I just find out yesterday when I play fsx on full screen I have lot more fps then in windowed mode .
I also use NHancer its helping a lot
I was waiting 4 year for this moment to say I have smooth running FSX in max setting .

My comp spec:
processor Q6600 2.40
4 Gb ram ddr2
2x 1 TB WD 7200 RPM
GE FORCE 480 GTX
POWER SUPPLY 800 WATT
vista 64 BIT

Thank You and see you on the air
Chris

NHancer 2.5.9 (latest version) doesn't work on the latest Nvidia 2xx drivers, only the 19x drivers. So are you using the 19x drivers? Or is there a new beta release that I can't seem to see or find?

Mark

Nvidia Inspector does.