Well, let us know. I'm done with the constant tweaking and never getting results. I've pretty much lost faith in hoping a driver update will fix the problem also. :(

Its ridiculous for any company to release a software and expect the hardware company to release a patch to fix their software. The software should at least work on the current version.It's like if you buy a camera and it doesn't work and the sales rep then says "oh, its a firmware problem, they should fix that problem later" *:-*

I have been experimenting with o'clocking.In order to stabilize, I had to throttle down my mem speed from 677Mhz (base speed) to 533Mhz, otherwize I would get crash to desktops.My E6700 is running stable at 3GHz know. I made a flight from Nice to Roma last night, no lockups. FPS around 20 all the way (I followed the Italian west coast, the combination of water, coast and road traffic is pretty demanding), and they dropped to around 15 above Vatican city.So the FPS is stable, and I could crank up all my traffic sliders (earlier I would fly with road traffic off because of the FPS hit).But now I got occasional blurries, before they were really very seldom (NY city). I did some more testing, and it looks they are related to the memory speed. This makes sense, because my monitor is widescreen 1680x1050, and there is an important dataflow between the processor, the memory and the video adapter. So I believe it is a combination of Front Side Bus speeds, memory speeds and processor speeds. That would also explain why gents with apparently the same configuration could get different results : the whole system needs to be balanced correctly, processor clock speed alone is not going to pull it.My new memory is on order (2x Corsair twin 6400-C4 2GB), I will let you know if that indeed improved on the blurries.Jan

no, I don't agree.In the industry where I work, there is something like standards.All constructors need to follow them, otherwise different components can never work together.There are a set of rules for DX10, laid out by Microsoft AND the industry together (Nvidia and ATI). If ACEs followed the specifications, and it does not work, it is up to the other parties to correct this. The other way around (adapt the game to the current driver release) could mean that a future correction in the driver breaks the game.But apparently Nvidia is currently too busy to correct there drivers for Crysis (there is a lot at stake here, Crysis has to succeed as THE DX10 game. This will boost sales for both Nvidia and Vista).Hopefully the corrections will also benefit for FSX (and why not, as Crytec had to follow the same standards).Jan

You don't seem to have much idea here.The drivers released by Nvidia are certified by MS. So there is no excuse for all these problems.

Look, even Crytek has a lot of problems with the current drivers, that is why every week there is a new beta with corrections for Crysis.In my opinion, certified means only that the OS will not crash if you run those drivers in normal day to day tasks. And even then I would not bet too much on it ...One of the problems I am aware off are the kind of textures shimmering through each other. I would bet that the team behind MSFS has got that technique right after 25 years ? I have seen other games suffering from this (FEAR comes to mind) and that got also solved by a new driver from Nvidia.The other problem : performance, are probably also performance related (how would you otherwise explain that games can speed up only by installing a new driver. Examples enough around : Bioshock, Stalker and now Crysis).And for a lot of us, besides of the shimmering textures, FSX in DX10 is running fine, for me it is better then the DX9 path.Many start to begin to believe even that FSX was designed with DX10 in mind, then they got problems with the state of DX10 at the time and had to adapt the codepath to DX9. Which would explain why advanced options like bloom and water on 2.X high have such a big impact under DX9 and not under DX10.So we have a game that has had 2 times a change during it's development : from DX10 to DX9 back to DX10. Add to that the dual core CPUs appearing near the end of the development cycle, and 2 operating systems with different exigences and you get a very complex development environment.I think ACEs under those circumstances did a really very good job.Jan

Well, I don't know what's going to fix it, but it's definitely an annoyance to say the least. I'm kinda thinking instead of MS calling it 'Acceleration', maybe they should have called it 'Deceleration'. Most people have ended up with more problems than before it's debut.

> In my opinion, certified means only that the OS will not crash if you run > those drivers in normal day to day tasks:-lol> Look, even Crytek has a lot of problems with the current drivers, > that is why every week there is a new beta with corrections for Crysis.In terms of Crysis, think of Leonardo da Vinci putting the finishing touches on the Mona Lisa. Little tweaks here and there to get it just perfect. Now with the DX10 'preview' we got: menus crashing, bad blurries and stuttering, 50% worse performance, flickering textures, anti aliasing problems and broken compatibility, just to name some of the issues. And all of this for virtually no graphics improvement at all. Yeah "good job" :-lol

It's pretty sad when a thread can't even be discussed respectfully without the mods jumping in with the snide comments. From what I can tell so far in this thread only the mods have been stirring the pot with comments that are in poor taste. Perhaps a banning is in order for one of them since they seem so quick to ban some of the others on here for a lot less...All I would like to see is people talking professionally and respectfully to one another and that goes for mods and users. I figure I'll give this forum one more shot and after that I am out and am going to chalk avsim's reputation out there in the flightsim community as the truth.

If I was going to rebuild my scenery engine, correcting blurry textures might have been one of my focuses before having elephants walk.My 2 centsTimMy Specs with blurries flying a 737 not Cessna

ok, we agree to disagree.About WHQL, I stand my point. I did some googling, and it really comes to that : your hardware will work together with windows, nothing less, nothing more. There is nothing written about third party applications like games. And FSX is still separate from the OS, even if it is MS also.On my box, Crysis is running horribly slow. That is with or without DX10 enabled. In the night, far away buildings and trees and bushes have a golden aura (they light up in the dark).Little tweaks to get it just perfect ? For me it is a (granted beautifully rendered) diashow.I can say the same about FSX DX10, I let Acceleration create me a new configuration file, adapted the sliders to my preferences and voil

The op #4 post impled that Aces deceived simmers-along with misinformation to substantiate that fact.Instead of our usual scolding -we treated this one with some humor-admittedly a different tack from usual.I'd be glad to go back to just banning as we are supposed to-if that is what you would like.Also if this place is so distasteful for you I'd suggest it is the wrong place for you to be coming. Perhaps you should follow your advice.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

>It's pretty sad when a thread can't even be discussed>respectfully without the mods jumping in with the snide>comments. From what I can tell so far in this thread only the>mods have been stirring the pot with comments that are in poor>taste. Perhaps a banning is in order for one of them since>they seem so quick to ban some of the others on here for a lot>less...>>All I would like to see is people talking professionally and>respectfully to one another and that goes for mods and users.>I figure I'll give this forum one more shot and after that I>am out and am going to chalk avsim's reputation out there in>the flightsim community as the truth.Actually, you're right here. We banned humor and good times from this forum, so I shouldn't have said anything. From here on out, I'll limit my posts to telling you guys when you've broken the rules.Seriously though, the first post in this thread was meant to be incendiary and relied completely on a hypothetical. This thread could have been the same argument that has happened over and over again, and instead it was a fun and open conversation.This is good thing.

Hi Brian,and sorry, I see I just got carried away.I hereby apologize for my long technical posts today ;-)Jan

Actually the most comical thing was those guy posting blurry photos as if to validate it.