No need to worry about my hardware requirements then.

For anyone who's really wondering, here are my specs:Delivery Date 01/09/03P4 3.06Ghz with a 533Mhz FSB512mb PC1066 RAM512mb ATI Radeon X1650PRO (AGP)I get performance similar to the MD-11, which is very smooth.Nick

For anyone who's really wondering, here are my specs:Delivery Date 01/09/03P4 3.06Ghz with a 533Mhz FSB512mb PC1066 RAM512mb ATI Radeon X1650PRO (AGP)I get performance similar to the MD-11, which is very smooth.Nick

Hey Nick, I though this aircraft is FSX only, are you using those specs in FSX?RegardsRob

You only have 512MB RAM, and you get smooth performance in FSX?

FSX at ground level doesn't run any quicker on my Intel Core2 Duo E6700 (2.66 GHz) and 128Mb GeForce 4 Ti4800 SE than it did on my AMD Athlon XP 2600+ (1.8 GHz) and 1Gb GeForce 7950GX2. Go figure.Best regards,Robin.

Yes, I have same question.How could you run your Fsx smoothly on your system with one core cpu and 512M memory?

Try setting FSX to run on only one core (go into Task Manager and set the affinity). Makes sod all difference.Why do people think that 2/4 cores = double/quadruple the performance? :( Best regards,Robin.

Hey Nick, I though this aircraft is FSX only, are you using those specs in FSX?RegardsRob

Yes. FSX runs just fine with this setup, even using the PMDG MD-11, LSH MD-82, or whatever. I have to be careful about what addon scenery I use, because places like Imaginesim's KIAD give me single digit framerates. Otherwise, in a default airplane at a default airport, I typically get 28-32fps with the limiter on "unlimited".Flying the MD-11 into Imaginesim's KATL, or FSDT's KORD give me about 15fps with most sliders right, but no autogen.To tell you the truth, I can set the autogen up to dense and only lose 2 or 3 fps. But it's so dense, that without the FS9 style autogen "fade-in", the popping is really annoying. So I just turn it off.I have had very good performance from FSX despite my hardware, and I've always been baffled by the howls of discontent people have made over FSX. FSX looks better, and performs just as well as FS9 on my computer. If I dial the visuals back to FS9 levels, I get about 150% the performance of FS9, but still benefit from the new capabilities of the mission system, flight model, turbine helos, integrated carrier ops, etc.Anyway, here are the settings file if you want to see what my FSX looks like:GRAPHICS1280x960x32Global Texture resolution: Very HighFiltering: AnisotropicAIRCRAFTAircraft Shadows on ground: onHigh-Resolution 3d VCSCENERYLOD radius: smallMesh Complexity: 50Mesh Resolution: 38Texture Resolution: 30cmWater: Mid 2.xDetail textures: onScenery complexity: DenseAutogen: NoneSpecial Effects: HighWEATHERCloud draw distance: 80miDetailed clouds density: MaximumTRAFFICOff at the momentRegards,Nick

damn.. i

Holy Crap***!!! What a Quality! Too bad that you are making this J41. The VC looks indeed really amazing, but the exterior of the aircraft looks ugly..., however that is not due to your modelling. What I am tryin to say is in fact quite the reverse, your modelling is great but the aircraft itself looks errr...let me say it in other words...like a piece of shiii****! (Except the Engine Blades, they look awesome :( ).If you had done the CRJ Jets with this kind of detailed VC, I'd be very happy...yaaay! :( (You see!)

Great Shots,The Speed Card and W/B sheet is really cool.

Personally, I think that the Jetstream 41 looks a million times better than (for example) the Beech 1900D.

I really like the J41 - it was the first airfix model I ever had as a kid! It's great to see a quality company focus on something totally different in high detail. And even better to see a British aircraft catching a bit of the limelight for once. Well done PMDG, and thank you to the beta team for taking the time to post these. Cheers.Rhydian

And even better to see a British aircraft catching a bit of the limelight for once.

An excellent point!!Best regards,Robin.

Quite simply......... Breathtaking!!!Ben Hall