Both will do quite well in FS9. As far as the FPS limiter is concerned, for me personally there is no image gain by unlocking it, but a loss. Maybe that's only my circumstance though. I found by locking it, it pegs at the limit with all setting maxed most of the time, and the IQ is gorgeous both near the ground and at altitude.What I think does matter, regardless of what video card someone chooses to purchase, is knowing how to get the best visual quality while maintaining playable fps. And to do so, one has to tweak their system (not only the video card) the best they can. If they don't know then they should learn since it is information worth retaining. If you're into the eye candy like I am, than FPS means nothing if you cannot max the settings and enjoy the scenery outside the cockpit without jaggies or blurries or tearing. I love knowing that when I come out of a cloudeck, the landscape in front of me will be clear enough for me to identify rivers, airports, roads and landmarks 20-30 miles away. Cheers,Mike P4 2.4C @3.44 285FSBAsus P4C800 Deluxe1gb Corsair XMS PC3500 Asus V9950 FX5900 Ultra 256mb 500/950SB Audigy2 Platinum ExWatercooled baby!!!Pics: http://community.webshots.com/user/chksix2002

Bigshot, I like to dispell the 9800pro faster FPS over the 5900Ultra rumor if I may. After my last post, I decided to take your advice, go on my 9800Pro system (a 3.06ghz P4 with 512mb of DDR ram on a 8mb cache 80gb WD DD) unlock the FPS counter, initiate real weather, and take a shot of the same location over Hawaii. Result? Even though the IQ is as good as my 5900Ultra, the FPS suffers dramatically and posts only 11FPS. Mind you, the settings are exactly the same as my other system equipped with the 5900. Being that 20 FPS is what my Nvidia system got locked, wouldn't only 11FPS unlocked (doubt it would matter if it was locked or not) on my 9800Pro system be almost 50% less? That's quite a dramatic drop, but without further ado, here is the shot. I guess using Chris's clouds on an ATi equipped system is clearly a better alternative since the FS9 clouds overwork the Radeons capabilities.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/66361.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/66362.jpgNotice that the cloud coverage isn't even as dense as on my Nvidia shot since the weather has changed some, and the frame rates are still below par in my opinion..unlocked and even using the latest Omega drivers from omegacorner.com.I was getting 60fps unlocked, but that's when I was viewing the plane on or very close to the ground. That's 4xAA/8XAnio. I am not even going to try 16x since the performance right now is less that what I would have expected.Now with all of that said, I really have no clue what these websites are reviewing or how they go about it. Their numbers are more than a little off when comparing both cards, however luckily for me I do own both ATi and Nvidia and I can run the numbers myself...which gives me a better indication of the facts than believing what someone writes or claims. This wasn't meant as an attack towards anyone who owns Ati...I was just curious to see the numbers for myself, and I was more than suprised with my results. MikeP4 2.4C @3.44 285FSBAsus P4C800 Deluxe1gb Corsair XMS PC3500 Asus V9950 FX5900 Ultra 256mb 500/950SB Audigy2 Platinum ExWatercooled baby!!!Pics: http://community.webshots.com/user/chksix2002

The clouds are a ram issue. Not a video card issue. Even folks with a gig of ram are having problems with em'. Same thing with the 32 bit textures. Aircraft won't perform because the system would need 2gig or more of ram to function properly with 32bit textures and that's questionable. A 256mb video card may help with em'. Haven't really read much on that.Normal flight sim textures are suppose to be DXT3 textures with mipmaps. I see literally hundreds of 32bit textures in the library without mipmaps because the Nvidia cards don't handle the normal mipmapped textures correctly. ATI does. Apparently they blur out on Nvidia cards or we wouldn't be seeing substandard textures. Make's me frustrated cause I have to convert them all back to the way they were supposed to be, because a DXT3 normal texture with mipmaps looks way better and comes with great performance. A 32bit texture with mipmaps looks OK; but doesn't deliver the performance. Chris' clouds look just as good in most instances and better in some instances than the default clouds and don't consume anywhere near the ram. I can't wait for his next set.It's well known that ATI delivers on the AA & AF. ATI AA is much better than Nvidia. That's been discussed all over the web. ATI also delivers the performance running with AA & AF maxed out at 24fp. Nvidia does not. Nvidia runs in mixed mode. Mostly 16fp and the framerate still dies when you crank up all the goodies. ATI AF goes to 16xAF. Nvidia's stops at 8x. AF is extremely important in a flightsim. This has been discussed all over the web. As for drivers, neither card has much of a problem anymore. They're both good from everything I've read. But for the fact, Nvidia still hasn't made a fully compliant DX9 card and their shaders are slow in DX9 applications. Good thing FS9 is DX8 in that regard. FS10 will most likely be DX9 and Nvidia has yet to deliver in that arena.Having said that, the high end high priced Nvidia cards do deliver a nice picture. ATI's image quality is still considerably better than Nvidia's picture quality and that's been discussed all over the web. I would like to see a digital vibrance option on ATI though so the individual can adust color level to his/her liking.Bottom line, if you just have to have an Nvidia Card, buy one. If you're happy great. If you want an ATI card, buy one. If you're happy great. Doesn't much matter to me. What irritates me is how Nvidia has lied about their products, cheated constantly on the benchmarks and gave the impression they don't care about their customers so long as they can get a sale. Now, that explains why Nvidia is now is last place among the top three video card makers in market share. We also have to remember that the R420 by ATI and the NV40 by Nvidia are just around the corner. If I was in the market for a new card, I'd wait and see which one delivers on their promises.

AA as well as Anio depend on the game running, yet both produce IQ of the same level. If you were talking pre Forceware, I would definitely agree with you, however that isnt the case anymore and there is no real noticeable difference in IQ on either card. Mixed mode again depends on the software title like Half Life 2 running full MS DX9. Anything below Dx9, and Nvidia is much faster and IQ is not in the least noticeably lower (and my screenshots of FS can take that home to the bank), but in fact almost the same. To further prove my point that there is absolutely visual differences between either card regarding AA/Anio (no matter what anyone tries to boast about), click this: http://discuss.futuremark.com/forum/showfl...o=&fpart=1&vc=1As far as textures go, I don't really get what you're saying. I don't know of any 32bit maps (or hundreds for that matter) that was made for flight sim that Nvidia can't run. Please point out a link for me so I can download them and post the results here from both systems. I am running FSGenesis across the entire US and FSScene 2004 on both machines, and the ATi is doing worse than the Nvidia with the same settings. I have every possible software addon for flight sim and never had to worry about textures, formats or running them on the Nvidia. They run regardless of when or how I install them, and I never have to go below, finagle or find a lower quality replacement to get better FPS, like the clouds for instance. No disrepect to Chris or FSW.. I know that they were 'unoffical' surely to be followed by some awesome clouds by them, but those currently available for download cannot hold a candle visually to the default Microsoft ones. The only reason to use them would be an unbearable performance hit which I do not have with all settings, including the clouds, maxed.The clouds cannot be a RAM issue, I have 1 gig on the 5900 and no troubles, yet you say others (I guess running Ati) have 1 gig and do have problems? That's not a ram issue, that's more like a gpu/gpu software or a cpu issue or any combination of them. 16x Aniostropic really doesnt matter at all if you cannot even run it at 8x and get a decent fps without changing the original software.I might agree with what you're saying above if I didn't own both cards. However, (and again this isn't an insult) nothing you are saying holds true for me in the least. If anything, and no matter which game I am running..be it FS or Battlefield1942 or Deus Ex2, I am finding myself turning the detail down or having to find better FPS fixes for the 9800pro and not the 5900Ultra. If I owned only one card, I might sit here and argue or agree with you, but I won't because I can get the results on my own without listening to what anyone else is claiming. Again both are great cards, and I am happy with both of them. Whatever works for someone else, whether it be Nvidia or Ati, then great. However, I won't agree with what anyone says to me either way since I have enough high end hardware here to form my own conclusions unbiasedly. People can make all the claims they want. Yet unlike most who own only one videocard and one computer, I have the right tools to either prove or disprove them rather quickly using my own two systems based on the leading video card contenders. And, I would be more than happy to post the Results/IQ/FPS as they appear on my screen on both machines for anyone who asks.Cheers,MikeP4 2.4C @3.44 285FSBAsus P4C800 Deluxe1gb Corsair XMS PC3500 Asus V9950 FX5900 Ultra 256mb 500/950SB Audigy2 Platinum ExWatercooled baby!!!Pics: http://ommunity.webshots.com/user/chksix2002