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?

Simple answer: disable WindowBlinds. At least for me, it isn't compatible with FS9 and probably FSX.

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

thank you for your help! I may end up purchasing an artic in the end...after all they are both two-slot...Thanks!

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 ;)

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

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... :()

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?

Hello all,Does anyone know what could be causing my FS to crash to desktop when I'm flying the Flight One Super 80? It only happens with this aircraft, and always some time into the flight, like 20, 30 mins. But it is very random.Any hints?Thanks

No problem, i understood ;)

I already did send and email to you, guys. I was just too curious to wait for the answer.. And no, it did arrive scratched, it wasn't my fault...:(