jamiee

Funny, I was just thinking that if I had to fly right-seat, I'd like to have him as my captain.(Either that, or I'd be holding on for dear life!) :(

Haha... No can't say I know the pilot.Didn't even notice until I got back home and off-loaded the images from the camera to my pc.Funny stuff...

Spent an hour or so Parked out under RWY23 approach at Pearson Int'l this afternoon.Finally got to see the A380 up close!...And yes - It's BIG.Here's a bit of what I saw:Crazy Pilots... (Look Ma.... No Hands!)

As for the Vizio TV you linked to.....Spec's wise it looks pretty good. So really it just depends on how good the image quality is overall. You'll have to see it in person to have a better idea though.Also, Samsung, Sharp, Toshiba, and Sony all make good 32" LCD TV's (worth looking into).

Hey Anthony,Your computer is quite strong and will have no problem running with a modern 1920x1080p LCD TV setup as your monitor.I have a BFG GTX280 video card and it runs FS9 easily with all the graphics options turned up full at the above resolution.FSX runs pretty well too.All I can say is.. Get the TV you want and enjoy!

Hi Anthony,Sorry I didn't see that you had replied, or I would have gotten back to you earlier.It's really up to you on if you'd rather go with a TV vs. LCD monitor.The benefit of going with a TV is obviously that it can be used as both a tv or PC monitor. They also often have more plug-ins on the back for extra components like a PS3/X-Box, dvd player, etc...As for screen resolution, 1920x1080 is higher than 1680x1050, however at the same time it will be more taxing on your videocard. I would go with 1920x1080 if you have a fairly decent computer/videocard.The other deciding factor is how large of a screen do you want to get?Most of todays LCD computer monitors run at 60Hz with response times that vary quite a bit between models.1080p (1920x1080)TV's can either run at either 60 or 120Hz and again have response times that vary between the different brands and models.Generally speaking a lower response time (under 6ms) is desirable for gaming, and either 60 or 120Hz processing is fine. (120Hz maybe being better, but also costs more).FYI: The Sharp Aquos LC-32GP3UB is quite a nice screen and is targeted towards gamers due to some extra processing modes that can be turned on for games. It is a 1920x1080 60Hz screen, so it looks to be compatible with your videocard.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg

You'll need to let us know what your budget is for a new screen.If you'd like to stay around the same screen size, you could get a 32" 1080p (1920x1080 native res.) TV. I had a Sharp Aquos 32D62U at this size and really enjoyed it for simming. I recently moved up to a slightly larger 37" 37D64U model so it would be a little more enjoyable when sitting back watching hi-def movies.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg

Hey wayupthere,Have you tried running FS9 in full screen mode?If you're running in windowed mode, then give full screen a try.I've noticed that with the last several nVidia GeForce series driver releases I don't get proper AA in FS9 unless I run it full screen.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg

Yeah I've experienced the same monitor problem. Only happened once though after setting the DX10 Preview and re-starting the sim.I have found that using DX10 can cause my second monitors wallpaper to look rather messed up after I've finished flying and closed down FSX. This wasn't an issue before Acceleration and doesn't happen when set to DX9.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg

If your into overclocking then you could always clock the Q6600 up to the E6850's speed or beyond. That being said my E6850 easily clocks to 3.6Ghz on default voltage (many do). Some Q6600's can do 3.6 but it requires some added voltage and often watercooling.Now if your not into overclocking then I'd have to think for raw performance the E6850 is the stronger option. Quad cores sound attractive and all, but their power just isn't being tapped right now in terms of mainstream consumer computing. To a point I don't even think the dual core CPU's are being utilized to their fullest extent half the time.FlightSim has always been more CPU MHz hungry and with the cheap prices (near parity) for the the Q6600 and E6850, I think you'd get better bang for your buck by getting the 3GHz E6850.FYI, the 6850 also runs at a faster FSB of 1333MHz compared to that of the Q6600 at 1066MHz.Might be helpful if you ever decide on going with a DDR3 capable system.Just my 2 cents anyway :)http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg

I've been running two BenQ FP241WZ's for a while now and they've been quite good.Alot of people seem to like the LG 24" screens as well (uses same A-MVA panel as the BenQ)The Samsung's are ok, but nothing special. The 244T is decent but has more lag in on screen mouse response compared to others, has less features and costs more than even the BenQ.The 245BW uses a TN panel if I'm not mistaking and in all honesty I'd stay away from 24" screens with TN panels. (Your just asking for some bad viewing angle issues there).There's loads of 24" panels entering the market now & they aren't all equal. Your going to really have to do your research & ultimately decide which one will best fit your needs.Cheers :)http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg

I'm running the ASUS Striker Extreme 680i without issue.As mentioned above, the old 680i issues have been solved now, so go ahead and get one :) http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg

I fully agree Bob.In most cases the X6800 is the better if not more sensible option.I'm cooling my E6700 with a Zalman CNPS9500 and it does quite a decent job of keeping things cool.Unfortunately I got a week 24 batch CPU & like most, it doesn't like to overclock all that well. Best I can get is just over 3.3Ghz stable, but I have to pump loads of voltage into it thus increasing the heat. At 3.0Ghz I can run stock voltage without issue.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg

acmech,At the end of the day, the Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 Processor at 2.93GHz, 1066FSB, LGA775, 4MB Cache is the fastest processor on the market in terms of pure performance per clock speed.The QX6700 Quad runs at the same clock speed as an E6700 but has the four cores which will give it an advantage over the X6800 in certain situations. Flight Simulator isn't one of them unfortunately - simply because it requires pure clock speed and ignores multiple cores.Now for the price, I'd consider getting a QX6700 (since it costs the same as a X6800) and overclock it. They are known to reach 3.0Ghz easily.But that's me... you on the other hand might have no desire to overclock or may have no real need for a quad core CPU. That being the case, then just grab an X6800 and enjoy :)I'm currently running my E6700 at 3.0Ghz & it runs FS2004 very well.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg

I agree... Intel is the way to go right now.While FS2004 & FSX may not take advantade of multi-core processing, they will perform better with the improved CPU architecture.I will say that I think the FSX team/Microsoft goofed a bit by advertising the C2D's along with the product.. This could have easily led anyone to believe that FSX had the ability to take advantage of SMP processing when in fact it really doesn't. Though I guess it could be argued that the C2D's are the fastest processors right now and would be the most appropriate choice to run FSX on at the moment.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg