>Carenado: Cessna 172NI would rather select Flight1' Cessna 172R. Much superior Skyhawk over Carenado's in every respect.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWi...tNumber=7159746With the Q6600 overclocked to 3.6 with this system, you'll still have to play slider-compromise.1) FSX setup for any default airplane. This will run locked at 20FPS anywhere. Graphics: can have any resolution, Lens flare and Adv animations on. DX10 and bloom off. Use Trilinear filtering. Set AA to 8X in Nvidia control panel then uncheck AA here.Aircraft: All onScenery: The left side is Vcard related (sans water). The right side is CPU related.Terrain and water, LOD large, Mesh complex 100%, Mesh res 10m, Tex res 7cm, water Low 2x, Land detail on.Scenery objects, Scen complex Ex Dense, AG Very dense, Gnd shadows off, Spec effect HighWeather: Clouds 60miTraffic: 20/20/20/10/20/202) For the PMDG airplane (MD11 and 744), you have to trade back some CPU stuff. Reset AG to Sparse and Traffic to All Off. If you feel you have FPS to spare, bring back some Traffic or a notch of AG. The PMDG airplane is fine above 10K, but on approach you will need to make this adjustment.Remember, the Scenery tab's right side and Traffic is all CPU related. If you want more FPS, these are the sliders to work with.Another change that helps is in the cfg file. Try setting{DISPLAY}TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=70The default setting is 40. Do Not go above 100. Play with this a bit and see. If anything, this is simply a finally tweak . . . that really won't do much. The big dog in FPS will be the CPU clock related. We have some spirited conversations going on in the forum about faster ram, etc. That is all entirely about getting a single extra notch of AG or 10% more traffic. Hardly worth thousands of extra $$$, iMHo! The system above is within 10% of anything available at any price.

HelloDifficult call to make Michael, considering the Caranado 172 is not even released yet

mmmmm, I believe the latest Carenado 182 works with vista, its made with the sp2 sdk...http://www.carenado.com/ecommerce/buscador...?id_producto=57

>some third party payware aircraft for FSX would not work with>Vista and DX10..Just run FSX in DX9 mode to avoid any DX10 issues. If you have Vista, there's no requirement that you run in DX10 mode all the time.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

>(Ditch the 680i chipset motherboard. Get an X48 or X38 or P35>board instead)>>X48, X38, P35 Which is best of the three? And why if I might>ask?>>SLI Motherboards are new and have the capacity to run Video>Cards in parallel doubling video output speed. Why would this>not be a good choice for FSX? I watched a Tiger Direct Video>on the NVIDIA 680i before choosing this one, but have not>bought it yet, I'm still researching.. Tiger Direct was using>CRYSIS to show what running multiple video cards with SLI was>capable of.. CRYSIS is supposed to be an extreemly demanding>game for video card performance, I only wished they'd used FSX>in their demo..Are you building this machine to run CRYSIS, or just for FSX like you originally said?FSX and CRYSIS make very different demands on 3D video graphics cards. FSX needs memory bandwith and texture processors, CRYSIS needs shaders. You maximize the number of shaders by putting in multiple graphics cards. If I was building a machine for CRYSIS today I would probably go for Crossfire, and load it with four of ATI's top of the line graphics processors (two cards), rather than SLI, because I can get more shaders per GPU that way. Nobody uses FSX in demos to sell multiple GPU motherboards, because FSX doesn't gain spectacularly from multiple GPUs; CRYSIS does. If anything, the additional graphics cards make demands on the CPU that distract it from the work FSX needs done, and slows down the simulation.Right now, best FSX graphics performance comes from a single GPU NVidia graphics card with adequate frame buffer, maximum memory bandwidth, and at least eight texture processors. Doesn't matter much whether you have 128 shaders (8800) or 1280 shaders (4x 3870), FSX isn't using them that much.