>Here's a shot of the Lear45 using my "ideal config" for FSX>which shows clearly that my video card's RAM is already>exhausted, and the much slower VRAM is taking up the slack. >As soon as I cross the RAM threshold, my fps tanks by 50%...>:-erks >>It's clear to me that I need at least 512MB onboard video RAM>to maintain my desired target of 20fps.>>http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/1127/fs...s9000010mw7.jpg>This scrrenshot is incredibly blurry - is this an ideal setup from your visual perspective, or what you decided was the best you can get for your hardware so you could maintain fps? I couldn't fly FSX that blurry as the sense of being there would be destroyed. My framerate is a fixed 20 and is fine in most places, bogging down a bit over big cities - low as 10fps at some points but flyable. I would prefer the odd fps fall for the sense of being therehttp://www.gardenforwildlife.com/assets/im...FSX/seatle1.jpgTalking of video ram, I have two 7800GT utilising SLI performance mode - does this mean FSX will utilize 256mb or 2x256mb?*** Note to self - check posting date before replying :-hmmm Ray Keattch

>Yes, the sim is a pig that wastes resources with nothing to>show for it. I am going to return my copy and buy it again in>2 years for 5$ off some poor kid who didn't know better... Nothing to show for it?http://www.gardenforwildlife.com/assets/images/FSX/SFO3.jpg>Not to mention that none of the favourite addons would appear>to be ported to FSX in the near future because now we get the>same old tirade: >>>ms - 100% backward compatible so we had to make some>sacrifices in the levels of improvement over fs9. >>developers - completely NEW engine, EVERYTHING new, will take>us months/years/if ever and we will have to charge you>possibly to update it because it is all so different. Several updates of prop singles, twins and airliners are on my system. The FSD Saratogo is fantastic and recent.>the user: 4fps yo on a top 5% benchmarking system that costs>more than what ACES earns for a year>>right.. The screenshot above was a smooth 20fps on an Athlon 64x2 dual core & 2Gb ram - your system has issues.Ray Keattch

>Hi Bill,>How do you get 2.75 GB of memory?>Could that also be an issue?>Could you also speed things up by using "matched" interleaving>memory?Thomas, I had forgotten to "pull" a couple of sticks when I posted that. .. *:-* I had 2x1GB matched sticks + 1x512MB stick + 1x256MB stick... :-bang

>This scrrenshot is incredibly blurry - is this an ideal setup>from your visual perspective, or what you decided was the best>you can get for your hardware so you could maintain fps? >*** Note to self - check posting date before replying :-hmmm LOL! That picture was from October 17, 2006. There's been a lot of water over the dam since then... :-lol Still though, the following points remain true:1. FSX is "cpu bound" so one needs only enough video RAM to handle what IS, eventually thrown at it...2. FSX requires a LOT of contiguous "virtual address space," which means your system really needs at least 2GB of RAM. Better still, have 3GB available.3. Prudential judgement combined with realistic expectations are critical for maximizing performans and features in FSX...4. FSX - like ever version preceding it - will NEVER preform at its best "out of the box." There are simply too many variables to allow for any sort of accurate, automatic systems analysis. ACES can come close, but still miss the mark by a wide margin occasionally... ;)

My question still stands (I don't know the answer). Do you think that extra .75 GB helps? Is it possible it is slowing you down?Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

Oh, geez, I just noticed when you posted this. Who digs this stuff up? Sorry, lol :-)Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

Without straying too far to the exotic, the best performing card at the moment is the 8800GTX with 768 MB of DDR3 memory.See:http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2148243,00.aspThey are still way expensive and with FSX (a CPU limited application) you may only see 3-5 fps better than a high end non-DX10 card like the 7950GT or GX. Way I see it, don't buy a DX10 card until there is DX10 content that demonstrates a compelling value proposition.Right now DX10 releases are still way slower than DX9 games and the graphics quality improvement is marginal at best: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2143672,00.aspSo if you wait until the end of the year you might be able to leapfrog the current 1st generation DX10 cards and get something more powerful when you really need it.Cheers,Noel.

Remember all those claims "Oh man, DX10 games are going to be 8 - 10 times faster than DX9 games, no question about it. That's going to be SOOOO Awesommmme!!!" ROFLMAO :-xxrotflmaoThomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180