lmponte

This might be a long shot, but... Are you, by any chance, running two monitors in a fullscreen setup? SweetFX doesn't seem to like that on my machine. It seems to apply the effect only on my second monitor, which is used for auxiliary purposes (ATC and such), while leaving the main monitor without post-processing.

Hello everyone, I just started using X-Plane a couple of days ago and I noticed something that does not seem quite right. The timezones seem to be off in some places. For example, in my home airport, LPPR, in Portugal, X-Plane is using GMT-1, when the correct timezone is GMT+1. This is a 2h difference... is there any way this can be fixed? Thank you

Forgive for not reading 16 pages of posts here, but... Isn't it possible that some areas of the World are simply optional? As such, the minimum install might cover only Hawaii (or any other area) and additional areas might be installed according to what the user selects. Honestly, if I don't ever fly in Asia, why do I care having detailed scenery installed for that continent, taking up many GB of disk space? I say it could be a nice option.On a side note, I agree we might be taking this too far... All we know is that we have only seen shots from Hawaii, everything else is a long shot!

Well, as you said in your post, you probably need to upgrade your computer. Keep in mind that FS in mostly CPU-bound, so a CPU upgrade is your best bet. But it won't do much if your graphics card and RAM can't handle all the data your CPU puts through them, it all depends on your current system.I would suggest you pay a visit to the hardware forum and ask your questions there. Don't forget to post your current system specs!

Ok everyone. Thanks for the help! I have fired up FSX again, having deleted fsx.cfg. Now, using the settings I described, I can get about 30 fps on VC, looking straight ahead, sitting on gate 302 in EGLL. Much better! Don't know what was causing it, but I was having half the frames I should!Now I bumped up my settings and I managed to get 20 fps with traffic!Thanks everyone, you've been very helpful :)

It would be great if you could do that, it would help me get a nice comparison and find out if there's anything wrong here :)

Hi all,First of all let me give you an overview of my system:Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 @ 3.0 GHz4 GB DDR2 800 RAMGeForce 8800GTS 640 MBWell, with this system, I am getting about 12-14 fps on the VC of the PMDG MD-11 while parked at a gate in London Heathrow. Please consider that I am using the following settings:1280x1024x32 resolution4x AA, 8x AFScenery Complexity - DenseAutogen - SparseWater High 1.xNo Traffic (air, road or sea)Aircraft cast shadows on itself - offAircraft cast shadows on ground - offGround scenery shadows - offNo weatherWith everyone saying the MD-11 is not heavy on the frames, I find it a little strange that I can't seem to get over 15 fps in EGLL. I tried no autogen, and as I stated above, no traffic. In those conditions, I get about 60 fps in spot view! But only 15 in VC... is this normal or is there anything wrong?Take care and thanks for the help!(BTW, off-topic, I couldn't post here without a word about the current news about the ACES closure... very sad indeed, let's hope someone else steps up and picks up FS! My feelings are with those who lost their jobs at MS)

Hi there,It is a known issue. Some users have reported that the "no eye-candy" version does not have this problem. It worked for me ;)Luis

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

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

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

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!

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?

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

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?