It's really a question of budget vs what you are running. If money is not a object, you get the best you can get which would be the Titan.

 

But unless you are running insane levels of AA across a multitude of monitors it isn't really necessary. The x80 series' has been the top dog in FSX for a few generations now. It will meet your needs, and then some!

You might hit the OOM wall before you even see the clouds when paired with payware heathrow and FTX ENG......I only use non hd textures for my clouds even with my GTX780

As with my post further back, with my card I can run FS9 at maximum load with Heathrow, VHHX et al. Pablo Diaz's clouds (at max res) which are in my opinion better than any other cloud set out there payware or no fsx or no. Even under this full load I'm getting 50+ fps.

Many people go back to fs9 because they now can get silky smooth running and therefore more realistic a/c handling. Think of VHHX: the full scenery set with typical local weather really puts the sim under strain. Now the approaches and landings can be done almost as in real life.

I appreciate that some people have the money to purchase the very best of everything (or need enormous amounts of power to run FSX across three or more high resolution monitors), but (IMO) paying 800 quid for a graphics card is insane. I agree that the top end graphics cards have always been expensive, but (again, IMO) they have always been a poor choice as far as "power to price" ratio is concerned. As has been noted in this thread, the 780 would not be too far behind at half the price.

 

On a side note......did you see that total solar eclipse in your avatar, Ray? If not, have you ever seen one? I made the trip to Devon in August 1999, but unfortunately it was cloudy so I never got to see the eclipsed sun itself. Nevertheless, the rapid onset of darkness was an amazing sight, and well worth experiencing. I am hoping to get another chance to see one in August 2017 in the USA.

When I picked out the parts for this build I opted for a system less designed for FSX than for a different simulator yet to come or currently in the making. That could be XPlane 64 or P3D 2.x or something else

 

 

That's not going to apply to me. I'd rather invest in addons for FSX than have to consider alternatives unless of course it blew FSX out of the water. Essentials like FSUIPC will never appear in other sims and that would be a major factor for me.

 

 

I'm quite surprised a bigger company, heck even someone like Orbx, hasn't embraced this whole concept-i.e., of developing the next simulator engine & content SDK.

 

 

A whole simulation probably requires more resources than we imagine. Consider all the deals required for world-wide data etc. Microsoft had the muscle but it could be nigh impossible for others. And a sell-able simulation would have to include a weather engine and scenery if it was going to appeal to the masses. Anyway, this probably deserves a separate thread. :wink:

You might hit the OOM wall before you even see the clouds when paired with payware heathrow and FTX ENG......I only use non hd textures for my clouds even with my GTX780

 

The delights of FSX eh? :biggrin:  I'll tread warily.

As with my post further back, with my card I can run FS9 at maximum load with Heathrow, VHHX et al. Pablo Diaz's clouds (at max res) which are in my opinion better than any other cloud set out there payware or no fsx or no. Even under this full load I'm getting 50+ fps.

Many people go back to fs9 because they now can get silky smooth running and therefore more realistic a/c handling. Think of VHHX: the full scenery set with typical local weather really puts the sim under strain. Now the approaches and landings can be done almost as in real life.

 

With respect Volo this isn't a thread about the merits of FS9 vs FSX. I've already explained why I want to switch to FSX. I'm not saying you can't get really good performance from FS9 but for me the scenery is now looking very second-best compared to FSX.

 

I have Pablo's clouds and they are great but you're still restricted by the number of cloud layers. Having seen FSX on a good system there's no doubt in my mind it is superior in several areas to FS9.

 

 

I appreciate that some people have the money to purchase the very best of everything (or need enormous amounts of power to run FSX across three or more high resolution monitors), but (IMO) paying 800 quid for a graphics card is insane.

 

Christopher, spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on a motor car is insane but people still do it. I can remember times when the best processor cost hundreds and gave very little improvement over the next model down but people still bought it. These days the focus is on graphics cards as CPUs have hit the heat barrier. But unless I can see a clear benefit in paying extra I won't do it. And in this thread the views of the Titan is that it isn't worth it for a single display.

 

 

 

On a side note......did you see that total solar eclipse in your avatar, Ray? If not, have you ever seen one? I made the trip to Devon in August 1999, but unfortunately it was cloudy so I never got to see the eclipsed sun itself. Nevertheless, the rapid onset of darkness was an amazing sight, and well worth experiencing. I am hoping to get another chance to see one in August 2017 in the USA.

 

I just pinched that image from the web. I wasn't aware which eclipse it was. I have seen only one solar eclipse. 30 June 1973 off the coast of Mauritania, West Africa on the MS Monte Umbe. Totality lasted over 6 minutes and was the longest of the 20th century. Fortunately it was clear and I had a great view of it but I feel so sorry for those who didn't get to see the 1999 one. But the dramatic reduction in the light is something I'm sure you will remember for the rest of your life. I shall have to research the 2017 one.

Ray,

 

Just for the record....the longest total solar eclipse of the 20th Century was actually 1955 June 20 (7m8s). The 1973 June 30 eclipse had a maximum duration of 7m4s.

Ray,

 

Just for the record....the longest total solar eclipse of the 20th Century was actually 1955 June 20 (7m8s). The 1973 June 30 eclipse had a maximum duration of 7m4s.

 

Christopher,

 

That was the longest ANNULAR eclipse. The 1973 one was the longest total eclipse. Quite a difference I'm sure you'll agree.

I appreciate that some people have the money to purchase the very best of everything (or need enormous amounts of power to run FSX across three or more high resolution monitors), but (IMO) paying 800 quid for a graphics card is insane.

 

I've got two 780's so I must be completely insane!  :wacko2:

 

I'm running 1440P though and it's not just for FSX. Just bear in mind people don't always use their computers solely for FSX, which by the way runs great on the 780!

 

Sorry, just gets on my nerves when I see comments like this.

 

I do agree though that I wouldn't even look at a Titan, speccially not if you're only running a single screen at 1080P.

 

Christopher,

 

That was the longest ANNULAR eclipse. The 1973 one was the longest total eclipse. Quite a difference I'm sure you'll agree.

 

 

I know a lot about eclipses, Ray. I assure you that the 1955 June 20 eclipse was total. In fact, both eclipses were in the same Saros series (136), which is a term used when the Earth, Moon and Sun return to an almost identical relative position after a period of 18 years 11 days. That is why they are so similar, except that the Earth's rotation is "out of sync" with this cycle by roughly one third of a day, so a different part of the globe experiences the following eclipse in the same Saros series. The eclipse of 1937 June 8 was the "other side" of the Saros maximum for this cycle, and that was also 7m4s.

 

 

I know a lot about eclipses, Ray. I assure you that the 1955 June 20 eclipse was total.

 

Yes, my mistake. It was the December one that was annular.

 

 

A whole simulation probably requires more resources than we imagine. Consider all the deals required for world-wide data etc. Microsoft had the muscle but it could be nigh impossible for others. And a sell-able simulation would have to include a weather engine and scenery if it was going to appeal to the masses.

 

And yet compared to when MS pioneered the simulator we are miles ahead in what it takes to build this. LR has a 5 or 6 person team I've heard.  ORBX already has huge scenery data and development.  The basic new simulator would have to include enough of a weather & scenery package to demonstrate its potential.   I think our best bet practially speaking will be with what LM does w/ P3D.  They have the budget & interest plus bonus they have put out 64-bit development kits.   I think they must be in it for the longer haul.

Ray,

 

If you can afford it now, why not? Especially if you'll be keeping the PC a few years. There will no doubt be circumstances that will arrive that will maximize use of such a card, even if it isn't present-day FSX or P3D. People will continue to be ingenious and I'm sure in six years that Titan will seem like old stale beans. In the meanwhile, lift the lid off and have fun; life isn't forever.

 

Steve

I think our best bet practially speaking will be with what LM does w/ P3D. They have the budget & interest plus bonus they have put out 64-bit development kits. I think they must be in it for the longer haul.

Noel, reading Word Not Allowed's thread regarding this card he say's ... 2GB VRAM is more than enough for FSX. What will come this year with P3D however, is a big question. Rumor is, they are porting a lot onto GPU.

 

If that's the case then it could be a canny decision to buy the Titan. Planning for the future and all that. As much as I would like to stay with FSX if P3D does become far superior it would make sense to switch. Quite a bit of scenery is compatible in any case.

Ray,

 

If you can afford it now, why not? Especially if you'll be keeping the PC a few years. There will no doubt be circumstances that will arrive that will maximize use of such a card, even if it isn't present-day FSX or P3D. People will continue to be ingenious and I'm sure in six years that Titan will seem like old stale beans. In the meanwhile, lift the lid off and have fun; life isn't forever.

 

Steve

 

As I have a lump sum from my employer and interest rates are so abysmal in the UK there's little incentive to save. Interest rates are way below inflation. You make a compelling case Steve. I'll continue to chew over the options. And as I said in my opening message the price difference between a 780 and the Titan is a couple of hundred quid in an outlay of approximately £1500-1800. About the same as a good set of golf clubs ... perhaps! :smile:

 

That state-of-the-art £400 Ti4600 128Mb card I bought in 2003 can't even run a monitor at 1900x1280 these days!

If that's the case then it could be a canny decision to buy the Titan. Planning for the future and all that.

 

Hehe, and the X79 motherboard I bought has room for 2 or 3 more Titan's--not that I'll ever use them, but they're there and I like that! The only two parts I will ever possibly upgrade will be another SSD and only if the current one dies, and if I kill my SB-E chip from overzealous overclocking which I am very much disinclined to do, an IB-E chip is purported to function in my X79 motherboard.

 

My entire new build, and it's a true honey, was under $3K US. And to put this in historical context sometime in 1992 I had my first PC built w/ highest end parts of the day:

• 486-33Mhz
• 8Mb of ram (!)
• 120Mb Maxtor HDD (!)
• 4x Sony CD-R
• 15" Sony CRT
• Windows 3.1
• Sound Blaster audio
• Diamond Viper video card

The entire PC was very close to $2,400 plus tax in 1992. Corrected for inflation my current rig costs...about the same ;o)

It's amazing how computer technology has progressed over the past twenty years. I purchased my first PC way back in January 1992.....

 

* Intel 386SX 25Mhz

* 1MB RAM

* 45MB Hard disk

* 14" monitor

* DR DOS 6.0

* Covox SoundMaster

* 256K VGA graphics

* 3.5" Floppy disk drive

 

When I realised that SX processors had the floating point unit disabled, I purchased the relevant FPU upgrade processor. The reason for this is because I wanted to use a piece of software called Dance of the Planets. This was a "solar system simulator" that calculated the gravitational effects of the planets and the Sun on each other over time (forwards or backwards), and also asteroids and comets that the user could add to the simulation. Fascinating stuff, and it needed every bit (and more) of that FPU's power!