• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About lmponte

  • Rank
  1. Hello!I am thinking about buying an add-on for FSX, and I have 3 aircrafts in mind:Flight One Ultimate Airliners Super 80Flight One ATR 72-500Level-D Simulations 767I'd like to get your personal opinions on each of them. Also, if you were me, which one would you buy? Which one do you think has the best overall quality? Also, another important factor is framerates. I can't fully enjoy an add-on if it runs slowly on my system, or if it forces me to reduce sliders to get acceptable performace. Which of these is the best, comparatively?Thank you for your kind help!Luis
  2. Well, this is what happened to me when I tried out DX10 with my 8800GTS...No flickering of runway textures, no menu crashes, no nothing, stable as a rock.BUT..no performance increase either.. Something interesting I noticed, and perhaps you can help me with this: When using DX10, it seems like FSX is not doing any kind of mipmapping at all, and performance seems to suffer from that...I feel that if I can get DX10 to do some mipmapping then I could get a performance increase relative to DX9!!Does anyone have any ideia why this is happening? Other than that, everything seems ok with DX10!Thanks
  3. Hello everyoneAccording to Tom's Hardware, an 8800GTS with 320MB but a higher clock speed performs better than a regular 8800 GTS with 640MB on most games.Now, what is the expected behaviour on FSX? Do we really need 640MB of video memory? I am going to buy a new graphics card soon, and need to choose between a regular 8800 GTS with 640MB or a factory overclocked one with just 320MB. For most games, I understand the 320 choice is better unless I plan on using very high resolutions (which I don't, nothing above 1280x1024 for now). But what about FSX? any idea?Thanks
  4. OK, sounds easy enough for me. My goal is also 3.2GHz. and I have been thinking about the 120 Extreme cooler too... do you recommend it? Does it require any fan, or is it completely passive (it looks like it from the pictures)?Thanks for your help!
  5. There's one thing I am little worried about: voltages. How do I know when it should be increased? I know about increasing the FSB, and about the relation with the RAM speed (that's why I am going for good memory), but I'm not so sure about voltages, as they have no direct relationship with CPU speed... Any tips?
  6. Ok, now the tricky million dollar question: I have never overclocked a single thing in my life. I know you will tell me to read a lot of articles on the web and that's what I am doing. But is it easy enough so that a beginner like me can overclock a processor without problems? I think I've read all about it, and I think I have a pretty nice idea of how it's done, but I am fearful about unexpected surprises...Luis
  7. That's the question, which is better? I know the 6850 is probably faster on fsx and the majority of apps and games right now, but I am worried that might change in the future as applications are written to take advantage of the 4 cores (FSX SP2 maybe?).What do you think?
  8. lmponte

    Bad FSX Setting Bug - Fixed!

    Simple answer: disable WindowBlinds. At least for me, it isn't compatible with FS9 and probably FSX.
  9. While I understand it might be "annoying" for anyone who wants realism (like myself!), I can certainly understand MS, and would probably take the same route if I was in charge.You can't forget FS is a GAME, and it is marketed as such. Do you think if it was as realistic as we all hope ,it would be #1 on the sales list? It wouldn't. I am often surprised about the number of people that come to me and say they have tried Flight Simulator, many of them say they like it, and still don't know anything about what a VOR is. Actually, most of those people tell me that the sim is "VERY" complex.So, yes, although I'd like to see improved realism, I can understand that it probably won't be happening. The hardcore simmers just aren't a solid enough customer base to justify a hardcore product like that.
  10. Hi all!The fan on my Asus 9800XT died, and I am looking for a replacement. I heard the ATI Silencer 3 from Artic Cooling is good, but they note on their website that the plugs they are using are not compatible with the Asus card.I also thought about a Zalman cooler, but I haven't decided which one. I thought they could also have problems with the Asus card and sent them an email, but got no response yet.Do any of you guys have installed a replacement cooler on the ASUS 9800XT card?Thanks
  11. thank you for your help! I may end up purchasing an artic in the end...after all they are both two-slot...Thanks!
  12. Could you please provide a link for the product you are referring to?I tried googling for Zalman, and got to their page, but I only see two-slot solutions...Anyway... If it REALLY necessary to use two slots, then do you think it will be easy to install??Thanks in advance ;)
  13. Hi everyone!I have an Asus Radeon 9800XT graphics board, and it came with two very effective little fans for cooling. But recently one of those fans started doing some strange noise. I already cleaned itm and made sure the noise wasn't due to some dust on the fan.The fan seems to be working normally, but the strange noise is very distractive and unpleasant.I am looking for a replacement fan for the Asus card. I'd like it to be a 1-slot solution, like the stock one, and easy to install (as I have never replaced a fan on a graphics board or CPU).Do you guys have any idea? I already had a look at the Artic cooling fans, but it seems to me they all take up two slots.Thanks in advance!Kind regards,Lu
  14. lmponte

    MSFS, Vista and RAM

    I am going to try and be a little positive. Let's look at it this way:On my desktop pc, with 1GB of RAM, linux uses about 850 MB while IDLE! Is it inneficient? Certainly not! What is happening is that linux is keeping all the data it might and might not need on memory, reducing swap usage. According to Computer Architecture Basics, swap space should ONLY be used when main memory is filled up. This is because secondary storage is much slower than main memory.Windows has a bad habit of swapping when it still has memory available. In a perfect world, while you are running FS, you should always have 100% of your memory used. That would reduce hard drive access, and thus increase performance. Of course this is never attainable in reality, but it seems to me linux is a lot closer to perfection that Windows XP is.So, bottom line is, you can't judge Vista for using 800MB of memory when Idle. IF it is efficient managing memory (if it will be or not, that's another story...), when you launch FS, you will not have enough memory for all of it, and then it would send some data into the HD, and it would keep FS data in the main memory, allowing for the best performance of the application.Just my thought... It would be nice to see someone from MS come here and comment this.. I am certainly no Computer or Software Engineer (on my way, though... :()
  15. One thing that I didn't yet understand well is this DX9/XP and DX10/Vista thing...Can anyone from MS confirm that we will have FSX shipped with DX10 support, but some features will be disabled whn running under DX9?