First of all thanks to the guys who contributed to the solution of my problems in these posts:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...sg_id=922&page=http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=42905&page=2and maybe an answer to this one:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho..._id=42936&page=The BEX crashes are without doubt caused by DEP.My other driver related problems were solved by reducing the FSB and hence overclock from 4.06 to 4.03 Ghz. The main culprit here is the memory which I don

Howard,Seems ATI haven't learned the lessons from their ill-fated 3870X2. :-( Whilst I accept the ATI has superior IQ the most important thing with FS is fps and the ATI just can't hack it in heavy cloud.I'm lucky the 8800GTX was still around when I decided to sell my 3870x2. I paid around half what the ATI cost me. :-)The 8800GTX is something of a classic as far as FS is concerned.Cheers,

3840x1024:-lol

I very heavy scenarios (and I mean 100% MyTrafficX AI at a major airport), I usually switch FPS to unlimited. The reason? In this scenario, setting the limit reduces my average frames. For instance, I might see 20fps unlimited. If I switch to locked at 20fps, the average rate dips to 15fps. That has lead me to conclude that the fps lock may not be so effective in heavy AI scenarios.If you feel like running the comparisons again, it would be interesting to see the results against FPS unlocked.Simon

>Whilst I accept the ATI has superior IQ the most important>thing with FS is fps The sad thing is the best you

Yup. Pushing the limits..........;-)

Hi,This is scary...I ordered my BFG 8800GTX in january 2007. Since then, neither nVIDIA or ATI have been able to produce a card that's faster in FSX, with the exception of the 8800 Ultra. No wonder that many tests with new cards doesn't include any 8800GTX or Ultra. embarrassing.Ulf BCore2Duo X6800 3.3GHz4GB RAM Corsair XMS2-8500C5BFG 8800GTX, Creative SB X-FiFSX Acc/SP2, Vista 32

>Since then, neither nVIDIA or ATI have been able to produce a>card that's faster in FSX, Nvidia did produce a card that performs slightly better; it

>>Since then, neither nVIDIA or ATI have been able to produce>a>>card that's faster in FSX, >>Nvidia did produce a card that performs slightly better; it

Ulf,You don't need to spend more of your hard earned money on your system. If you want to triple your frame rates in FS do what I did... switch back to FS9. ;-)I just can't get excited about FSX especially when the system I've bought still can't produce smooth performance on finals into large airports like EGLL. In FS9 it takes it in its stride.FSX needs hardware that hasn't even been produced yet. 5GHz CPUs and 2666FSB. Three years hence will be the time - just when people are tearing their hair out with performance of FSXI on such a system. ;-)Cheers,

I thought with the 4870 series, ATI/AMD was supposed to have rectified whatever it was with the 3870's that killed fps with clouds? I guess not. Then again, as was said, driver maturity could be an issue here.What feature was it in these cards that was responsible? Was it mem bandwidth or something? Was it something with the way they handle textures in memory? I think Nick Needham posted about this, what was the consensus?RhettFS box: E8500 (@ 3.80 ghz), AC Freezer 7 Pro, ASUS P5E3 Premium, BFG 8800GTX 756 (nVidia 169 WHQL), 4gb DDR3 1600 Patriot Cas7 7-7-7-20 (2T), PC Power 750, WD 150gb 10000rpm Raptor, Seagate 500gb, Silverstone TJ09 case, Vista Ultimate 64ASX Client: AMD 3700+ (@ 2.6 ghz), 7800GT

>Ulf,>>You don't need to spend more of your hard earned money on your>system. If you want to triple your frame rates in FS do what I>did... switch back to FS9. ;-)>>I just can't get excited about FSX especially when the system>I've bought still can't produce smooth performance on finals>into large airports like EGLL. In FS9 it takes it in its>stride.>>FSX needs hardware that hasn't even been produced yet. 5GHz>CPUs and 2666FSB. Three years hence will be the time - just>when people are tearing their hair out with performance of>FSXI on such a system. ;-)>>Cheers,Ray, how true, how true.I got hit by the 1772 error and struggled with this problem for hours. Finally I installed FS9. What a difference :-) But I really enjoy FSX and when I got the installation problem solved, I uninstalled FS9 after a couple of weeks.I mostly fly VFR and enjoy FSX a lot. The new Carenado Stationair with floats is going for a flight along the Norwegian coast during next weekend.The goal can't be to run FSX with maxed out sliders. The goal must be balance the sliders and enjoy FSX as it is.Ulf BCore2Duo X6800 3.3GHz4GB RAM Corsair XMS2-8500C5BFG 8800GTX, Creative SB X-FiFSX Acc/SP2, Vista 32

Hi Ulf,<>In that case you need to stay with FSX as it's a lot better under VFR than FS9. But for high and fast flying FS9 is still the one.Have fun with those sliders! :-)

Bam-Shazaam- Ok you got 10 more FPS!Whatcha going to do?Thats right.....Move a slider a little higher....Raise that res and those clouds just a little.Need a few more cars,some trees and a just a tinnie tiny bit of airline ai.Crap:-( Now I am only getting 15 fps.Hmmmmmmm-Need to find a new card,faster machine,more ram........Repeat till broke,skip 4 years.

hi Rhett,in the article that i read (on Toms hardware site I believe) the wording was something along these lines...the 3000 series cards had a serious design flaw called "low texture fill-rate". according to ATI this issue was addressed by doubling the no. of texture units from 16-32 with the 4000 series cards. i just recently purchased a Visiontek 4870 (non X2) and i'm seeing similar results with the 4870 (in FSX) as i was seeing with the 3870 X2. maybe not quite as bad but not that much of an improvement imho. so much for the issue being addressed.imho, ATI hasn't released a great performing card since the X1950 XTX. the reason i say that is because the X1950 XTX was what i was using b4 i got the 3870 X2. happy flyin, FM