The 400X has full blown smooth native FSX wingflex, yes. The model is completely rebuilt.

Darren,I have read earlier on this forum that there has been spent significant time to take full advantage of the new wingflex feature in FSX.EDIT: And Ryan posted just before me, so there you go :-) Raymond

Hello,I know there have been a few questions asked regarding the wing flexing of PMDG aircraft, but I just was wondering about it in a bit more detail. Since the FSX SP1 has come out more and more high quality addon planes are hitting the market, one being a particular 767 that is very well done. The only thing I have noticed though is that the wing flex is identical to the FS9 version. I read somewhere on this forum I believe that FSX has much more realistic wing flexing abilities. Will the FSX 747-400 version take advantage of the new wing flexing technologies or will it be the same as FS9? Thanks for any replies,Darren

Hello Captains,The wing flex on the 747X is a whole different animal from what you have experienced in FS9.In FS9, the wing is literally cut into 3 segments and flexes at the joints. You can see the seams when the light hits it just right, and the flex is a bit angular.In FSX the wing flex is driven by a complex skeletal system. They flex smoothly without joints. This gives it a much more realistic appearance. We use a lot of bones to distribute the flex over the entire wing, rather than just the 3 segments in FS9.Also driven by bones are the variable camber leading edge flaps, which are now made up of a solid piece rather than the segmented ones on the FS9 version of the Queen. They smoothly bend as they are deployed and flatten out when they retract.Finally, we've tweaked the algorithms that control the flex, to give it an even more realistic appearance.For Wing-View lovers, it will be a real treat.Best,Vin ScimonePMDGwww.precisionmanuals.comhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/priv/img/forum/sig_pmdg.jpg

So am I imagining correctly with the new flex, that turbulance will be more visable to the wings going up and down? Especially from a wing-view?

Well now I really can't wait any longer ;-) FSX really is an amazing sim once you get it up and running.Hey jordanal,I see you have an E6700 Core 2 Duo. I am building a new machine and was thinking about getting that processor. How does FSX run on your system? Thanks,Darren

Great! But in hind-site, I probably could have done just as well with an E6600 and saved $100. Not sure though, becuase I went from an AMD4000+ single-core directly to the E6700. No complaints so far.

Yeah see I can't decide if I want to get the Quad 6600 are the Dual 6700. I don't know if the 6600 has enough juice to crank out 30-40 fps.

As I understand it, the quads don't use cores 3 & 4 in FSX at the moment except when loading/starting the session. The extra cores will be helpful in the future. In my opinion, the faster quads will be on the newer dies (penryn?) by this fall. If it were me, I'd proably wait for the expected price-cuts around the 22nd of this month, get a C2D for now for dirt cheap, then see what comes of the quads and FSX-DX10 this fall. So, if you can't pull 30-40FPS with a 6000, I don't think you will with a quaid either. If you're running external add-ons, you could allocate them to the unused cores and take some of the pressure off the FSX cores and that might speed things up a bit. That's just me though...

Pretty sure that isn't true Al - Phil Taylor's stated that FSX can utilize up to 256 cores... I'll get this verified later today hopefully though, someone on the team just got a quad-core machine.

I thought I read something to the affect over in the Hardware forum in a thread comparing C2D and Quads recently and whether it was worth upgrading right now. Could be wrong of course...

Currently I have an Intel D840 3.2Ghz Dual Core chip. When I installed the FSX SP1 I didn't notice any real improvement in FPS until I added to the fsx.cfg file:[JOBSCHEDULER]AffinityMask=2I saw a good 20FPS increase the next time I started up. It CLEARLY went from using 1 core to 2 cores from that command. According to Phil Taylor's blog you can change the number (2 in my case) to however many cores you have in your processor. It would be interesting to see if some of the quad-core folks out there have this setting in their fsx.cfg file set to 4. Darren

Darren,aren't you supposed to set AffinityMask=3 if you have two cores? Please correct me if I am wrong since I have never tried this tweak, but I searched Phil Taylor's blog for it and found this:http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007...aks-in-sp1.aspx

FSX SP1 can utilize the cores you have, and using the Affinitymask (as explained) you in in control of which cores are being utilized. I run FSX on a QuadCore and had initillay set the Affinity mask to 15 (bit pattern 00001111, hence all 4 cores are being used). The first core is "what's drive FSX" hence its running all the time at 100% and the 3 other cores are "variating" according to the load htye have to handle, (but are running somewhere around 50%, at least until I sat the simulation rate to rate x4, in which case the last 3 cores also goes to 100%. Since then I've changed the AffinityMask to 7 (bit pattern 00000111, hence the first 3 cores), which leaves one core free to the OS other programs running on the PC (e.g. Navigraph nDac, FSCommander).I've seen reports from Dual core users that repport they seen a performance improvement setting the AffinityMask to either 1 or 2 (basically locking FSX to run on either the 1st or the 2nd core - not using both). I guess the reason this can produce an improvement is becase the CPU can better utilie it's Cache - but you will probably want to test this yourself (does it run bette with a Affinitymask or 3 than on 2 ?).[link:fs2crew.com]http://fs2crew.com/betateam.jpgPelle F. S. Liljendal

I found when I set affinitymask=3 I got about a 30% drop in FPS. What kinds of FPS are you seeing on your quad core? And what quad do you have? The 6600 or the 6700?Darren