David, >>Having that we can possibly narrow down "good" and "bad">>configuration, based on David's settings at least.>>>>Bigean>>Very good point Bigean.>generally I hate them: ("my car/house/wallett is bigger than>yours") but it might be useful indeed to add these>information. I've seen this point about boasting sigs come up a few times before, and it neglects why some of us choose to do this in the first place. I post frequently in the hardware forum, and before I had a sig I would be regularly asked what hardware config baseline I was speaking from. So I now include this in my sig, as do many of my fellow hardware forum members, and the otherwise automatically answered questions have all but died out. ie. it serves a purpose, just as you telling everyone you are a forum moderator in your sig. Please be mindful of this with your future comments on such matters.Gary

Thanks David, this is very interesting. I have huge problems with the 64 bit DX10 nVidia drivers and i can get it only stable with AF reduced to 4x (1920x1200 res), which doesn't look very pretty in the distance. Otherwise i run into driver lock ups, mostly followed by a BSOD. I didn't play with the AF and trilinear optimizations yet, which i had always enabled. I'll try your suggestions this evening.As always - fingers crossed... And thanks againHeiko

>I've seen this point about boasting sigs come up a few times>before, and it neglects why some of us choose to do this in>the first place. I post frequently in the hardware forum, and>before I had a sig I would be regularly asked what hardware>config baseline I was speaking from. So I now include this in>my sig, as do many of my fellow hardware forum members, and>the otherwise automatically answered questions have all but>died out. ie. it serves a purpose, just as you telling>everyone you are a forum moderator in your sig. Please be>mindful of this with your future comments on such matters.>>GaryHi Gary,I sincerely appologize if you (or somebody else) was offended by my comments because this was really not the purpose.Please let me explain myself, not to be misunderstood :--)Re-reading my sentense I understand that I should have written "I hate it" and not "I hate them" and here "them" is for "informations" and not for "people".(Sometimes I translate from french (my mother tongue) to english and the result is not that good!!, I'm sorry for that)I understand perfectly that it is very useful when talking about technical issues or when trying to understand the origin of a problem to have a sig as yours. When my PC was older I had it as well for the same purpose, being also on different forums where comparing rigs helps fixing bugs.Because my PC is new and powerful and because I don't want to appear like showing-off (that's what I hate!) I changed it to a funny one (at least IMHO).I was speaking about putting MY rig in my signature and not about others behavior.Hope it makes sense to you.Respectfully,DavidPS: Lanza Del Vasto wrote a sentence I love since I was a kid ( a century ago) "Distingue toi par ce que tu es et non par ce que tu as" which is something like "Distinguish yourself with what you are and not with what you have".I try to follow this wise advise as far as I am able to :--)

>That some very good fps and great screenshots. However, I>doubt that that configuration includes traffic - meaning>Ultimate Traffic, MyTraffic X or any other traffic add-on.>Those are usually huge fps hits for me and eat up easily 10>fps per 20% of traffic.>>Personally, traffic is a must for me, because flying without>traffic is just a little lonesome and boring, no?>>PatHi Pat,I am using WoAI traffic (slider at 20%) because I am not satisfied with traffic addons quality (in term of graphics) until now.

>Thanks David, this is very interesting. I have huge problems>with the 64 bit DX10 nVidia drivers and i can get it only>stable with AF reduced to 4x (1920x1200 res), which doesn't>look very pretty in the distance. Otherwise i run into driver>lock ups, mostly followed by a BSOD. I didn't play with the AF>and trilinear optimizations yet, which i had always enabled.>I'll try your suggestions this evening.>>As always - fingers crossed... And thanks again>>Heiko>Hi Heiko,I should thank you mate!!!Because I purchased the X-pack after admiring everyday on FSW your fantastic screenshots and your nice comments (I learned a lot from your answers in regard with Vista64 drivers), before Acceleration was on the shelves :--)I also had lock ups and BSODs with current drivers before I deeply cleaned my machine, defragmented it etc...A lot of "display driver have stopped responding and has recovered...." messages as well.Now, things seem to be better.I wish you good luck and again, thanks and congrats for the nice atmosphere in Flight Sim World.best wishes,David

David, the settings you used actually worked miracles on my machine, it added basically 10 fps. Interesting... It seems like you have to try every setting to really find out the optimum. At least i can do teh PMDG 747 at seattle with 14 fps..Thanks a lotKurt

hey!great news Kurt!!enjoy :--)

My God, this is a great post, and has helped tremendously. Thanks gentlemen! :)

Thanks Tim!It's healthy sometimes to get out of the moroseness :--)Keep up the good work with REX :-)

>I run Vista with an ATI X1650 Pro 512MB GC, 2 Gigs RAM, >and dual core AMD 2.6 Ghz. I noticed the fonts in Vista>got quite crisper after installing DX10 and the graphics>seem better in general.Wow, this is a striking example of a placebo effect. The ATI X1650 graphics card you have is a DX9 card, and is not DX10 capable. Any benefits and specific features of DX10 are completely absent when using your card.I guess this shows that a great deal of what we perceive to be true is highly subjective, and the facts can get easily influenced by our frame of mind. If we think negatively, we color what we see with a negative drape. Likewise, a highly positive expectation can sometimes lead us to see improvements that simply aren't there.Because we are highly influenced by our frame of mind, it is sometimes tricky to extricate ourselves from looking through this mental "prism" in order to form a factual and untainted objective conclusion. But it is not impossible, it can be done, and I hope the tips in this thread will bring some real improvements. :-)

Hi Tim,I understand your point of view but even with DX9, some folks have noticed that the graphics look better and crisper in general so this might not be seing "improvements that simply aren't there", they are maybe there :--)(The only statement which is wrong actually comes from the non DX10 card)

Possibly so. I think where I saw an error surfstud31's post was the fact that he was already running Vista (DX10) with a DX9 card. I have difficulty understanding how the Vista fonts got clearer when he said installed DX10. Vista is already DX10, but the features don't show with a DX9 card.Does SP2 contain an graphical enhancement that improves fonts in Vista? And does it improve fonts even if one is running a DX9 card? Maybe somehow it does, and I could be mistaken. Anyone care to shed some light on this to clarify the confusion?

David,Have you or anyone else tried 169.04 yet with these tweaks yet? Results?Thanks

David,Now that you have cleared that up, no offence take. BTW, it is good to see a positive post thread of the one you started here!Gary

I didn't see any kind of improvement and got 1 BSOD...But maybe is it just me.169.01 seems to be more stable for the moment.