I'm downloading them and will report in when I have an opinion. Feel free to post your experiences . . .Noel

I'm downloading them and will report in when I have an opinion. Feel free to post your experiences . . .Noel

Testing them for the past day or so. They give me a few extra FPS in my references flights:KORD 737 end of runway. NOai. Scenery Dense. Autogen Dense. Water Low = got 64 fps instead of 61.Tests repeated a number of times. They replace the 181.20.Tested on both Vista64 and XP32 with FSX.Pierre

Testing them for the past day or so. They give me a few extra FPS in my references flights:KORD 737 end of runway. NOai. Scenery Dense. Autogen Dense. Water Low = got 64 fps instead of 61.Tests repeated a number of times. They replace the 181.20.Tested on both Vista64 and XP32 with FSX.Pierre

Thanks Pierre,They seem about as smooth as the 181.20's. I don't have a controlled reference flight so won't comment on frame rate. It seemed at first that the 182.06s in Vista 64 seemed noticably slower, but I think this is a case of non-exact flight comparison. I will create a reference flight or two.

Hi Noel,Did you try the XG version?Thanks in advance.

Hi Noel,Did you try the XG version?Thanks in advance.

No, I haven't. Why would one use the XG version?

All I can say is WOW! These drivers really seem to make a big difference on my rig. Smoother flying, higher quality, and definitely increased frames. I've tried my test flights also and compared the difference. Excellent drivers. So far, these are the best I've tried in a long, long time.Please tell me you are experiencing the same.

All I can say is WOW! These drivers really seem to make a big difference on my rig. Smoother flying, higher quality, and definitely increased frames. I've tried my test flights also and compared the difference. Excellent drivers. So far, these are the best I've tried in a long, long time.Please tell me you are experiencing the same.

Stan,What was your average fps before and after installing these drivers?I've just benchmarked these drivers and can't record any change in the average fps. I use two different, preset flights , for the my benchmarking. One over a mixed suburban and rural area and the other over London City. My average fps is withitn +/- 2 fps, that is no significant change.

Stan,What was your average fps before and after installing these drivers?I've just benchmarked these drivers and can't record any change in the average fps. I use two different, preset flights , for the my benchmarking. One over a mixed suburban and rural area and the other over London City. My average fps is withitn +/- 2 fps, that is no significant change.

At my home airport (KABE) using the Mooney from Carenado with Hi-Def VC (my default airplane), I'm seeing a 6 frame increase without weather. When I use my Weather engine (AS Advanced), I'm still seeing frames in the 35+ range with strong clouds. Besides the frame increase, my QUALITY of plane, cockpit, and scenery seems improved. I've only made 4 flights, but so far, I'm happier than I was with the last drivers (181.22).

At my home airport (KABE) using the Mooney from Carenado with Hi-Def VC (my default airplane), I'm seeing a 6 frame increase without weather. When I use my Weather engine (AS Advanced), I'm still seeing frames in the 35+ range with strong clouds. Besides the frame increase, my QUALITY of plane, cockpit, and scenery seems improved. I've only made 4 flights, but so far, I'm happier than I was with the last drivers (181.22).

Hi Stan,Without using the exact same flights (ie, saved flights, fresh boot, load and fly) isn't it pretty iffy to draw conclusions? I guess the way to bench this is to use saved flights with different airplanes & weather, then contrast the two driver sets. FS.x is such a situation specific sim that I don't think one can draw any conclusions without using identical flights (example: not just loading "strong clouds" but loading the EXACT same flight/weather/plane/and then exact place in the flight). Even things like better quality scenery: is the vis level identical, the exact location identical, etc? Perhaps your comparison is controlled, if so good for you!I make the comment just to bring this up as we often see various testimony on this or that and unless these conditions are met it's kinda hard to put much stock in them.

If the driver works good on your system then I would call it a good one. If it doesnt work so good = bad driver. Its that simple. Like you said FSX is conditional as are the computers they run on so I take driver opinions with a grain of salt. One thing is for sure if most people say they are having good results that is when I try it out. Even then it is still 50/50 how they will work for the individual.

Hi Stan,Without using the exact same flights (ie, saved flights, fresh boot, load and fly) isn't it pretty iffy to draw conclusions? I guess the way to bench this is to use saved flights with different airplanes & weather, then contrast the two driver sets. FS.x is such a situation specific sim that I don't think one can draw any conclusions without using identical flights (example: not just loading "strong clouds" but loading the EXACT same flight/weather/plane/and then exact place in the flight). Even things like better quality scenery: is the vis level identical, the exact location identical, etc? Perhaps your comparison is controlled, if so good for you!I make the comment just to bring this up as we often see various testimony on this or that and unless these conditions are met it's kinda hard to put much stock in them.

Noel,I agree it's pretty "iffy". My PERCEPTION is a smoother flying experience, and based on the many flights I make in a week or so, I like the way this driver is working. I'm not getting any pauses or visual "spikes" so far. But you're right. The jury is still out!

Noel,I agree it's pretty "iffy". My PERCEPTION is a smoother flying experience, and based on the many flights I make in a week or so, I like the way this driver is working. I'm not getting any pauses or visual "spikes" so far. But you're right. The jury is still out!

Stan,Thanks for the information. Reading the release notes from nVIDIA, the 182.06 drivers should not bring any performance increase to FSX, compared to the previous version 181.22. This is because the performance related changes in these drivers was an upgrade of PhysX. FSX doesn't make use of PhysX. End of story.

No, I haven't. Why would one use the XG version?

Noel, I was reading your system specs and have a question. You are OC'd to 4.1. Pretty impressive and at this speed, your sliders are pretty much maxed. Did you oc this yourself? What are you using to cool? My MB is a Striker II Formula, which many have complained that the bios still does not support the Extreme processors. Now I do not know how to OC so I used the AI overclock at 15%. I wish I would have known more when I bought the MB.How old is your MB? How difficult was it to get the CPU to 4.1? Bob G