I totally agree, I don't think we will ever see 60FPS at even close to max settings in FSX, certainly not in every situation anyway or ever with triple screens (that's my Nirvana), the engine is too old and broken for it to be possible. P3D V2 is our only hope and I ain't holding my breath for that either.

 

Exactly. Every new hardware generation brings FSX a performance gain of less than 5 FPS, which is so not worth it considering the price of the hardware. FSX will not take advantage of new hardware because it's built for DX9 cards and highly-clocked single-core CPUs. It can barely take advantage of more than 2 cores.

 

As for Prepar3D 2.0, I actually think that it's going to be much better. Lockheed Martin have said that with this release they're aiming to take away the tradition of the application being CPU-bound, and introduce more workload for the GPU thanks to DirectX 11. The only thing holding back Prepar3D is the "training only" approach in my opinion.

I remember when Crysis first came out and I thought the developers where on drugs

 

But Crysis is now 64bit and has always been scaled with additional GPUs, FSX has not. I haven't loaded up Crysis 3 yet, but I plan too ... not for the shootem' up action, but more because I like to see how they've work the entire environment.

I've read comments on these forums from numerous knowledgable folks that a 4gb video card would eat up too much VAS space and that a video card with no more than 2 gb of vram is recommended for FSX. If that is true, wouldn't this video card with 6gb of video ram result in instant OOM? I know nothing about this, just asking the question.

 

Ted

 

Is this true? There are 4gb vram cards out there, gtx680's. Does anyone run them and have problems?

I imagine with bp=0 and fiber frame fraction to 0.10 you should technically see some really great smooth performance even in heavy clouds. I hope, at least.

No it's complete and utter bollocks if you think about it, Nvidia would need to put a warning everywhere saying that systems with 6GB or less of RAM wouldn't work with the cards, nor would 32bit OS's.

Robains do you have your new titan running fsx yet would like to know how it is performing please.

Robains do you have your new titan running fsx yet would like to know how it is performing please.

 

Well it looks like my pre-order got pushed back to 3/21 for delivery ... looks like I missed the first batch.

Thanks Graham

Robains do you have your new titan running fsx yet would like to know how it is performing please.

 

Not yet, my pre-order apparently didn't make it for first batch of shippments, they said next shippment due March 21st.

Thanks looking forward to your findings for the obvious reason :smile:

I've read comments on these forums from numerous knowledgable folks that a 4gb video card would eat up too much VAS space and that a video card with no more than 2 gb of vram is recommended for FSX. If that is true, wouldn't this video card with 6gb of video ram result in instant OOM? I know nothing about this, just asking the question.

 

Ted

 

 

Very good question btw. Particularly it may apply even more to the standard DX9 mode of FSX. Any comments?

 

 

Thanks,

Dirk.