....and it is awfully hard to make compare shots due to the restriction in file size on avsim which requires jpg compression-therefore you lose the clarity and abilty to really see the difference. I am sure the shots it their full resolution probably were very convincing.In my case-same deal. Went from sliders halfway-to sliders all full right, visually a totally new difference, and smoother better performance. It only makes sense that going from 32 megs of video to 128 that there should be a difference-and there is.http://members.telocity.com/~geof43/Geofdog2.gif

Strangely enough I will not be swapping the card back, I took the shots to show a comparison - believe me it is like a new simulator, so much better - I am not fooling myself.Apologies for those that do not like the shots or cannot see a difference (it is easier to see on a brighter monitor), personally I like the way that roads and rivers disappear into the distance rather than turning into a blurry mess after about 2 miles.

Rest assured I do not claim that there is no difference. I am simply saying that just by comparing the attached scteenshots, in all honesty I do not see much difference, and probably this below explains why:"....and it is awfully hard to make compare shots due to the restriction in file size on avsim which requires jpg compression-therefore you lose the clarity and abilty to really see the difference."Stamatis

BTW, Geof, your Debonair is one the most improved airplanes since the card upgrade.. I think it is because you used high resolution bitmaps for the panel.. either way, it is really convincing with the cowling up front and the instruments "in your lap".. for you it must be even more mind-bending since you fly the real thing!Other favorites of mine: the C177 Cardinal and the SF260 Marchetti..

Stamatis, here is a view from LAX airport, looking north.. this should give you a feel for viewable distances... easy to replicate on your system..

In the first pair of pix, the difference in clarity to the horizon is clearly visible. The second pair do suffer from low light and contrast. Hard for anyone not wearing the glasses everybody keeps telling me I need to get, to see a difference.However, the fact that I can't see something, doesn't mean it isn't there. I just got through reading a NTSB transcript, where the pilot's response to a traffic advisory and query "do you see the traffic?" was "Negative". His failure to see the traffic, did not mean that the traffic wasn't there -- as the subsequent midair illustrated. You can't prove a negative!Funny, though, how people are -- the ones who can't see a difference, want to (and I quote) "##### on your parade". Oh, sure, he says he doesn't want to...then follows with that "but", which does it to you anyway.And thus, it feels like those who can't see a difference blame you for their own inabilities. Nobody has said anything really bad...it just feels like they did. The general tone I get from this thread is people telling you to go away, because you're wasting their time. As for me, I'm glad you posted the pix, and thank you for doing so, as I'm planning work soon that will hopefully give me similar results! --BeachComer Stephen "Beach" Comer Real World Pile-it Commercial ASMEL, Instrument Airplane 4500 TT, 2500 BE20 & BE10

>>Mind that with Win98SE you can only go to 512MB as Win98 cannot address more than that<http://website.lineone.net/~flightsimukAvoid AGP texturing = Better Performance ;)

With the benefit of hindsight I would have cleared the weather on all of the pics and done "daytime" screenies since it would have better shown the point I was trying to make. It is also more noticeable on "flat" area's although the mountains are also improved.For those that cannot see a difference then I guess there is no point them upgrading - perhaps this thread will save them money. Glad to see some can see the point of it.....