>>yes Rich, that can have an affect on the performance with>clouds. If you are satisfied with the image quality and you do>not see tree or AG shimmer that annoys you, then the option to>use the app for AA control is OK.>>It all comes down to what works for you!>>;-) Exactly, from my experience it's always a serious trade off to decide on: clouds and overcast DON'T LIKE Supersampling AA I set in the nHancer, on the other hand the ground details, particularly runways and markings, and buildings don't give jaggies or shimmer with S/S AA @ 4S on my system under the clear skies. Otherwise too heavy performance hit under the heavy skies. And I fly mostly very resource-hungry add-on planes to resource-hungry airports. C2Etreme 6800 @3.2, 4Gb RAM, GT8800, WinXPSP2.

Well done Chris and Pete - you have made a great product even greater. These clouds are simply stunning, and help to make the FSX world feel truly real.Eagerly awaiting the next phase.

Thanks for the feedback Nick and Dirk. Indeed, I see a slight increase of jaggies and shimmer with this adjustment... so definitely a trade-off.Regards,Rich

>>>174.74 beta is still the best performer/looker on my system.>Well, :) 174.74 seems to not be the best performer with the 4096 textures on your system.And the reason I mentioned WHQL is because when I am testing I like to use WHQL's because (theoretically) this allows me to more easily rule out the video card driver as a source of a problem.If you are having a perf problem with 4096 textures in a big city environment with 174.74, perhaps you would not with the 175.xx WHQL's. Then again, perhaps it would be worse in some respects.RhettFS box: E8500 (@ 3.80 ghz), AC Freezer 7 Pro, ASUS P5E3 Premium, BFG 8800GTX 756 (nVidia 169 WHQL), 4gb DDR3 1600 Patriot Cas7 7-7-7-20 (2T), PC Power 750, WD 150gb 10000rpm Raptor, Seagate 500gb, Silverstone TJ09 case, Vista Ultimate 64ASX Client: AMD 3700+ (@ 2.6 ghz), 7800GT

The problem is not the drivers its the AA xS I run and the bufferpool settingsI already tested the driversI know what the problem is... I simply do not see enough of a reason to change settings that will in fact lower my overall visual quality and flight smoothness over large tree areas, and, introduce shimmers elsewhere in flightThe 1024xDtx5 look just fine to meThe only way the 4096 would work for me is if I design my own set that has no hard edge and displays light correctly in all views. and even then, they are not important enough to lose elsewhereSo the original theme(s) I used works just fine and looks great or as I may get time I may make my own in using the 4096 data files and install it as 1024That is my choice just like everyone else will have another opinion;)

What do you mean, "if you design your own set that has no hard edges and displays light correctly in all views"This sounds like a know it all saying I can do better.Sounds like jealousy to me.Also, pertty obvious that you don't understand how the extreme clouds work and are not up to speed by reading forums.It is only in the extreme setting where it becomes possible to have light in more extreme conditions. There are big red warnings on the GUI to warn the user as it can look wrong at these extreme settings.Man, if you want my opinion Nick you are going to cause Chris Norris and Peter Wilding to go to war with you.You seem to be on a mission to damage their product.

What do you mean, "if you design your own set that has no hard edges and displays light correctly in all views"This sounds like a know it all saying I can do better.Sounds like jealousy to me.Also, pertty obvious that you don't understand how the extreme clouds work and are not up to speed by reading forums.It is only in the extreme setting where it becomes possible to have light in more extreme conditions. There are big red warnings on the GUI to warn the user as it can look wrong at these extreme settings.Man, if you want my opinion Nick you are going to cause Chris Norris and Peter Wilding to go to war with you.You seem to be on a mission to damage their product.

What???I cant have any opinion or desire in how I wish to run my system?War?LOLI think that is a bit extreme and quite emotional. I think Peter and Chris are much more mature than to make threats to customers of their product and also support free speech. Nothing I have posted is derogatory about the product as I stated quite clearly what was being seen is by my system setup, and my reference to its use to perhaps design from the interface was based on my agreement in installing the software so I don

Wow indeed!I just installed the update and took a flight out of BC and Holy Jumping - what eye candy! I was underneath a sea of storm clouds with the most remarkable colours and textures and depth. Just wonderful. I enjoyed FEX before, but this is really the next level. Didn't notice any drop in FPS either.Much appreciation to the guys who put this together. Really Five Star! Now, I have a snowstorm in the Yukon to attend to. Good day.:-beerchug

Yes, sorry,I probably got the wrong impression of what you said.sorry again.

The power of FEX SHD!My screen http://www.volovirtuale.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4525

Amazing screen shots.

I have not seen a performance drop even with my system! :( And my system is not that great!My syestem:Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 2.4GHz2GB of DDR2 @ 600MHz8600GT 256MBCrappy Dell Mobo

Many thanks folks, for the comments and both Pete and I are glad people are enjoying the update! :-)In respect of performance, we did many months of testing accross numerous situations and on many different hardware/driver configurations. The findings was in the vast majority of cases increasing resolution and texture size had no descernable impact on framerate.Warm regards,Chris

Great work Chris and Pete, I cant wait to see what the next update brings! :-)XP Pro SP2-FSX SP2AMD FX60-8800GTS-2 Gigs RAMFEX-GEX-UTUSA-FSGenesis-and a bunch of other stuffComputer optomized by www.fs-gs.com