Hello From many post here I understand that FS2004 is video card demanding more than processorInstead to invest in processor and (present is PIV1.8) perhaps to get a better performance I consider to buy a powerful video card.Is a FX model a good choice, any recommendation?Thanks Jacek LO14http://www.cuic.ca/seroka/lo14.jpg GeForce FX 5900 Ultra 256MB DDR AGP 256MB DDR memory Powerful nVidia CineFX 2.0 engine AGP 8X; compatible with 4X and 2X AGP 2.0-compliant slots Microsoft DirectX 9.0 with Vertex Shader 2.0 and Pixel Shader 2.0 nVidia UltraShadow technology enhances performance of bleeding-edge games using complex shadows 450MHz core clock nVDVD 2.0 multimedia software DVI to VGA connector and VIVO cable Product Details Type of Video Card Graphics Video Memory 256MB Maximum 2D Resolution (at 32-bit color) 2048 x 1536 Maximum 3D Resolution (at 32-bit color) 2048 x 1536 Megapixels/Megatexels Not provided by manufacturer Number of Polygons per Second 16.7 million Number of Processors 2 Software Included nVidia driver software, nVDVD 2.0 multimedia software, Windowblinds BFG/Asylum Windows XP skins Stereo Sound No Supports MPEG-1, 2 Yes S-Video Output Yes System Requirements Intel

If you can afford it, I'm happy for you, go for it.

Looks like a great card, I'm considering buying one also.Just be careful with your power supply, I've been told I should get a 400W supply. I currently have only 300W, so be careful.___________________________________________________ Lu

I currently have only 300W, so be>careful.Thank you for an advice, same here 300Whttp://www.cuic.ca/seroka/lo14.jpg

Hi,You do know that some FX and ATI cards have an issue with FS9. I would not buy the card until it's fixed.Signed,An FX card owner that has no instrument panel......

>Hi,>>You do know that some FX and ATI cards have an issue with FS9.> I would not buy the card until it's fixed.>>>Signed,>An FX card owner that has no instrument panel......The forum works Thanks o lot, for saving my blood pressure going high .I had already a card in the past, which was freezing FS just before landing, now flying without panel, means VFR, only :)

>You do know that some FX and ATI cards have an issue with FS9.> I would not buy the card until it's fixed.>>>Signed,>An FX card owner that has no instrument panel......Have you installed the 45.20 drivers from http://guru3d.com yet? Or the latest WHQL certified 45.23 drivers?The problem has been fixed, but it won't come over and install itself... :)BillAVSIM OmbudsmanFounder and Director,Creative Recycling of Aircraft Partshttp://catholic-hymns.com/frbill/FS2002/images/fartslogo.jpg

Hey Guys..I only have a 350W power supply and my system is full of hardware (many drives and other devices). I put in the FX5900 and it works fine. The only issue I had was the blank 2d panel issue which after dinking around with different drivers that issue was corrected.I will tell you it is a very sweet piece of hardware and I am so glad I bought it despite the Mrs. constant nagging that the money would have been better invested in jewelry for her - BAH! As if...Any way I think the 300W units would work fine as long as you don't have a lot of toys in your system.JohnnyKTUS

Hi,Sorry Bill, the problem has not been fixed. My new high end system, P4 3.2, 1024 DDR, etc., etc., has a 23" DV display, and when I use any of the drivers that put the panel back, 45.xx etc., I lose about one inch from the right side of my screen. The picture shifts to the left, and some instruments are hidden. DV displays have no H/V adjustment. It's the nature of the beast as the information comes from the driver. The display manufacture is in contact with Nvidia, and working on the problem. I'm sure that is why we have not seen, nor heard a thing from Nvidia. Remember two weeks ago when we were promised new drivers... well, the 44.03 are the latest from Nvidia. I can switch to VGA, which corrects the problem with centering, not only is it a poor picture, I didn't pay $2800.00 USD to watch VGA. My personel openion is that Nvidia has BIG time chip problems. Hope I'm wrong.Regards,Bob IrvineAlias=Layabout

:-)

I am just pointing out that FX5900 consistently is getting poor picture quality marks comparing to the Radeon cards (AA, AF, etc.). I am neither Nvidia nor ATI advocate but judging objectively from many posts on the subject on the hardware forum I would have to say I would go for a Radeon card just because of those comments. I value picture quality much higher than a few extra fps that apparently FX5900 can buy you. One fellow was even so disappointed with his FX5900 flight sim experience he returned the card.Certainly a factor one should consider.Michael J.http://www.reality-xp.com/community/nr/rsc/rxp-higher.jpg

Over.....

The later model Radeon cards look amazing in 2004 - I've been running it this past 4 days or so at my brother's on his Radeon 9700 Pro and I honestly don't think I can look at the sim on my old GeForce3 again... 1280X1024X32 4XAA 8XAF and it's locked at 20FPS, never goes below that.Ryan

I don't have an "ultra" - nothing out there needs 256MB of video memory as much as I need the extra $100...There was a choice between an ATI 9800 pro and an FX5900 for the same price... What made the difference? The FX5900 drivers supported Win98SE while ATI expects you to use the ME driver with 98.I've been EXTREMELY happy with the card. The changes to the chipset have increased the sharpness to the point where if I load a game I've played before, its like I'm playing a whole new version. If it were possible to get better graphics quality, my monitor probably couldn't show it.With regard to some comments I've seen in this forum about the FX being a bad design...1st - Judging from the posts, folks having problems with FS9 include those with WinXP as well as ME and 98.2nd - They include those using 44.03 as well as the newer 45.20 drivers.2nd - The Radeon is also not immune to problems with FS9.Now - if these cards work fine for all other games and applications and have problems with FS9, is it the cards fault?What do you think?