I ask you Sam for the last time to stop this "ping-pong" game with NickN if you want to remain a member of this forum.This is frankly boring and immatureI really hope you'll understand this warning.ThxSimjunkie, please don't make things worse everytime too.OK?

David,Thanks! Very much appreciated.

I ask you Sam for the last time to stop this "ping-pong" game with NickN if you want to remain a member of this forum.This is frankly boring and immatureI really hope you'll understand this warning.ThxSimjunkie, please don't make things worse everytime too.OK?

I apologize David and I regret that my comments don't help matters. I keep trying to stay out of it when I read his posts but it never stops. I really take this hobby seriously as many others do. Without Nick's help I seriously doubt this community would be at the level it is now. He has done more to improve our understanding of FSX and the ability of our computer systems to handle the simulator than anyone else to date. I'm not kissing arse here, just giving due credit. I'll shut up now and really, really, really try hard to stay out of these pissing matches.-jk

While we are on the subject of storage performance is anyone here using a PCI Express 8x card vs. the 4x 3ware 9650se 4L? I asked over at Sim Forums.com but the only RAID card anyone has any experience with is the 4x PCI Express 9650se 4L that NickN recommended. I

The real trick is to not believe anyone. Use your own eyes and be your own judge . . . and try to forbear the typically profligate response. There seems to be some other circumstance of which we are not aware. That inimical nature is difficult to rationalize.

The real trick is to not believe anyone. Use your own eyes and be your own judge . . . and try to forbear the typically profligate response. There seems to be some other circumstance of which we are not aware. That inimical nature is difficult to rationalize.

Herman Hesse, German poet and novelist of the early 20's wrote his wonderful "Siddharta"in 1922 .You probably know him.He spoke about the risk of following gurus, about being our own judge.But he wrote with talent, without anger and without repeating himself twice.Maybe should you read him again.

Come on now SimJ he's entitled to his opinions and ideas and emphasis as much as the next guy. The fact remains: one can build a machine and get a fair amount of what FSX has to offer for hugely less money than many of us spend, and so the Cost:Performance goes up and up: you often have a huge premium to close in on perfection in FSX. I could afford to, am glad I did, but I'm glad one can make the sim useable and enjoyable at much less cost. Even the highest end machine can be stressed with FSX, so at some point, it's very relative, and Sam's point has always been: bang for buck matters--at least to some.

Damn straight, well said....

Damn straight, well said....

No it's not straight. If Sam would clearly state that his recommendations is based on a cost- and benefit analysis and not on a strictly performance analysis, it would be straight. Fact is that Sam doesn't state that his recommendations is based on any cost analysis.I'm still very happy that I didn't follow Sams advice when building myself a new computer.

meh

meh

Well-spoken and intelligent response :(

No it's not straight. If Sam would clearly state that his recommendations is based on a cost- and benefit analysis and not on a strictly performance analysis, it would be straight. Fact is that Sam doesn't state that his recommendations is based on any cost analysis.I'm still very happy that I didn't follow Sams advice when building myself a new computer.

My perception has always been Sam has very clearly framed much of his recommendations on just that, at least the between the lines implications. As I've read them, my impression was you will get 80% of "perfection" by spend x. Spend x*2, you might get to 90%, and x*3 gets you 94%. Sam also seems to believe spending x*3 is much ado about very little. The beauty of FSX is that it can be scaled and be quite useful even with lower end but decent machines. The HDD issue is a good one. I've tried to get people to quantify the effect of a $230 drive versus a $50 drive. It hasn't happened yet I don't think. It seems to come down mostly to: it's better, you'll like it, it matters. I'm sure the first two are correct, but the last one is very very relative. Were we to quantify performance, and I fully believe you can, it would essentially come down to: perfection = IQ (includes texture loading rate) plus absence of stuttering, all at an acceptable frame rate (which for me is seeming to be around 22 or a little more. You could, for example, measure "percieved stutters/minute" in an exact situation (ie, comparing apples n apples). You could also measure the % of the visual field that has updated textures to the highest resolution. Anyway, I'm just arguing it would be possible to measure performance using these things.So, we use this hypothetical perf measure and discover my lowly SATA II (in MY specific testbed) delivers 92.5% (of ideal perf, defined as at least 22 frames, complete absence of stutters, updated textures with resultant IQ). Add the high end drive, and it changes to 93.1%. Mind you, this is an example of what I was hoping to discover in this thread. This is the only way to truly assess whether or not a specific component, married to the whole system, is worth the $$ to the individual. I have a brand new unsued Seagate SATA II drive and it seems to work very well since I cloned my smaller Cheetah to it. Many of us wish to have the best possible, cost withstanding, and that is another argument. I think the reason this battle goes on is because neither party respects the other's emphasis. NickN is an expert on highest possible perf. Sam focuses on bang:buck. There's room for both here, so . . . peace be with you all! Here are some other realities. I followed Sam's advise (excpet shot my load on a QX CPU!), and was tickled pink with how good my machine ran. I then began following advise on maximizing perforance to the highest level. I swear I had 88% of perfection with DDR2 memory! That's not bad. I spent another $700 on DDR3 and a compitible mainboard. This got me to 93% of perfection. I went thru every step of suggested optimizations of FSX and XP. I got a tiny % higher, maybe. I then discovered FPS_Limiter, and now have 96% of perfection, maybe higher at times. This, mind you now, is on a completely unoptimized Vista 64 installation with UAC disabled and everything else running--as in 54 processes! In my case it was sort of compatible: heck I spent a grand on a CPU, so another $700 was ok for me to do. Plus, I sold my old mainboard/mem to my bro, who is now . . . tickled pink with how good FSX runs.Anyway, I appreciate all of your suggestions, including of course Sam's and NickN's, and have learned stuff from everyone. Thanks!Noel

DELETED BY ADMIN BECAUSE OF RUDENESSSIMJUNKIE MY FRIEND I SEE YOU ARE NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT WE ARE LOSING PATIENCE

My perception has always been Sam has very clearly framed much of his recommendations on just that, at least the between the lines implications. As I've read them, my impression was you will get 80% of "perfection" by spend x. Spend x*2, you might get to 90%, and x*3 gets you 94%. Sam also seems to believe spending x*3 is much ado about very little. The beauty of FSX is that it can be scaled and be quite useful even with lower end but decent machines. The HDD issue is a good one. I've tried to get people to quantify the effect of a $230 drive versus a $50 drive. It hasn't happened yet I don't think. It seems to come down mostly to: it's better, you'll like it, it matters. I'm sure the first two are correct, but the last one is very very relative. Were we to quantify performance, and I fully believe you can, it would essentially come down to: perfection = IQ (includes texture loading rate) plus absence of stuttering, all at an acceptable frame rate (which for me is seeming to be around 22 or a little more. You could, for example, measure "percieved stutters/minute" in an exact situation (ie, comparing apples n apples). You could also measure the % of the visual field that has updated textures to the highest resolution. Anyway, I'm just arguing it would be possible to measure performance using these things.So, we use this hypothetical perf measure and discover my lowly SATA II (in MY specific testbed) delivers 92.5% (of ideal perf, defined as at least 22 frames, complete absence of stutters, updated textures with resultant IQ). Add the high end drive, and it changes to 93.1%. Mind you, this is an example of what I was hoping to discover in this thread. This is the only way to truly assess whether or not a specific component, married to the whole system, is worth the $$ to the individual. I have a brand new unsued Seagate SATA II drive and it seems to work very well since I cloned my smaller Cheetah to it. Many of us wish to have the best possible, cost withstanding, and that is another argument. I think the reason this battle goes on is because neither party respects the other's emphasis. NickN is an expert on highest possible perf. Sam focuses on bang:buck. There's room for both here, so . . . peace be with you all! Here are some other realities. I followed Sam's advise (excpet shot my load on a QX CPU!), and was tickled pink with how good my machine ran. I then began following advise on maximizing perforance to the highest level. I swear I had 88% of perfection with DDR2 memory! That's not bad. I spent another $700 on DDR3 and a compitible mainboard. This got me to 93% of perfection. I went thru every step of suggested optimizations of FSX and XP. I got a tiny % higher, maybe. I then discovered FPS_Limiter, and now have 96% of perfection, maybe higher at times. This, mind you now, is on a completely unoptimized Vista 64 installation with UAC disabled and everything else running--as in 54 processes! In my case it was sort of compatible: heck I spent a grand on a CPU, so another $700 was ok for me to do. Plus, I sold my old mainboard/mem to my bro, who is now . . . tickled pink with how good FSX runs.Anyway, I appreciate all of your suggestions, including of course Sam's and NickN's, and have learned stuff from everyone. Thanks!Noel

I'm still very happy that I didn't follow Sams advice on hardware. Sam is still arguing that all comes down to cpu speed, and that's not true. Memory bandwidth is also very important when it comes down to performance in FSX. And the way he his posting and insuating that Nick is wrong is very provocative. When I upgraded my graphics card from a 8800 to a GTX 285 I got a 25% increase in performance in FSX. Sam was at the same time posting some b**ls**t about any 8800 is good enough for FSX. The point is that a well balanced system is the goal. Not a specific cpu, memory stick or graphics card. I'm still very happy that I didn't follow Sams advice on hardware.

Guys,Witch-hunting is not allowed here.Time to close this thread.If you want to continue on the same item, open another thread and please behave like adults.