>Too bad cause the ATI kills the 8800gt on every other game>including Crysis but FSX.>I am going to keep the ATI but if all you do is FSX, then stay>with Nvidia.Just our luck eh JIMJAM?! I do other stuff besides, but no AA? I bet when that gets straightened out maybe FSX will run like it should--like virtually every other title on a 4870. It HAS to be in the driver implementation, and I think maybe the AA issue is tied in, who knows. I'm going to wait another driver release n see what's up. I truly like the IQ better with ATI, but unless it can at least match this very inexpensive 8800GT I don't think I could do it, as FSX is my most freq used title.QX9650 w/ Retail HSF|ASUS P5E3 Premium WiFi|4GB Muskin Ascent 7-6-6-18 1T DDR3-1600|EVGA 8800GT|Seagate SATA 2 x 2|Seagate Cheetah 15K.x|XP Pro SP2|Vista 64--maybe never to be installed

Jim Jam --Are you running DirectX 10?

>>Thanks Chuck, somehow I missed that. Your original post asked for opinions specifically about FS2004 and FSX, so that's the only reason I chimed in. Have you physically tried both cards in your box yet? Can you go to a BestBut and get them, knowing you can return the one you don't like?>>That is critical for sure because FS9 is just plain not comparable >>to FSX performance wise. I am able to fly all out sliders in a >>PMDG-747 with all the addons galore and lock frames at 50 and >>that's where it sits. Oh, I see. Uh, OK. I have to tell you that you make the switch to FSX sound downright irresistable. :-lol (Just kidding - I used FSX for a couple of months and then moved back to 2004, so I know what you're shooting for.)My 8800 GTX was the best up until the 4870 and 8.8 dirvers came out. But the 8800 now pales in comparison and conceptually, it's always been very easy for me to understand the difference between ATI clarity vs. nVidia frames: A) with my 4870 it's simply not true and :( ATI seems to expend all of it's computing power on clearer picture, therefore frames suffer, whereas nVidia gives great frames but picture is inferior. It's whatever you prefer.And up until the 4870 came out, my 8800 GTX was the winner! And I personally tested a lot of cards in my box. I did not rely on what I read, but what worked in my system.Good luck and . . .

Noel,The words 'silky smooth' and 'FSX' are an oxymoron. No current hardware can make FSX that smooth especially in urban areas. It really is a product years ahead of its time.The 8800GT is fine for lower resolutions but for 1920*1200 it starts to struggle compared to the 8800GTX and Ultra models.If you need a card for many games that's a total nightmare as the best for one game may be the worst for another especially FSX.Cheers,

Again, not a whole lot of image quality difference between the ATI 4870X2 and the Nvidia GTX 280. http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=42765&page=3http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=42984&page=1

>Again, not a whole lot of image quality difference between>the ATI 4870X2 and the Nvidia GTX 280. With due respect, you will not see IQ differences in the screenshots. You will see it on your monitor. Why is this so you ask? ATI sends signal to your display that is cleaner, freer from artifacting or whatever you call it. To prove this, isolate the Windows driver by noting how your LCD displays text during POST and boot up, BEFORE the Windows driver loads. You will notice the ATI cards produce text which is razor sharp, and the nV cards (at least up to 8800GT, worse in older cards, alledged to be related to RF shielding cables or something). When you look at your POST screens with the nV card installed, text edges are slightly fuzzy. I maintain this issue manifests itself in the Windows environment as well, because it's basically a totally hardware issue. This is why ATI produces better IQ, on a monitor, not necessarily in a .jpg.NoelQX9650 w/ Retail HSF|ASUS P5E3 Premium WiFi|4GB Muskin Ascent 7-6-6-18 1T DDR3-1600|EVGA 8800GT|Seagate SATA 2 x 2|Seagate Cheetah 15K.x|XP Pro SP2|Vista 64--maybe never to be installed

>This is why ATI produces better IQ, on a monitor, not>necessarily in a .jpg.I