There was a delay in the latest Omega drivers for ATI cards due to Omega working to better integrate RadLinker into the driver package. While the latest Omega drivers will work with ATI's new CCC, Omega is working to offer a future for those who wish not to install CCC (and the required .NET Framework). Radlinker is now a required install with the Omega drivers, and will do all the tweaking that CCC does (and a bit more... like seperate control settings for D3D and OGL) without using nearly the system resources. Radlinker also includes Radclocker for those who wish to overclock thru registry settings (the best method short of flashing the video card with a special BIOS).Get them here: http://www.omegadrivers.net/Cheers,Greg

I need basic education. What's Omega? Is it just another wrapper for the same underlying 4.9 drivers? So it simply replaces either the ATI's Catalyst Control Center or the Control Panel (which I use now)? Am I right? And if so what makes them superior over the Control Panel?Michael J.WinXP-Home,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8, Radeon X800 Pro,WD 36GB Raptor,1 GB PC3200 http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

The Omega's are tweaked drivers. Use to be that he tweaked for IQ over performnace, but both nVidia and ATI are now doing a pretty good job of delivering drivers that perform OK and have good IQ.For our ATI cards there are a number of tweaked driver sets avialable... Omega and UniAN being a couple of my favorites. They both give good performance (uaually as good and possibly better than the stock Catalyst's) but are tweaked to give superior IQ. Saves the end user from spending alot of time tweaking (and often screwing things up). You basically set the AA and AF levels, Texture Preference and MipMap Details, and a couple other easy features and then you're good to go.The big difference with this set of Omega's is that RadLinker is now a required installation. RadLinker is a different Control Panel (3rd party developed), and works very well. It's also pretty easy to use and powerful. The reason Omega is now requiring the installation of Radlinker is because ATI will soon force all it's customer's to foresake the old Control Panel and install the new Catalyst Control Center (CCC) in order to tweak the stock drivers. CCC requires the installation of the .NET Framework in order to function. Many folks feel all this is "bloatware"... having to install so much just to tweak the VC registry entries. Radlinker is much easier on the resources.If you're not interested in futzing around with driver tweaks then you should consider something like the Omega's or UniAN's. They make it all alot easier. I run both... they are very good. Presently I have the latest UniAN's based on the 4.9's and am very pleased with them. Installation of the tweaked drivers is really no different than the stock ATI's.Greg

>The big difference with this set of Omega's is that RadLinker>is now a required installation. RadLinker is a different>Control Panel (3rd party developed), and works very well. >It's also pretty easy to use and powerful. Greg,As always your information is extremely helpful. Do I also get this RadLinker on the same Omega site you mentioned?. And just to be sure - I would uninstall all ATI stuff from my PC (drivers and Control Panel) and then install Omega and RadLInker, right?. Any specific order of installation or it is all bundled together? I am all EARS when you talk about the new ATI's CCC because even though I installed the .NET framework I could not get the CCC 4.9 to recognize the ATI drivers. So considering that my trials with the new CCC were shaky and unsuccessful I definitely want to try something "lighter" and perhaps more dependable. And I will gladly uninstall all this .NET junk.Michael J.WinXP-Home,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8, Radeon X800 Pro,WD 36GB Raptor,1 GB PC3200 http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

"And I will gladly uninstall all this .NET junk."If all you installed it for is the CCC, then you should certainly think about sending it into cyper space. And a thorough system cleaning is then recommended to get rid of it all. CCC and the .NET Framework are way more than what's needed to tweak a few registry entries. And your experience with the new CCC isn't unusual... many folks have struggled with it (mainly because the .NET Framework requires a number of services running).A bit more info on the 2.5.76 Omega driver set is here: http://www.driverheaven.net/#news56666 I've not tried this latest set of Omega's, but he's good about instructing users on the proper uninstall of previous drivers and CP. Then the Omega's install pretty much the same way as the standard Cats. He makes it painless.I'll monitor this thread to follow your progress,GregP.S. His site and Driverheaven may be slow... lot's of folks line up to get the latest Omegas. Both sites then get hammered.Edit again: Don't be fearful of driver sets like omega and UniAN. All they are is the standard Catalyst's that have been tweaked (making it all easier for the end user). In essence, all you'll be doing when installing them is overwriting the existing registry entries for the Cats you have on board now. These ARE NOT new or different drivers... just tweaked Cats. Cheers!

Hi Greg,Thanks for the heads up. I've downloaded and installed this set without any problems. During the process of getting to grips with the new features I was doing a little research vis-

Hi Mike,"Not sure whether I'll be able to use it effectively, though, as it's unlikely I can sustain high enough frame rates in applications like FS to avoid the flickering side-effect."That's the key, of course. I've not seen Temporal AA at work... because I don't play FPS games and we don't stand a chance with it in our sim even given the best hardware available today.I think we'll be in the same boat with ATI's recently introduced Catalyst AI (end user capability to call game optimizations with CCC). We shouldn't get our hopes up here that ATI will offer such optimizations for MSFS... we're like the orphan step-children of gaming."Any idea what the two small sliders are for either side of the main FSA-A slider? I am assuming it has something to do with threshhold settings as alluded to in the above article."The left slider on both the AF and AA panel are simple switches... switch left will set the tweak to "Application Preference", right allows the user to set the level of AF and AA.The right slider on the AF panel offers three AF choices... "Performance" (Bilinear), "Quality" (Trilinear), and "Forced". More on this later.You are correct about the right slider on the AA panel. The right slider offers 3 choices... straight AA (at your prefered level), T2 (Temporal AA 2 Sample), and T3 (Temporal AA 3 Sample). Of course, because we'll have great difficulty running at the required FPS to achieve Temporal AA in this sim I just set the level of AA I want and forget about the Temporal options.Hopefully PaulL01 arrives soon to add to this discussion... I believe he can explain better what happens with AF. But I'll give it a shot here.Both nVidia and ATI utilize proprietary algorithms for AF. Some have called these algorithms cheats, but I don't agree. They are merely optimazations. A good example of how these optimizations work would be if we are looking straight on at a wall in our game. There is no reason to have a high level of AF for that wall... doing so is a waste of resources. So both manufacturers have optimized their drivers to be able to "read" a scene and then offer a dynamic AF that the algorithm believes is correct. Some would say these optimizations works fine, others don't.In our sim I believe such optimizations are of little use. When we are in our virtual cockpits happily flying along over our virtual landscape our eyes are happiest when they see the maximum level of AF. And therein lies the importance of Radlinker's "Forced" function. It shuts down the drivers algorithm and forces the drivers to deliver whatever level of AF you choose all the time and every place. "Forced" is my choice in this sim, and I do see a clear enhancement from forcing the drivers to give me my set level of AF (16x). Keep in mind that forcing the drivers to give a level of AF is more system demanding, so everyone's mileage will vary.Hope this helps,Greg

Greg,I had no problem installing the Omega drivers last night. I also downloaded their Driver-Cleaner to boot.I admit I have a hard time (based on initial impressions) to see any superiority in either ATI or Omega drives - they are sort of equal. And I admit I am yet to appreciate any visual benefits of having AF high or lower. One thing I noticed that using AA 4 - quality took unacceptable toll on the performance so I set AA to 4- perf and things are much better. I set AF to 16 also on performance. My general impression is that things happen so fast in the sim when you fly, there are so many distractions in/out of cockpit that my eye has no time really to analyze quality of AA/AF unless it is very bad and terribly obvious. I see unfortunate terrain "morphing" (textures and 3D mesh "popping") and though these are split second events they catch my eyes more than anyhing else. And of course limited terrain resolution that also is painfully obvious to my eyes.Michael J.WinXP-Home,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8, Radeon X800 Pro,WD 36GB Raptor,1 GB PC3200 http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

Forgot to add that I will be keeping my Omega drivers of course. I got rid off the .NET junk and clearly can appreciate the elegance and simplicity of the RadLinker stuff. Again, thanks for introducing me to the world of Omega drivers.Michael J.

Hi Michael,I'm a bit confused... you mention above about "Performance" and "Quality" AA. Those are options for AF.Did you try 4XAA (no T2 orT3) and 16XForced AF?. That's what works best for me.I too get a bit of morphing as you described in your other post in the main forum. I think we'll be able to knock that problem down when we have systems like 6Ghz/3Mb memory twice as fast as today/video cards that operate at 1000/2000 core/memory with 64 pipes. :-) Greg

Hi Greg,"Hope this helps".....indeed it does and, once again, I thank you for the time and effort spent in formulating your responses which are always clear and very helpful.I'm not one for getting over excited about new driver sets but I feel I have to say that these drivers are by far the best I have used for quite a while, both in 2D and 3D. After some experimentation and testing I have settled on settings of:AF = 16x forcedFSAA = 6x forcedLike you I have side stepped Temporal A-A as I do see a much clearer image with my usual 6x. The sim looks gorgeous and, as a further bonus, I appear to have picked up a further few fps along the way :)Michael (Michal), if you are reading this , I suggest you try setting your FSAA to 6x as you could be in for a pleasant surprise. This was something I discovered during my session with FS-GS and, quite frankly, no one was more surprised than me to witness that performance and fluidity in the sim was actually better on my rig with the 6x setting than it was with 4x (!!). Yes, I know, it seems to defy all logic but seeing is believing. Fingers crossed in the hope your experience is similar.Cheers Greg!MikeP4 2.4GHz (400FSB), 1Gig PC2100 DDR Crucial, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB (Omega 2.5.76), SB Audigy (5.12.0001.0443), Hyundai ImageQuest Q17 17" TFT LCD 20ms Monitor (1280x1024x32), Gigabyte GA-8IRXP MoBo, Ultra-Quiet PSU 400W, WinXP Home (SP2), DirectX 9.0c, AGP Aperture = 128MB

"no one was more surprised than me to witness that performance and fluidity in the sim was actually better on my rig with the 6x setting than it was with 4x (!!). Yes, I know, it seems to defy all logic but seeing is believing." :-) Greg

>>Michael (Michal), if you are reading this , I suggest you try>setting your FSAA to 6x as you could be in for a pleasant>surprise. Mike, you bet I am reading this. I have been nothing but reading in the past 4 days .. ;-)But unfortunately for me I can't report such miracles. I get definite performance hit going to 6 AA and 16 AF-forced (cumulatively about 20%). And since I can't really tell a difference between those settings (maybe if I took a magnifying glass) I am going to stick with 4 AA and 16 AF - performance. If you have some other tweaks I should know about - I am all EARS!Michael J.WinXP-Home,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8, Radeon X800 Pro,WD 36GB Raptor,1 GB PC3200 http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

"I get definite performance hit going to 6 AA and 16 AF-forced (cumulatively about 20%). And since I can't really tell a difference between those settings (maybe if I took a magnifying glass) I am going to stick with 4 AA and 16 AF - performance."Exactly my experience here, but I don't get quite the hit you do (your video card has big cajones, but mine has a bit bigger cajones :-) ).Went back to 4X AA. Looks just as good to these old eyes as 6X. I won't run any AF lower than 16X Forced.Greg

Now, this is odd. I can't believe my humble system is, in some miraculous way, achieving better performance than either of your machines so I have to assume something else is at work here.The FS-GS 'experience' taught me a few things I hadn't really appreciated before. Possibly the most significant was to learn to turn off that retched frame rate counter which so many of us obsess over. I confess I still do sneak a look from time to time to satisfy my curiosity, but since achieving smooth performance there really has been little insentive to turn it back on.After the main session was completed we began the testing/fine tuning phase. Part of this involved tweaking the graphic driver settings. At the time, like yourselves, I was running FSAA at 4x and I was persuaded to try upping this to 6x. The difference in image quality was noticeable, but what amazed me was that there was no discernible change in the sim's smoothness of performance! I remember remarking on this at which point I was reminded that the frame rate counter had been switched off. This simple act served to drive the point home and that is that the sim can and does perform well even when frame rates are relatively low, say sub 20fps. It can only achieve this if the data stream is consistent and is not subjected to wild fluctuations. That appears to be the key and that is what FS-GS are all about when they refer to optimizing your system for performance without sacrificing quality. Now, like most of you who may be reading this, I do often see frame rates at or near my locked setting of 31 but more often than not they sit around 20-25. Some 3rd. party stuff, depending on the quality, does reduce the numbers further but generally my frame updates remain consistently smooth without stuttering. Hence there is no longer any need to have the counter on - it has, for me, become an irrelevance.Hand on heart, since FS-GS back in May this year I have hardly touched my sliders, most of which remain maxed out. The same applies to my graphic driver directX settings. So, what I was hoping for when I suggested you give it a try was that you would see no significant change in the sim's smoothness of operation at the higher setting for FSAA. Instead, your observed percentage loss in performance suggests that you are still tied to that frame rate counter when making judgements concerning performance, and that you are unable to accept frame rates below what you perceive to be the critical level.I do accept that many will always demand higher frame rates to fulfil their expectations of performance. Perhaps I have been lucky, but the fact remains that, for the most part, I no longer feel the need to refer to the frame rate counter when making judgements about what I am seeing on screen.How you treat that all important file fs9.cfg is also vitally important to the continued smooth operation of the sim, as I have discovered...but that's another story ;)Mike