Another stunner. Quick question, though: What, theoretically is the difference between a 3D render and an FSX screen shot? Not what each is, which is fairly clear, but what differences, if any would one expect? Should it be the same if everything works out when put in the sim, or are there normally minute differences? If so, what are the nature of these differences, typically?Sorry for the multi-part question, I know next to nothing about programming (hardware nerd here), so I'm just curious.

I think it depends on how they decide to output as and of course what environment it is being used in and limitations that engine has and DirectX abilities. Of course when dealing with peoples FPS and performance, then sometimes a composite could vary quite a bit from the finished product but I don't think that will be the case here. In a lot of composites I've seen most people probably don't even see the differences of the final product and once they see it with all the other panels that make up that environment are still amazed. I don't have experience with doing what they do, but I do often use a program for 3D modeling called Blender (I believe they use 3Ds Max but not 100%). I take my blender models into After Effects normally rendered out as a PNG sequence so it's not quite the same and mainly meant for videos. I don't think we'll know exactly until we see the final result. It would be cool to have before and after shots but think we will soon as it has been finalised.

...Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 2.5 GhZ, 4 mb cache, 6 gb DDR2, 1 tb hd and Nvidia Geforce Gt220 graphics.Hope it will be OK to run FSX.

That's less powerful than the machine I just upgraded FROM, (Q9300 with 8Gb DDR3) and it would do ok in moderate circumstances but it still was not enough. Buying anything below an i7 or i5 at this point is just foolish.

I have yet to see a computer todate that can handle FSX to it's max.It seems like you still have to comprimise one some things to use others. I have a fairly decent system in my opinion and it smokes FSX on a default level. Now throw in the TH2GO @ 5040x1050x32 and there is a small hit in performance, add virtual cockpit flying with TrackIR another hit. Throw in quality scenery another hit, add quality payware aircraft such as PMDG another hit. Before you know it - you settling for what you can get at the best performance.As newer hardware becomes availble this will eventually balance out.Your best bet is to build your own rig - that way you can upgrade as needed and reduce future costs.Great looking render and panels - can't wait, it's got to be getting close - Right?

Can we have some pictures of the VSD? :-)Mark V

Another stunner. Quick question, though: What, theoretically is the difference between a 3D render and an FSX screen shot? Not what each is, which is fairly clear, but what differences, if any would one expect? Should it be the same if everything works out when put in the sim, or are there normally minute differences? If so, what are the nature of these differences, typically?Sorry for the multi-part question, I know next to nothing about programming (hardware nerd here), so I'm just curious.

Lighting is the big one - the FSX engine is pretty limited, it doesn't have a real dynamic light sourcing engine the way that other games do. A lot of what makes 3D renders look real is the realistic lighting. That depth of field effect where you see the near and far parts of the object out of focus like you would with a wide aperture camera lens isn't in the sim engine either. Texture resolution can be lower in the sim if you don't set the option in fsx.cfg.

So..pictures with the VSD please? :-) Just one :-)Mark V

To be perfectly honest Zsolt i really doubt that will enough to run it.Try and find second hand parts that are much better, u need at least a quad core @ 2.83 and a 1gb graphics card.Alex

The graphics card is 1 GB and the CPU is Quad Core @ 2.5 - does the difference between 2.5 and 2.83 matter that much?

That's less powerful than the machine I just upgraded FROM, (Q9300 with 8Gb DDR3) and it would do ok in moderate circumstances but it still was not enough. Buying anything below an i7 or i5 at this point is just foolish.

OK, basically what I can afford on a PC is around EUR 1000-1200, but 1200 is the absolute limit, and including a monitor, but I'm not gonna spend more than EUR 150 on a monitor so let's say 1000-1100 is the amount I can spend on the computer itself... Do you think guys I can build something for this money that wil handle FSX well (I am still using FS2004 but wanna move to FSX with my upcoming computer purchase)?

737 MCP is looking amazing. I'm really looking forward to it.

Also on the hardware thing - if there turns out to be no FS9 version, will I be able to run it on FSX (not at max of course, just something that looks like FS9 at close to max) with okay frame rates. I can get 30fps (limited to 30) happily at default airports with default planes with scenery settings I'm happy with. I'm just worried that the PMDG 737 may bring my system to its knees, + some AI traffic and the odd bit of airport scenery. I have a Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz, 2GB ram and a 256MB Geforce 8600M GT.I mean, I'd like a new computer now, but my blown head gasket in the car is not going to allow for it!Cheers,Rudy

Then staff PMDG ... Already have some forecasting when that NGX is ready?Deslculpa the question is just curiosity, I want to be among the first to buy. RsssThank you, a hug to everyone.

That overhead panel is quite possibly the best graphics ive seen in any game ever, no matter what genre

Isn't the VC the last part of development?

Isn't the VC the last part of development?

god i hope so..im dying for exterior shots