I have a 2600k @ 4.5 runs like glass!

NOT Totally impressed. Yes, it's a great product in that it functions great; however, I persoanlly got disappointed with the the internal graphics.. The outer graphics are excellent, but the inside (VC) looks much like a FS9 airplane-- too dull, low quality like...Not the eye-candy-graphics, like the Aerosoft Airbus X, eg.--- And be prepared to munch a whole great deal of CPU... A 4.5-5.0 Ghz is preffered for a smooth-life-like experience.Johhny

Dear Johnny,are you sure you didn't downgrade the texture quality in your FSX installation? The VC graphics are very crisp generally speaking. Please check your fsx.cfg - you should be running 2048 as your max texture size.Regards,

"but the inside (VC) looks much like a FS9 airplane-- too dull, low quality like"Not at all buddy, it is top quality

Maybe that grey distracts the guys. Concorde was that grey and "dull" in the cockpit, so the sim representation looks pretty accurate but will always have to take personal preferences into account.Looking at the sheer amount of gauges in this special flight sim cockpit doesn't leave much room for not showing some respect for the work there I think.But one has to like the steam powered stuff of course or he won't feel confident about the plane and the great details there.I could spend ages just looking at the fuel panel, but, be aware, I'm a fan of the Conc, no doubt.

The VC graphics are very crisp generally speaking.

The problem is that some texture are more than excellent, but it's not everywhere.In some panel, phtorealistic text look blured or/and too small, even with 2048 enable and 2560X1600 resolution.Remember this is my only Cons about this fast bird, And I hope the team can correct that with the A320.Ben

Maybe they had to reduce some stuff to control the load on the system. But you've said it, since this is the only thing to maybe be mentioned, she's a pretty good ship indeed.