>Sorry my mistake about the video card. Forgot all about the>dual GPU 3870. I guess my biggest concern is actually building>an amazing system and then still winding up with blurries>cause I've read so many posts regarding people with high end>hardware who are still having this issue.>------------------------------------->>This is EXACTLY my concern as well!!! I am also looking to>upgrade, and I settle upon some system spec's and then I read>here, or somewhere else that a user is STILL having FSX>performance issues, and is only getting marginally better>performance in FPS and graphics than what my current P4 3.4>GHz Dell Gen 3 system is giving me.>>To spend 2-3 thousand more and just receive a 10-30 percent>performance boost is near about crazy to justify!>>I'm a little demoralized by it all. I WANT a new system, but>by reading truly a LOT of posts that users have written, I>have to wonder, if it would be a most wise move to WAIT for>FS11, and see EXACTLY how its code will run on my present>system? I just might be very much surprised and>delighted---that M.S. has rewritten and optimized the code>enough, that even high-end P4's can turn out a decent>performance. >>You know..by just writing that, it seems my subconscious is>saying that is the most logical and solvent route---see what>FSX11 will do on my current system, before going out and>dropping coin on marginal FSX gain.>>Yeah..a lot to think about. The above is probably the way that>I will head....wait it out, and see what FS11/P4 3.4GHz does.>>MitchI have to agree with you as well. I was ready to drop about $4k for a new system but now after having read so many comments I'm quite sure I will either wait for FS11 or wait to hear that some future hardware really made a huge impact on FSX. It does not make sense for me to upgrade and then maybe if I'm lucky the only benefit I might get is no blurries but sadly even that is not guaranteed on a high end system. Everything I read seems to always point toward FSX as the heart of the problem. Please don't get me wrong. I love FSX. It's an amazing piece of work. I just simply think that it cannot fully utilize today's hardware. When I heard that a Skulltrail did'nt really make any major differences in FSX I have to say it was very disappointing and once again pointed out that FSX cannot take full advantage of today's hardware. From what it seems, the only thing that would make a really significant impact on FSX performance is raw GHZ. So it appears that perhaps a 6Ghz or 8Ghz CPU would, in theory, give us what we're all craving. Unfortunately Intel and AMD are no longer competing with Ghz but instead with multiple cores.

>The funny is thing is that the Skulltrail was going to be "the>right time" for me. After having read so much about it I>thought for sure that this cutting edge hardware would really>give FSX a good boost. However after having read what you>said, I now seriously have to reconsider. I want a system that>will run FSX really well and not just OK. So once again it>looks like I will wait. I wonder if Nehalem will bring any>interesting developments for FSX?I think only so much can be done for FSX since it is not fully multithreaded. Eventually cpu's will be so fast they will run it well by sheer brute force, but as for many cores helping FSX, I don't see it happening. The prime mover in cpu technology is and will be increasing cores for the foreseeable future. Not increasing the raw speed of the processor. This is because there are limits to the frequencies and currents that you can send through traditional silicon. The new high-gate transistor technology is promising though, so we'll see...The thing about Skulltrail, is that while sure, the cores are a little faster, the main thing is the fact that it has so many cores.Well, that really doesn't help with FSX framerate. It might help on loading times (as Rob mentions, loading the Sitka mission in 10 secs (wow)) but not on raw framerate. We need raw framerate.That's why I agree with Rob, there is no way I can justify spending $4000 or $5000 on a rig for FSX only. I'd rather get the $1500-$2000 rig and spend the other money on add-ons and things like TrackIR and rudder pedals. Why pay $5000 for 3 extra fps? What's 30 fps vs. 33 fps? Plus, like I said in another post, the $1000 cpu will be obsolete in 8 months, it always is.UPGRADING...The key, in my mind, is that if you keep your old box around long enough, then when you finally do upgrade, your flight sim will be awesome compared to what you had.That's why those of you with an early Core2, probably won't be that impressed by a Penryn upgrade. But those of you still running P4's or A64's, probably will be more impressed.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

>>I'm a little demoralized by it all. I WANT a new system,>but>>by reading truly a LOT of posts that users have written, I>>have to wonder, if it would be a most wise move to WAIT for>>FS11, and see EXACTLY how its code will run on my present>>system? I just might be very much surprised and>>delighted---that M.S. has rewritten and optimized the code>>enough, that even high-end P4's can turn out a decent>>performance. >>>>You are in the same boat as I am. You have a late-model P4, I>have a Socket 939 A64. Same gen hardware. Yet we are both>getting amazing results in FSX out of our machines. Why are>most people here running Core2's now? Because they needed to>upgrade to get halfway decent performance. Yet we have not>felt compelled to do that, because our machines have done>pretty well.-----------------------------------------------------That's the point, Rhett...FSX is not a 'dog' on my present system...I just wanted better composition of the ground textures before they came into sharp focus. >>But I know where I stand, and that is, I will not wait until>holiday 2010 or whenever FS11 is released, to enjoy 24" 1920 x>1200 resolution, and a 25-30 framelock in FSX. My solid San>Diego rig won't do that.Rhett, this is my quandary---I am running a 24 inch (1920x1200) Samsung and am GETTING already a great locked 20-22 FPS----on the P4. I just don't have razor-sharp ground textures the MOMENT I pan them into view. They come in with a snap, and then are sharp and detailed. That is the only actual 'rendering' I am missing---so..perhaps in my case, I can wait out whatever time FS11 needs to make it to my local screen. But...would EVERYBODY around the planet hear that war-whoop if my present system gave me with FS11, the same level of performance it does with FS9! I'd then be doing the I-Just-Saved-Thousands-Of-Dollars dance and got to eat the cake as well, LOL!I think that my hunch on FS11 (no metrics to back it up, but just a gut-feeling hunch) is correct, and it will be relatively kind to system resources. Aces has had to lean SOMETHING from the FSX experience. I've decided. I'll enjoy what I have and wait in the bush... :) My new system hunting days are suspended until FS11.Enjoy that rig, when you decide to go for it! Cheers!Mitch>

'Please don't get me wrong. I love FSX. It's an amazing piece of work. I just simply think that it cannot fully utilize today's hardware. When I heard that a Skulltrail did'nt really make any major differences in FSX I have to say it was very disappointing and once again pointed out that FSX cannot take full advantage of today's hardware. From what it seems, the only thing that would make a really significant impact on FSX performance is raw GHZ. So it appears that perhaps a 6Ghz or 8Ghz CPU would, in theory, give us what we're all craving. Unfortunately Intel and AMD are no longer competing with Ghz but instead with multiple cores.'-------------------------------------------------------------I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree with you. I also believe that FSX is not resource aware, or written to take advantage of the multiple cores, and more than one GPU.That is why my single core CPU (Prescott D0) 3.4 GHz and an X1950 Pro 256 meg G.C. can keep up with most dual-cores in rendering FSX. Bummer to say that---but it is true.I'll wait it out. FS11 will come...and then the ball game can commence with the first GHz pitch! :)Back to FSX and my Gen 3. ;)Mitch

>That is why my single core CPU (Prescott D0) 3.4 GHz and an>X1950 Pro 256 meg G.C. can keep up with most dual-cores in>rendering FSX. Bummer to say that---but it is true.>>I'll wait it out. FS11 will come...and then the ball game can>commence with the first GHz pitch! :)>>Back to FSX and my Gen 3. ;)>>MitchExactly. It's not like my P4 3.2Ghz Extreme is awful with FSX. I get about 20-24 FPS but of course it drops down to about 9-10FPS in major cities and airports. Secondly the textures are not loaded in quickly enough. I get the blurries but eventually it snaps into focus. And it's not like I'm looking for some intense jump in frame rates. I just wish that new hardware would make FSX run with crisp and immediate texture loads AND I want the same FPS in major cities/airports that I get everywhere else. As many people have said FPS is something that also depends on who is viewing it. I'm not one of those guys who is not satisfied with 30FPS but instead demands 40 or 50. Not at all. If the sim appears smooth to me then great! Most of the time it does appear smooth and I dont pay attention to the FPS counter but obviously in major cities and airports the smoothness is no longer there. This is what kills the immersion factor for me. Secondly, flying a complex aircraft like the PMDG 747 is pretty much like watching a slide show at times. It's these thing that I wished new hardware would address but alas FSX is the real bottleneck:(

>>>That is why my single core CPU (Prescott D0) 3.4 GHz and an>>X1950 Pro 256 meg G.C. can keep up with most dual-cores in>>rendering FSX. Bummer to say that---but it is true.>>>>I'll wait it out. FS11 will come...and then the ball game>can>>commence with the first GHz pitch! :)>>>>Back to FSX and my Gen 3. ;)>>>>Mitch>>>Exactly. It's not like my P4 3.2Ghz Extreme is awful with FSX.>I get about 20-24 FPS but of course it drops down to about>9-10FPS in major cities and airports. Secondly the textures>are not loaded in quickly enough. I get the blurries but>eventually it snaps into focus. And it's not like I'm looking>for some intense jump in frame rates. I just wish that new>hardware would make FSX run with crisp and immediate texture>loads AND I want the same FPS in major cities/airports that I>get everywhere else. As many people have said FPS is something>that also depends on who is viewing it. I'm not one of those>guys who is not satisfied with 30FPS but instead demands 40 or>50. Not at all. If the sim appears smooth to me then great!>Most of the time it does appear smooth and I dont pay>attention to the FPS counter but obviously in major cities and>airports the smoothness is no longer there. This is what kills>the immersion factor for me. Secondly, flying a complex>aircraft like the PMDG 747 is pretty much like watching a>slide show at times. It's these thing that I wished new>hardware would address but alas FSX is the real bottleneck:(---------------------------------------------We both are on the same page. I'm happy with a locked 20 FPS or unlocks fluctuating to the high 40's at times. Like yourself, the ONLY...ONLY issue that I have in the 'immersion factor'---is my (like yourself) ground textures snapping into focus, and not instantly crisp. For that alone, I will not drop heavy coin. Who knows...for NOBODY at this point in time actually knows...FS11 might just be on the performance level we get with FS9---thereby making the need to go beyond our P4's a boredom factor...only because 'I wanna' and not because 'I haveta'....lol. Cheers! Enjoy your Dell Gen 2! :)Mitch

>screen. But...would EVERYBODY around the planet hear that>war-whoop if my present system gave me with FS11, the same>level of performance it does with FS9! I'd then be doing the>I-Just-Saved-Thousands-Of-Dollars dance and got to eat the>cake as well, LOL!>hehe, yes but I just don't think FS11 will run on a P4 or Socket939 A64 like we have. :) Call it a gut feeling, too, but I don't see it happening. Like you though, I do think FS11 will be kinder to system resources than FSX. But not the extent that it's got the same overhead as FS9; that would be amazing to me if that happened. I mean, you can't get something for nothin'...FS11 features will come at a cost. But performance being baked into the design from DAY 1, and more heavily threaded code, I think those things are guaranteed for FS11, and that all spells good stuff for all of us! That's what I think anyway.>SOMETHING from the FSX experience. I've decided. I'll enjoy>what I have and wait in the bush... :) My new system hunting>days are suspended until FS11.>>Enjoy that rig, when you decide to go for it! You continue lurking in the bush, watching my six. I will take the fore and build something new here. I'm thinkin quad-core Penryn, DDR3 memory ($$ ouch), 24" widescreen, and 8800GTX for the 384-bit memory bandwidth.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

>This is EXACTLY my concern as well!!! I am also looking to>upgrade, and I settle upon some system spec's and then I read>here, or somewhere else that a user is STILL having FSX>performance issues, and is only getting marginally better>performance in FPS and graphics than what my current P4 3.4>GHz Dell Gen 3 system is giving me.>What kind of performence are we talking about here? I'm to considering an upgrade from AMD 64 3200+ 1 Gb 400 MHz RAM nvidia 6600GT 256M ddr3 two IDE drives.>have to wonder, if it would be a most wise move to WAIT for>FS11, and see EXACTLY how its code will run on my present>system? I just might be very much surprised and>delighted---that M.S. has rewritten and optimized the code>enough, that even high-end P4's can turn out a decent>performance. >I doubt that. Has it not always been the case that a new FS version is more system demanding than the previous version?

>>This is EXACTLY my concern as well!!! I am also looking to>>upgrade, and I settle upon some system spec's and then I>read>>here, or somewhere else that a user is STILL having FSX>>performance issues, and is only getting marginally better>>performance in FPS and graphics than what my current P4 3.4>>GHz Dell Gen 3 system is giving me.>>>>What kind of performence are we talking about here? I'm to>considering an upgrade from AMD 64 3200+ 1 Gb 400 MHz RAM>nvidia 6600GT 256M ddr3 two IDE drives.>>>have to wonder, if it would be a most wise move to WAIT for>>FS11, and see EXACTLY how its code will run on my present>>system? I just might be very much surprised and>>delighted---that M.S. has rewritten and optimized the code>>enough, that even high-end P4's can turn out a decent>>performance. >>>>I doubt that. Has it not always been the case that a new FS>version is more system demanding than the previous version?--------------------------------------Not necessarily with the switch from FSX to FSXI. My present rig can handle up to 95 percent (if snapping of textures is overlooked) of FSX right now. If the code (from lessons learned) for FSXI is optimized and written from the ground up to address the present or new features, then the jury is out on if my P4 3.4 GHz machine will shine. You have been right from FS9, backwards. But FSX onwards I think, is another matter and new territory. Time will tell, of course.Mitch

>>I doubt that. Has it not always been the case that a new FS>>version is more system demanding than the previous version?>-------------------------------------->>Not necessarily with the switch from FSX to FSXI. My present>rig can handle up to 95 percent (if snapping of textures is>overlooked) of FSX right now. If the code (from lessonsDo you mean all sliders 95% maxed out? What do you mean by snapping of textures? Does this performence also apply when using complex addon planes and Ultimate Terrain?>learned) for FSXI is optimized and written from the ground up>to address the present or new features, then the jury is out>on if my P4 3.4 GHz machine will shine. You have been right>from FS9, backwards. But FSX onwards I think, is another>matter and new territory. Time will tell, of course.>But what time? One thing comes to mind here. I do remember that FSX was announced in advabced and I read before its release that ACES themselves had siad that we would not be able to run FSX on the current available computers.When can we expect similar announcement for FSXI?

>But what time? One thing comes to mind here. I do remember>that FSX was announced in advabced and I read before its>release that ACES themselves had siad that we would not be>able to run FSX on the current available computers.>When can we expect similar announcement for FSXI?But isn't that because ACES, at the time, did not anticipate PC hardware going multi-core but instead did coding for raw Ghz power? I mean perhaps they were thinking that eventually a 4,5, or even 6Ghz CPU would come out allowing you to run FSX with all the bells and whistles.

I have all sliders to the right EXCEPT water at 2xlow, andI have AutoGen set to VERY DENSE, as I like what I see with UTX at that level.The snapping in of textures on my machine is where when I pan to a new view around the cockpit, and looking out the window, the ground textures are slightly blurred, but then 'snap' into sharp focus.I can easily sustain 22-24 FPS with my 3.4 GHz at 1920x1200.Because of this, I have decided to 'wait it out' (as FSX really isn't that bad on my P4) and see how FSXI does run on my present rig 'out of the wrap'. If it is system challenged at that time, I will know what issues there are, and shop for a system that will address them.Oh, I run UTX and FSXnhanced.Mitch

>Oh, I run UTX and FSXnhanced.>>MitchWhen you say FSXnhanced, are you talking about the Nvidia utility called Nhancer or something else? Do you also use any weather software such as ASX?

>>>Oh, I run UTX and FSXnhanced.>>>>Mitch>>When you say FSXnhanced, are you talking about the Nvidia>utility called Nhancer or something else? Do you also use any>weather software such as ASX?My apologies...:( I meant to type GEXnhanced!Sorry for the error.I don't use any weather other than what is provided within FSX, but I do use a weather program (Active Sky) for FS9.Mitch

>>>But what time? One thing comes to mind here. I do remember>>that FSX was announced in advabced and I read before its>>release that ACES themselves had siad that we would not be>>able to run FSX on the current available computers.>>When can we expect similar announcement for FSXI?>>But isn't that because ACES, at the time, did not anticipate>PC hardware going multi-core but instead did coding for raw>Ghz power? I mean perhaps they were thinking that eventually a>4,5, or even 6Ghz CPU would come out allowing you to run FSX>with all the bells and whistles.I was hoping for some info or hint from ACE about what the system requirement for FS11 will be some time before releaseAnd I have seen threads here telling that FSX does indeed benefit from multiple cores.