I am in the middle of upgrading and have just installed a GTX 285 2G OC card onto my existing PC and WOW !I used to run the original cards 7950GX2 x 2 and was fairly impressed with the results, but now like others, am seeing things clearer and earlier etc than before. Tomorrow I install my new Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5P and i7 975 Extreme and add the GTX285.Reading the enlightning and obvious pleasure that some some posters have made recently on their results with a similar hardware combination, it makes me wonder what ACES used to test FSX. There was no i7, no 200 series cards which are now renderering to the user things never seen before.Did they ever actually see FSX in all in its glory?

The short answer is no, even the devs at ACES did not see FSX in "all its glory."Years ago, one of the devs posted some of the hardware used by them during development, but even with the advantage of using beta versions of hardware they still would not have seen the full potential of FSX.

They were programming for the future, how long in the future I'm not sure :(

In "all it's glory" is still subjective considering if there are addons or default. I would assume the devs ran FSX with pure default goodness which runs well on lots of older systems. It's when you add AI traffic, detailed addon scenery and performance sucking addon aircraft that takes FSX to a higher level, but also kills your performance.

Don't expect miracles with your new setup either. You will be pleasantly surprised at how smooth fsx runs on the new rig but there will still be plenty of situations where you will be seeing 10-15fps. NYC with ai traffic turned up, tokyo, etc. Install ut2 and set the levels to 50% or higher and you will be seeing high teens to low 20's in most major airports. I think we are still 2 or 3 years away from a guaranteed 30fps or higher in every situation with decent addons at the highest settings in this sim.As far as what hardware they tested fsx on? I wasn't aware they even tested fsx before it was released....;)

As far as what hardware they tested fsx on? I wasn't aware they even tested fsx before it was released....;)

That is a real cheap shot, and unwarranted IMHO.. :(

Reading the enlightning and obvious pleasure that some some posters have made recently on their results with a similar hardware combination, it makes me wonder what ACES used to test FSX. There was no i7, no 200 series cards which are now renderering to the user things never seen before.Did they ever actually see FSX in all in its glory?

I recall one of the developers commenting on an early release Q6600 that he got to test on,and his discovery that this processor "really kicked &@($*" in FSX.

AI Traffic really doesn't have to be aproblem - if you have the right models. I use the WoAI packages, and they run great. I set the sliders at 50%, because that is enough. It is not recommended to put it higher, because, however stupid it sounds, it's not realistic. FSX was never programmed to do that kind of stuff and it'll choke your computer and you with long wait times at big airports *It was Burkhard Renk who told me this, over at the MyTraffic forums).But th WoAI packages are very good. Know why? because they don't have these calls for jetways and airport vehicles. If you are at a large airport, consider this:-50 to 100 aircraft all over the airport;-jetways called to connect and disconnect, all at once;-vehicles driving to and fro, to provide fuel, baggage handling etc.That is a problem for your computer and you will see a performance hit. The WoAI packages don't have these things programmed into the aircraft models, so you only see 50 to 100 aircraft models all over the airport, and it runs great.