Have been flying FS since subLogic and ATP etc. The years have a way of adding up and having recently retired am looking at what will be my final rig. Have built them since the mid '80's so I have the steps down. Now it is a question of horses under the hood. (an old metaphor but meaningful to my age group). I intend this to be a very fine rig. I want to run FSX with every feature turned full on and every add-on I can fit on the SSD's. Going out in style.

 

First to clear up some conceptions and misconceptions about FSX, or maybe urban legends is a better way to put it.

 

Back in the day, the word was that FS was developed on nVidia video and that is why it works the best there. I believed that because they have always seemed to work very, very well together. My latest card is soon to be replaced is a GTX 460. Would like to be able, at some time, to use 3 monitors powered by one card. Any problem there? Specifically looking at a GTX 670 or 680 with 2 or 4GB of mem. Comments? Legend true then? Now? Can nVidia do a decent 3 monitor setup? Would 4GB buy me anything? Am I backwards such that AMD-ATI is the real obvious choice?

 

Next topic. CPU. Currently have i5-2500K OC'd to about 4.8GHz. Very nice. It is my understanding that FSX can only make use of 4 "real" threads which would say the i5 is the way to go. BUT is it really? Can any of those tens of addons make use of the virtual threads or are the addons dispatched by FSX? Or is there just brute force that the i7 can bring to the table? There is no reason for the existance of this machine other than to run FSX (ok and iTunes) as far as current technology and my somewhat limited income will take me. Maybe i5-3570K is the ticket.

 

My preferred MB is an ASUS P8Z77-V Deluxe. Like the goodies and it has and the PCIe 3.0 bus built in. Have an ASUS P8Z68-V Pro now that has been very good to me.

 

Memory. Have used G.Skill in past, see no reason to change now. Something with CL9 DDR3-1600 1.5V. I see only a need for 8GB but could go 16GB just for grins. Any real need for DDR3-1866?

 

It's like getting a Cadillac with the works. A BMW M5 would be grand but the new Caddy's have come a long way on less money.

 

Have a couple WD 1TB Caviar drives that may get upgraded, really want the Red WDs to do RAID 5. No reason for FS, just for other stuff, music, video etc. I'm an old mainframer and we liked RAID 5. For FS will not consider any drive but the new Samsungs, 840 Pro (if I remember). I have an 830 now and for pure random read i/o...99% of FS, am sold.

 

Guess the final mention is going with a Corsair H-100 CPU cooler. It is big and I'll have at least six fans in my case..can't hear much so sounding like a tornado is of no concern. Besides I always wear earphones while flying.

 

So there it is. Appreciate from hearing from any and all of you. Please set me straight. I'm only set on the MB, rest is up for consideration.

 

Thanks much,

George

747VirPilot (of a PMDG 744)

From what I could make out of your post was that currently you own this config-

i5 2500k @ 4.8 Ghz

P8Z68-Pro

GTX 460

 

and you are thinking about upgrading it to-

i5 3570K

P8Z77-V Pro

GTX 670 or 680

 

Honestly saying you will see almost no difference or negligible difference in performance by upgrading your motherboard and processor as you are already running an excellent processor at 4.8 ghz which is pretty high. In my opinion you should wait for haswell(intel's upcoming processor). As far as I know FSX does not utilize any virtual threads on the processors. So even on an i7 only 4 cores will be available to FSX. Although extra cache on i7 might help but the biggest plus point of i7 AFAIK is that they are better binned processor and therefore can reach higher clocks. I maybe wrong here so don't take my words for it.

 

The most performance increase you will see is by upgrading your GPU. I think you should go ahead with either GTX 670 or 680. GTX 680 is obviously better but gtx 670 isn't bad either and will perform very well in FSX. 2 GB of VRAM should be enough for FSX as of now but if money is not a problem then you can go ahead with 4GB as well. Nvidia cards work better with FSX because FSX uses old shader 2.0 model and AMD has stopped supporting older shader models whereas nvidia still does.

 

8 Gb of RAM is more than enough for FSX. You can go for a higher clocked RAM but again you will see almost no difference or negligible difference. Better to wait for haswell and then change the Processor, motherboard and RAM together.

 

I will summarize here now. I think you should change just your GPU for now as that is the only bottleneck I can see in your current config. Don't change the processor, motherboard and RAM for now. Wait for the haswell and then change these three components together. I say this because Haswell is based on a completely new socket so LGA1155 based motherboards won't support haswell and you will see almost no performance improvement or a very negligible performance improvement by going from Sandy Bridge to an Ivy Bridge based processor. If you want to change to Ivy bridge at all then I don't think you need to change your motherboard. All you have to do is to probably update to the latest BIOS(if you haven't done that already) and you are good to go with IB based processors on the same motherboard. Your current motherboard is quite good actually.

 

Regards,

Rohit

Thanks Rohit.

 

I'm on board with all your observations and recommendations. If I move forward will wait for the Haswell. That said, wondering out loud if Intel is very near of the end of the line for DIY computers. I saw a number of podcasts today and did a lot of reading. IB turned out to be running hot because of accounting decisions (who knows for sure) using inferior TIM. The one component that stands out for replacement is the graphic card and I like the ASUS GTX680 that would appear to run "Surround" - multiple monitors? What I didn't like was Intel saying chips running hot was the new normal. Did they get out of the chip engineering business? As am living in the Philippines for a couple of years I'm wondering as to the magnitude of procuring the parts, especially the SSD's. Seems the WD reds are available.

 

When I was asking about "virtual" threads on the i7, I knew FSX did not make use of them. The questions more was did any of the other addons, i.e. REX, FS2CREW and the such have the ability to use the threads. My guess is that everything happens as a subtask of FSX and is dispatched by FSX. If I'm wrong, please let me know. Has been one of my longest standing questions.

 

I'm coming to believe that all of us with desktop units are on the edge of extinction, as I was with mainframe computers. It's all servers and as you would expect an old veteran of IT wars, think servers are a mistake and the "CLOUD" a much bigger one. Seems like MS Live FLIGHT was a stab at a cloud circus scam. See how fast they closed up. Windows 8 is by no means a desktop OPSYS. I bought Microsoft Windows, not Microsoft Tiles. ARM processors are in the wings and FSX is now P3D. Am temped to get the best IB system and trade out parts for the last of my days. Damn word seems to be that the Haswell tick-tock may be THE last DIY series. I have an iPad which is great for what it does. Windows it ain't. Merely making the point that we need to watch out as extinction is not exclusive to dinosaurs.

Thanks.

Have been flying FS since subLogic and ATP etc. The years have a way of adding up and having recently retired am looking at what will be my final rig. Have built them since the mid '80's so I have the steps down. Now it is a question of horses under the hood. (an old metaphor but meaningful to my age group). I intend this to be a very fine rig. I want to run FSX with every feature turned full on and every add-on I can fit on the SSD's. Going out in style.

 

First to clear up some conceptions and misconceptions about FSX, or maybe urban legends is a better way to put it.

 

Back in the day, the word was that FS was developed on nVidia video and that is why it works the best there. I believed that because they have always seemed to work very, very well together. My latest card is soon to be replaced is a GTX 460. Would like to be able, at some time, to use 3 monitors powered by one card. Any problem there? Specifically looking at a GTX 670 or 680 with 2 or 4GB of mem. Comments? Legend true then? Now? Can nVidia do a decent 3 monitor setup? Would 4GB buy me anything? Am I backwards such that AMD-ATI is the real obvious choice?

 

Next topic. CPU. Currently have i5-2500K OC'd to about 4.8GHz. Very nice. It is my understanding that FSX can only make use of 4 "real" threads which would say the i5 is the way to go. BUT is it really? Can any of those tens of addons make use of the virtual threads or are the addons dispatched by FSX? Or is there just brute force that the i7 can bring to the table? There is no reason for the existance of this machine other than to run FSX (ok and iTunes) as far as current technology and my somewhat limited income will take me. Maybe i5-3570K is the ticket.

 

My preferred MB is an ASUS P8Z77-V Deluxe. Like the goodies and it has and the PCIe 3.0 bus built in. Have an ASUS P8Z68-V Pro now that has been very good to me.

 

Memory. Have used G.Skill in past, see no reason to change now. Something with CL9 DDR3-1600 1.5V. I see only a need for 8GB but could go 16GB just for grins. Any real need for DDR3-1866?

 

It's like getting a Cadillac with the works. A BMW M5 would be grand but the new Caddy's have come a long way on less money.

 

Have a couple WD 1TB Caviar drives that may get upgraded, really want the Red WDs to do RAID 5. No reason for FS, just for other stuff, music, video etc. I'm an old mainframer and we liked RAID 5. For FS will not consider any drive but the new Samsungs, 840 Pro (if I remember). I have an 830 now and for pure random read i/o...99% of FS, am sold.

 

Guess the final mention is going with a Corsair H-100 CPU cooler. It is big and I'll have at least six fans in my case..can't hear much so sounding like a tornado is of no concern. Besides I always wear earphones while flying.

 

So there it is. Appreciate from hearing from any and all of you. Please set me straight. I'm only set on the MB, rest is up for consideration.

 

Thanks much,

George

747VirPilot (of a PMDG 744)

 

A lot of what I'm about to say is already on my own thread which you can here: http://forum.avsim.n...-review-of-fsx/

 

I have a 3930k OC'ed at 5.0 Ghz, 2400 Mhz 16 GB Corsair RAM, GTX 680 4GB, and a Samsung 840 Pro 512GB SSD. My PC is fully water cooled. I use 1 30" monitor with resolution 2560 x 1600.

 

I'm not sure what everyone is saying about FSX and threads. Here is my experience. After downloading SP2 for FSX and installing all my addons, without making any fsx.cfg modifications, in core temp, I would see only 1 core being 100% and 2 other cores at 5-6% during flight. Remember I have HT on my CPU and its enabled.

 

I have then set the affinity on my fsx.cfg to 4094, which means all 11 cores active and leave first core to fiber processing. The performance difference was big, I can now see all 6 cores (these are actual physical cores) in coretemp being 100% periodically during flight and all 12 cores staying above 90% in resource manager in windows.

 

So that's one "myth" out of the way. To me, more cores meant much better flying experience. I can now actually fly my 737NGX above manhattan, I can do my dream landing of long island expressway landing without hitting my head against the wall with constant 20-25 fps.

 

Next thing is RAM speed. During OCing my CPU, I kept my RAM frequency at 1600 to isolate the instabilities of the system. Rule of thumb is you OC your CPU first, stabilize it, then start again with the RAM. I again saw a big difference in performance between 1600 and 2400 Mhz RAM in FSX. When I mean big, I mean 2-3 fps, but if you think about what we are shooting for is 20-25 fps, 2 fps is 10%, so its really big. This is probably because of the way FSX textures are loaded.

 

As for GTX 680, I cannot comment on it. I highly doubt getting GTX 680 over what you currently have will make anything better. It might in terms of heat and power usage. GTX 680 OCs so good and it uses so little power and it cools so well. But as far as FSX is concerned, I highly doubt it would make things better.

 

I also would like to comment on SSD performance. It makes a big difference to have one. My old PC has a 10k raptor and what was taking 1-1.5 minutes to load a flight now takes less than 4 seconds, ridiculous I know, but that's the difference.

 

Another thing that you seem to be missing is the quad channel mode the new DDR3 rams run. Its much better to get 4 sticks of 4 than to get 4 sticks of 2 (to get 8 GB), that would be a big waste of money in terms of future investment. Getting 4 sticks of 4 GB is better as you can get another set and have a future proof PC that will last (memory wise) for at least 5-6 years, 8 gigs is half life span basically, so that's something to think about too.

 

Anyways, let me know if you have any questions. All I can say is, don't believe everything you read on the forums, only believe what you see with your own eyes and in my case, I learned a very valuable lesson and I'm glad I did what I did with the new computer.

 

Note : The new Intel CPU that is coming out is replacing 1155. It is not a replacement for 2011 platform. Comparing 2011 to 1155 is like comparing your M5 to a cadillac.

 

On that note, I would never pick the cadillac over M5. I personally own an M3 and I have driven lots of cars over the years, there is so much difference between an M car and a non M car (even a BMW one) and Cadillac does not even come close (sorry).

DerStig, please don't take this as I'm trying to troll you or something. Seriuosly, I'm just trying to help the OP here.

George do not upgrade to a 6 core SB-E for FSX (or any other thing for that matter, that will be a sidegrade for FSX). The extra cores, extra cache, extra memory channels, Hyperthreading... non of them will make a difference. Regulars here have been doing tests for years, literally, and we have a benchmark flight to back that up.

 

DerStig, I suggest you perform a few searches on the topics (or "myths" if you prefer that term) at hand and maybe do some relevant tests like for example disabling 2 cores and comparing performance instead of just looking at your resource manager and FPS counter. Same goes for the memory channels

To the OP:

 

Wait for Haswell. Dazz is 100% correct in regard to SB-E.

DerStig, please don't take this as I'm trying to troll you or something. Seriuosly, I'm just trying to help the OP here.

George do not upgrade to a 6 core SB-E for FSX (or any other thing for that matter, that will be a sidegrade for FSX). The extra cores, extra cache, extra memory channels, Hyperthreading... non of them will make a difference. Regulars here have been doing tests for years, literally, and we have a benchmark flight to back that up.

 

DerStig, I suggest you perform a few searches on the topics (or "myths" if you prefer that term) at hand and maybe do some relevant tests like for example disabling 2 cores and comparing performance instead of just looking at your resource manager and FPS counter. Same goes for the memory channels

 

I don't know how else I can say this, I did have the half of my cores off initially until I set my affinity mask. You can believe what you want and I did do searches but I didn't see any benchmarks with a PC that has similar specs and settings. As I said, I only said what I observed, not what I heard. Maybe it's the extra CPU cache that makes difference? Maybe its the extra RAM speed that you achieve with massive overclocks with the X79 boards? It's not as simple as "2 extra cores". Again, its always easy to say something expensive is "waste of money". Its always easy to find positives in something that costs half as much, its human nature. When its something out of our reach, to not to feel bad for not being able to get it, we find ways to prove how the cheaper solutions already "get the job done". No offense.

 

And another thing is, there will always be something "better" around the corner. You can wait and wait and wait a bit more. What you don't know about the new CPU is, you have no idea if it will improve things for FSX.

 

What we do know is, and you are missing this whole point, the new CPU is a replacement for 1155, which is the "mainstream" CPU. LGA2011 is here to stay and it will most likely see another CPU with 8 cores in the near future. So don't assume the new 1150 chip is going to be the next best thing, it will be the next best "average" thing. If you want to best, you need to get LGA2011/X79 and it doesn't matter if you wait or do it now.

I don't know how else I can say this, I did have the half of my cores off initially until I set my affinity mask. You can believe what you want and I did do searches but I didn't see any benchmarks with a PC that has similar specs and settings. As I said, I only said what I observed, not what I heard. Maybe it's the extra CPU cache that makes difference? Maybe its the extra RAM speed that you achieve with massive overclocks with the X79 boards? It's not as simple as "2 extra cores". Again, its always easy to say something expensive is "waste of money". Its always easy to find positives in something that costs half as much, its human nature. When its something out of our reach, to not to feel bad for not being able to get it, we find ways to prove how the cheaper solutions already "get the job done". No offense.

 

And another thing is, there will always be something "better" around the corner. You can wait and wait and wait a bit more. What you don't know about the new CPU is, you have no idea if it will improve things for FSX.

 

What we do know is, and you are missing this whole point, the new CPU is a replacement for 1155, which is the "mainstream" CPU. LGA2011 is here to stay and it will most likely see another CPU with 8 cores in the near future. So don't assume the new 1150 chip is going to be the next best thing, it will be the next best "average" thing. If you want to best, you need to get LGA2011/X79 and it doesn't matter if you wait or do it now.

 

I'm not going to argue with you. This is such an old topic that has been discussed time and again, even before SB-E was around. Obviously not going to comment on your amazing understanding of human nature and my financial capabilities. Wasn't trying to burst your bubble, just provide accurate information.

 

Can I suggest you run FSMark11and let us know your score?

I was going to run it until I saw that it requires me to uninstall everything and install fsx without the addons, pretty unrealistic and time consuming. There are addons that utilize directx optimized textures that will behave differently with different video cards.

 

Anyways, it is what it is all I did was to share my experiences. I wish I had one of the mainstream chips to compare. What I can attest to is the affinity mask makes a huge difference. They say with sp2 fsx uses all cores and that is very incorrect and misleading. It does use all cores but only 2 of them stay at 100% while rest sit around at 1-2%. Setting the mask to 4094 utilizes all cores at 100% and I do see a big improvement on my overall flying experience in terms of the fluidness.

Hi George,

 

Looking at "the big picture"... you know since release of FSX - hardware is just making "baby steps" or small dings in the fps department.

 

Years ago if one wanted to play a game w/ max settings you'd need recently released hardware or wait a year or so. I think back to Half-Life 2 I received as a gift from the kids (along w/ FSX) Christmas of 2006. Half-Life had been out for about 2 years... ran absolutely fine on my (then) recently built quad AMD (2 x 285s - 4 cores) w/ max settings. FSX (of course) not nearly so well...

 

Skulltrail I built in 2007 (2 x 9775s - 8 cores) did little more... some help but... meh... upgrading to a GTX 285 then 580 / swapping in intel value ssds on the 3ware raid card all helped... but still much to be desired.

 

Now with an i3370k @ 4.8 / a pair of samsung 830s / decent g.skill ram (2666) I am still not up to max settings - and I'm perfectly content to leave out car / plane / train ai stuff... I just wish that meant I would get max cloud draw distance and to have the ability to have fraps record w/o having to reduce this or that setting.

 

We are getting close... I can see some benefit of the next series nVidia card which I am waiting for.

 

So all that said... I would do just as Ben said and wait for Haswell (and the next gen nvidia card)... it's right around the corner. I hate to see someone shell out serious cash for something that will show just small gains from the current setup. In fact I would have waited for Haswell (and probably should have) but that quad AMD choked on a failed cap - so being somewhat impatient, I decided to replace now.

 

As far as your specs... I think you have things well thought out (don't know about the 3 monitor stuff or 4gb vid mem). I paid about $180 for 8gb of ram - How much RAM is enough RAM?. Wasn't the fastest available g.skill, but not as slow as some recommended stuff. H-100 is nice - not loud. Fan only really revs up at boot.

 

Have a look over Word Not Allowed's Hardware Guide and also I recommend perusing the Hardware, Software, and Computer Technology Forum @ SimForums particularly threads NickN has participated in.

 

-Rob

George, I hear you. But this might not be it. You might find that a little upgrade here or there will help a lot so there's nothing wrong with saying, hey, my final rig is almost finished.

George,

 

I will chip in on a couple of issues I have had experience with over the last month having just finished a new rig.

 

I think your gpu needs an upgrade. I bought a gigabyte GV-N670OC and was able to overclock it to 1240 MHz. A month later I bought an Asus GTX680DC2T. The performance difference was minimal. I got about ten points higher on the unigen heaven benchmark. My point.... I highly recommend the 670 but the 680 is a pretty steep price jump for very little performance increase. By the way I'm running three 24 inch monitors and get 30 fps on both cards. I'd buy a second card and sli but fsx doesn't benefit from this which is why I didn't get the 690 since it really is just an sli on one card.

 

Im going to keep the 680 because I have it but if someone is looking for a like new 670, let me know cuz I have that too.

 

Regarding 2gb vs 4gb gpu, 2gb is more than enough. I know some people talk about future proofing by getting 4gb cards for games that will EVENTUALLY make use of that. But come on, by then we will all be talking about the gtx970 vs the 980.

 

840 pro ssd for your fsx is a great decision. I would also recommend putting you OS on a separate ssd which will cut down boot time. Since most of spend a lot of time booting and rebooting during oc, this is very convenient and at $165 for 256 gb, why not.

 

Ram....1600 vs 1866 is a non issue. 1600 cas 7. If you have the money to pay for that little bit more that may not even be noticeable, 2400 cas 9.

 

H100 is a good choice. Remember to get the new H100i though. It is an improvement over the 100.

 

For fsx only, there is no need for an I-7 CPU. I went with the I-7 for video rendering on the side, but its useless for fsx.

 

Hope that helps some.

 

the final rig got complicated in a hurry lol. But yeah, I hear you.

Fellow Flyers,

 

The votes are in and am applying my own perhaps twisted logic to move forward. Ok, "final rig" may have been optimistic and yet maybe not.

 

Here goes. Having moved to the Philippines "outback" in August I had to leave some pieces of my rig behind. Damned expensive to bring extra luggage these days. When I say "outback" I mean rural Mindanao which is the furthest south island and the other side of the country from Manila, the only place to have something akin to newegg. Nope, no newegg shipments to the Philippines, bummer. I wrapped up the order last week and hope to see the parts by next week.

 

i5-2500K - I have it, can OC it to 4.8GHz and am not at all convinced that moving to an IB is giving me bang for the buck. There is something to be said for skipping generations. Yes I skipped Vista but only because of the initial feedback, mostly as it turned out due to driver issues. In reality W7 really was a service pack for Vista and did not advance the opsys. Now W8 is a complete train wreck...plane crash would be tacky...W8 is a tablet opsys with an deprecated...Microsoft's word, not mine...W7 engine. It can boot faster and is a bit faster but how long to get the bugs out? I want MS Windows, not MS Tiles. Speed may be needed for the tiles front-end time will tell. Is it worth it even at the rock bottom price? Not in my book.

 

ASUS P8Z68-V GEN 3. Current board and a dang solid SB one at that. Great OC controls via a great UEFI bios. Where has that been all my life? Well the last 10 years at least. Able to OC the i5-2500K just fine. It has PCI-e 3.0 though an add in on the board and not part of the Z68 chip set but don't think that will be an issue. Have read enough reports that 3.0 is not all that much mainly because there was enough bandwidth before.

 

Will come up short on my intended cooling rig, kind of. Had a Corsair H60 before and had intended a H100 now, BUT...there always is one...I had to get a new case and am a sucker for the NZXT Phantom case, but the 410 mid tower now, not the full tower, don't need the room. Another issue is the vendor here could not/would not verify if the case would take the H100. Returning things here is my idea of a self-made nightmare. So a H80 it is. The H60 did a great job and expect nothing less with the H80. Am getting extra fans so every position is covered for a tornadic air flow. Am becoming more deaf as befits my age but figure since I'm wearing around the ear headphones that should be enough. Truth be told all my flights are flown real time, but not with full time and attention. Typical flight is 10+ hours and some of that is left to the auto-pilot and me watching TV...what little there is of it...in another room.

 

Have had very good luck with SeaSonic and going back with their X-850, i.e. 850W of 80+Gold. Saving a few pesos here is not necessary but hey. Plenty of juice for my operation.

 

Same with G.Skill. Don't believe in pushing memory. Keep at stock voltage and let the XMP setting guide most of the rest. I use DDR3-1600 RIPJAWS X even though the SB uses DDR3-1333. What's wrong with a little headroom? Bought 2x8GB only because I could, not because it will be of ANY use. Was at 2x4GB before and that REALLY is enough. Now what would have been nice is to get a CL of 8 or less, maybe I will tweak the memory ;-} I don't have all of its specs but it will likely be 2T and that is ok. 2T is rock stable where 1T may or may not be. When stability is an issue I look there first.

 

Finally will stay with my EVGA GTX 460. Good card until next year when I plan on the ASUS DirectCU GTX 680 with 2GB. I really considered 4GB but there has been nothing to convince me that it is necessary. That said it may or may not stretch the card to run 4 monitors in Surround mode. I have my eyes on a GO Flight CDU addon someday which will use one of the outputs...which you must use for something other than the 3 monitors panorama I plan for "someday". I will not run in SLI. Cost and DirectX 9.0, really? I do not run FSX in 10 ever, too buggy for me.

 

To summarize. Nothing of import changes until a new video card. FSX runs very well when I get serious about tuning. That said I've not had the chance to run FSX on my i5-2500K. I put the system together sans FSX just prior to coming over here. My fav plane is the PMDG 747-400 and with the AMD FX-4100 (yes I was a contrarian until AMD announced under no conditions was it in the speed business). So expect very nice things with the i5-2500K. The 744 is so nice to come in at dusk from a EGLL to KSFO flight onto RWY 28L flying up the bay. And that was with the FX-4100 which actually turned out to be a decent chip for its generation. Bulldozer? I never look...well a peek.. at frame rates. End up chasing your tail. I look for stuttering. THAT drives me nuts and I will back off ever so gently on FSX settings until all is smooth. Oh, that little matter of how many cores to run? I found an article by a member of the ACES team. It confirmed my findings. You may see extra from the i7 but not due to FSX processing. Perhaps something in Windows uses it but has yet to show me that it is worth it. I want FSX to run very well and not running an OC'ing contest. Think the i5 is the ticket. That article went on to explain how the various threads would rise and fall. 0 Core took the most beating but there were times when the other cores lit up. Mirrors my experience. If I find the link, will post. It really boils down to what was the state of the art in software and hardware at the time FSX was written. We are a light year or five past that. So going for my "final" "final" rig may be unnecessary. Will advise in a month or so.

 

Happy Flying---

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD