To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Screenshotartist.co.uk would like to present their latest review, covering the Captain Sim Boeing 757 package for FSX.
0 Responses
I understand the CS 757 is (at least visually) the most complex addon aircraft for FSX. I own it, as well as the PMDG 744 and the LDS 767. And after reading this review I was a little bit irritated that the author did not really criticize the catastrophal (!) performance of the CS 757. It is the ultimate performance hog, no comparison to either the 747 oder the 767 (which are barely less complex or realistic). I think it is a very bold move to even release this to the market in this form. Of course this is a matter of the system. I have a rather fast system (3Ghz Core 2 Duo, 4GB Ram, 8800GT), and let me give you some numbers: Sitting on a certain runway, I get 20FPS with the default 737. The LDS 767 gives me 18 here, while the 747 from PMDG will allow 15. Now sit down. When I load the CS 757, FPS drops to 3-4. It will kill any setup. I have tested this over a longer period of time, on 3 systems – these results are valid. So keep in mind, unless you have a 4 Ghz processor and don’t fly at larger airports, the CS 757 will slow your FSX down to a point where it is virtually unplayable – guaranteed.
Unfortunately I cannot comment on the PMDG B744 or MD11, as I do not have them, but a comparison with the (FS2002 vintage panel graphics) LDS767 is not really fair. Although the LDS has a greater amount of system depth, the big difference is in the textures with the 757 model. The LDS767 has a significantly smaller number of textures, each of which is considerably less detailed than those in the CS virtual cockpit. Even compared to other designed-from-scratch FSX models, though, there is a distinct frame rate hit with the CS model because of the visual complexity in terms of both modelling and texturing. I, however, have very rarely seen frame rates below 10 unless I turn my AI right up and go to complex airports such as Heathrow, O’Hare or Atlanta. The only two places where the sim became unusable were Southern California and New York, which are places I have to avoid anyway, in any aircraft (even the default Cessna goes below 10fps in these locations). My system is a C2D E6600 @ 2.4GHz, 2Gb RAM, Asus HAD3870X2 1Gb graphics card, running Windows XP SP3.
I was speaking of the FSX LDS w/VC, but I admit it is visually not on par with the CS 757. The PMDG bird comes pretty close though, and it is also a more complex body w/4 engines. It still performs far better. I think CS should have optimized their product until it has comparable performance to the PMDG (which already represents a tradeoff in terms of performance). Less is not enough.
Hi Rob, I do see your point. Just to clarify, however, I only ever run the LDS from the VC and it’s the VC in the CS model that is so much more detailed than the LDS, so that is what I was basing my comparison on. The PMDG models would probably be a better direct comparison, but as I said before, unfortunately, I can’t comment on them in FSX. Running in the the 2d panel you would get better framerates anyway, because the engine isn’t having to constantly draw the complexities of the model. For anyone concerned about how their system will cope, it is probably worth downloading and trying to demo from the developer. Put it at various points around the airports you will want to use it from and check how your sim performs.
Have to agree with Rob on this one. I have recently purchased the CS 757 and its a slide show in FSX. I’m sure it lives up to its hype for realism, animations, model etc. Shame that can’t be enjoyed then.
My specs:
Intel core 2Quad Q9300
4Gb PC2-6400 DDR2
NVidea GeForce 9800GT 1Gb
CS 757 6 fps.