fvapres

Just remember that the very worst only happens to the very best. I wish you the best final days anyone can have and enjoy as much time with your family as you can. I may not ever meet you in person, but I hope that one day we will meet in heaven. Thank you for keeping this hobby alive as without your dedication, perseverance and the team that you have around you here at AVSIM, this market would not be what it is today. Humanity will lose a grand person, but god will have gained a great soul and heaven will be a better place when you arrive. And remember, ANGELS DONT NEED FLIGHT SIMULATOR - they already have wings.

the first pictures look like the cloud planes are aligned with the viewport from the forward view, but should be rotated so that they face the camera if it is rotated. Most of them do rotate, but the few that don't stand out. That last picture is nearly the same, but instead of external view, the VC view is rotated and yet the cloud plane seems like it is correctly aligned for a forward view, but since we're not looking forward, we see the odd angled plane. The weather engines only locate the sprites or tell the sim to place X weather at XXXX station or X,X lat/lon. FS/P3D is in charge of creating the sprites, loading the textures onto the sprites and aligning them with the viewport properly. IIRC, I think I read that LM were trying to eliminate the spinning cloud tiles as they passed nearer the edge of the viewscreen, they'd spin to face the center of the camera location. By looking into one, they may end up fixing both as they're somewhat the same issue with sprite rotation versus camera viewport rotation.

Another thing to beware of with motherboards is that many of them only have 1 x16 support unless they have multiple video chipsets. When using multiple cards, sometimes, you'll get x8x8 or x4x4x1 or some variation like that due to the chipset being used. In your case, x16/x8/x16 for 3way SLI and x16/x8/x8/x8 for 4way SLI. One of the cards will not being putting out it's fullest due to the pipeline being limited. But 2way SLI will allow x16 for both cards, so 2way SLI is more cost effective for most people. That being said, holy crapola those SSDs and cards just made my heart sink when I think about my 128gb SSD for my OS, my 256gb SSD for FS and a few other main games I run and a 2TB main program drive (for games that I don't use much or programs that the SSD won't help) and my ASUS GTX 670 DirectCU2 Top...

Thats it. Thats my uploaded fixer. I originally uploaded a version that messed up the aircraft.cfg, but found the problem after about 40 ppl downloaded that version. I fixed and uploaded the fixed version you see in the library. Anyone who got the original bad version that messes up the aircraft.cfg, delete the aircraft.cfg and rename the aircraft.cfg.orig to aircraft.cfg to revert back to your original aircraft.cfg, then use the updated fixer to fix the aircraft.cfg.

Aircraft in FSX versus aircraft in P3D are nearly identical in performance, especially for those that use an external sim to supplement the failures of the ESP flight modeling engine, (which both use, but LM have modified it for the better, the only part I know of so far is the ground friction/braking, but I'd assume some more tweaks). If you use the default aircraft in your flying, it's actually more whimsical that you're saying FSX is better than P3D when, in most cases they're identical. Crashes to crashes, more people report issues with FSX than P3D as P3D with its advanced graphic features that offload data from the CPU to GPU make memory issues far fewer. If you have issues with P3D crashing, it's probably due to you having mucked with it to the point that it is unstable (as can happen to FSX and did before we figured out what worked and didn't). And FSX versus P3D being educational, only so far as the officially motivated addons, which is becoming a smaller gap, such as cases like A2A. Lol, when I was training, I rented a 152 for $65/hr with $20 for the instructor. When I was 14, I hit my growth spurt and was quickly cramped in front of the yoke and upgraded to the 172 at $95/hr. When I was getting my Commercial Multi Instrument, I was paying $150/hr wet for the PA-34 Seneca and $40/hr. Those are the reasons I couldn't continue with my flying. 400 hours more and I'd be able to fly Commercial PIC, but I mostly needed multi time and $200/hr I coulnd't afford. God bless and keep the blue side up more than the brown (not always, just more :-) )

My overclocking is actually due to P3D being a recent (<6 months) investment and still using the same configuration. I could probably go back to 3.8-4gHz and not notice the difference in P3D, but FSX needs all the CPU it can get, so I give it the beans. I still use FSX in the fact that I am writing a suite of software that I may intend to distribute. I'd like to keep it FSX compatible, so I have to use my FS PC to test it against. I have to run my both FSX and P3D, so I keep the Overclock settings.

My main computer has the following specs: CPU: Intel i5 3550k @ 4.5gHz HDD: OCZ Vertex 250GB SSD RAM: 16GB G.Skill 1833mHz 9-9-9-24 Vid: ASUS GTX 670 DirectCU II Overclocked I run barely any 3rd party scenery, but have updated AFCADs for the airports I fly to. REX, ASN, Ground Services X, Utltimate Traffic 2 and a modified Default B737-800 are pretty much all I have in the way of addons. I hate taking off at a photo-real airport that its good, getting over the edge of the photo-real section and it just looks BAD sometimes. Or you take off from a so/so airport only to land at an airport from FSDreamTeam or Aerosoft or any other big brand where it's like you're there. Worse is taking off from a splendid airport only to arrive at a barely more than default. I'd rather have a more level environment all around, even if that means using barely more than stock airports. AFCADs and default scenery library objects help keep the environment level for me. That said, between FSX, I get roughly 20-40 FPS in KATL with UT2 at 60%/40% and FS traffic at 10%Airlines/10%GA. The exact same airport in P3D v2.3, same AFCAD and weather, I will get 30-60 FPS, but many more things like cloud shadowing, a slightly more ambient color palette and a much more smooth performance. FSX seems to have an issue where every 2-5 seconds, there is just a SLIGHT pause, but in P3D it's completely smooth sailing. The water coloring is much more realistic than the bright blue or even dim blue oceans (XPlane has always been my favorite in this department, but only so far as the water coloring, the rest is average with FSX, differences balancing out). I love FSX and how various tweaks such as Bojote's tweak site can help out (a fresh install of FSX, this is an absolute must step), but P3D is just a more smooth, higher-performance sim. Recently, I've been mucking about with the default 737-800 in both sims and something I've come to find out is that in P3D, it requires about 20% thrust to rolling with about 8-10% to keep moving, but in FSX, its more like 10% and keep it at idle and you're screaming like a bat out of hell if you don't mind your speed. P3D has some other refinements that I keep discovering that just give me that much more of a good experience. Couple that with the graphical enhancements like higher-resolution texture capability built-in, the newer DX11 capabilities such as tesselation and offloading much of what was on the CPU off to the GPU where it belongs and P3D is just my choice hands down. Addons will look great in either sim. What gets me is what does the base sim provide versus the other base sim? If the foundation is stronger, the building you can lay on top can be more extravagant.

That explains it...I've been doing lots of XML-based work for my simpit software....

Well, I just found a slight error in my program...it turns out most programs I write, text files are best used in UTF8 format, but Flight Sim likes its Aircraft.Cfg files only in ASCII format, so when the tool writes the new aircraft.cfg, FS wont load it. There was also a slight issue with comments and their equal signs when I parsed the cfg files. It has been corrected and a new version is being uploaded.

Well, I just spent the last 8 hours instead of sleeping, making a small program that will install the files easy-peasy, making backups and all. The file is uploaded, so all that is needed is approval by the moderators and you can have at em.

Actually, after some trial and error, I kind of DID fix the 737 taxi light. If you look at 55A05C thru 55A074, you'll find a line that reads ASCII VISS....LIGHT LANDING#bool.VISCL HEX 00 56 49 53 53 13 00 00 00 4C 49 47 48 54 20 4C 41 4E 44 49 4E 47 23 62 6F 6F 6C 00 56 49 53 43 4C if you change it to ASCII VISS....LIGHT TAXI#bool....VISCL HEX 00 56 49 53 53 13 00 00 00 4C 49 47 48 54 20 54 41 58 49 23 62 6F 6F 6C 00 00 00 00 56 49 53 43 4C it will work fine, you just have to maintain the position in the file of the VISCL by padding the space between the bool with extra 00 characters in the hex code (there was already one there)... Now, if you load up the 737 at night and flick on the taxi light, you'll get the nosewheel light illuminating the ground only. Turn on the landing lights and you'll get the inboard lights too, but independent of the nosewheel light. Another issue that has always annoyed me was the landing lights being reversed what they should be (up when on, down when off instead of down when on and up when off). If you go into the 737-800 panel folder, you'll find a B737_800.cab file. Extract it to the panel folder so you have "FSX/SimObjects/Airplanes/B737_800/panel/B737_800/" and inside that folder you'll have a bunch of .XML and graphic files. Find the "Overhead_Popup.xml" and open with notepad. Search for "landing" and the first entry will be the start of 4 you'll want to look at. <Element id="Left Landing Lights - Retract"> <FloatPosition>29.000,444.000</FloatPosition> <Select id="Select"> <Expression id="Expression"> <Minimum>0.000</Minimum> <Maximum>1.000</Maximum> <Script>(L:Left Landing Lights Retract,bool)</Script> </Expression> <Case id="Case"> <ExpressionResult>0.000</ExpressionResult> <Image id="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_left_outboard_on.bmp" Name="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_left_outboard_on.bmp"> <Transparent>True</Transparent> </Image> </Case> <Case id="Case"> <ExpressionResult>1.000</ExpressionResult> <Image id="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_left_outboard_retract.bmp" Name="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_left_outboard_retract.bmp"> <Transparent>True</Transparent> </Image> </Case> </Select> </Element> <Element id="Right Landing Lights - Retract"> <FloatPosition>64.000,444.000</FloatPosition> <Select id="Select"> <Expression id="Expression"> <Minimum>0.000</Minimum> <Maximum>1.000</Maximum> <Script>(L:Right Landing Lights Retract,bool)</Script> </Expression> <Case id="Case"> <ExpressionResult>0.000</ExpressionResult> <Image id="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_right_outboard_on.bmp" Name="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_right_outboard_on.bmp"> <Transparent>True</Transparent> </Image> </Case> <Case id="Case"> <ExpressionResult>1.000</ExpressionResult> <Image id="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_right_outboard_retrct.bmp" Name="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_right_outboard_retrct.bmp"> <Transparent>True</Transparent> </Image> </Case> </Select> </Element> <Element id="Left Landing Lights"> <FloatPosition>94.000,431.000</FloatPosition> <Select id="Select"> <Expression id="Expression"> <Minimum>0.000</Minimum> <Maximum>1.000</Maximum> <Script>(A:Light landing:1,bool)</Script> </Expression> <Case id="Case"> <ExpressionResult>0.000</ExpressionResult> <Image id="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_left_inboard_on.bmp" Name="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_left_inboard_on.bmp"> <Transparent>True</Transparent> </Image> </Case> <Case id="Case"> <ExpressionResult>1.000</ExpressionResult> <Image id="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_left_inboard_off.bmp" Name="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_left_inboard_off.bmp"> <Transparent>True</Transparent> </Image> </Case> </Select> </Element> <Element id="Right Landing Lights"> <FloatPosition>124.000,444.000</FloatPosition> <Select id="Select"> <Expression id="Expression"> <Minimum>0.000</Minimum> <Maximum>1.000</Maximum> <Script>(A:Light landing:2,bool)</Script> </Expression> <Case id="Case"> <ExpressionResult>0.000</ExpressionResult> <Image id="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_right_inboard_on.bmp" Name="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_right_inboard_on.bmp"> <Transparent>True</Transparent> </Image> </Case> <Case id="Case"> <ExpressionResult>1.000</ExpressionResult> <Image id="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_right_inboard_off.bmp" Name="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_right_inboard_off.bmp"> <Transparent>True</Transparent> </Image> </Case> </Select> </Element> Notice how with the retractable lights, if the landing lights boolean = 0 (off), use the ON image and landing lights = 1, use the retracted image. And the landing lights shows if the landing lights = 0, use the ON image and landing lights = 1, use the off image. Well, that fix is easy enough, just swap the Image elements so it looks like this: <Element id="Left Landing Lights - Retract"> <FloatPosition>29.000,444.000</FloatPosition> <Select id="Select"> <Expression id="Expression"> <Minimum>0.000</Minimum> <Maximum>1.000</Maximum> <Script>(L:Left Landing Lights Retract,bool)</Script> </Expression> <Case id="Case"> <ExpressionResult>0.000</ExpressionResult> <Image id="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_left_outboard_retract.bmp" Name="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_left_outboard_retract.bmp"> <Transparent>True</Transparent> </Image> </Case> <Case id="Case"> <ExpressionResult>1.000</ExpressionResult> <Image id="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_left_outboard_on.bmp" Name="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_left_outboard_on.bmp"> <Transparent>True</Transparent> </Image> </Case> </Select> </Element> <Element id="Right Landing Lights - Retract"> <FloatPosition>64.000,444.000</FloatPosition> <Select id="Select"> <Expression id="Expression"> <Minimum>0.000</Minimum> <Maximum>1.000</Maximum> <Script>(L:Right Landing Lights Retract,bool)</Script> </Expression> <Case id="Case"> <ExpressionResult>0.000</ExpressionResult> <Image id="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_right_outboard_retrct.bmp" Name="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_right_outboard_retrct.bmp"> <Transparent>True</Transparent> </Image> </Case> <Case id="Case"> <ExpressionResult>1.000</ExpressionResult> <Image id="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_right_outboard_on.bmp" Name="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_right_outboard_on.bmp"> <Transparent>True</Transparent> </Image> </Case> </Select> </Element> <Element id="Left Landing Lights"> <FloatPosition>94.000,431.000</FloatPosition> <Select id="Select"> <Expression id="Expression"> <Minimum>0.000</Minimum> <Maximum>1.000</Maximum> <Script>(A:Light landing:1,bool)</Script> </Expression> <Case id="Case"> <ExpressionResult>0.000</ExpressionResult> <Image id="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_left_inboard_off.bmp" Name="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_left_inboard_off.bmp"> <Transparent>True</Transparent> </Image> </Case> <Case id="Case"> <ExpressionResult>1.000</ExpressionResult> <Image id="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_left_inboard_on.bmp" Name="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_left_inboard_on.bmp"> <Transparent>True</Transparent> </Image> </Case> </Select> </Element> <Element id="Right Landing Lights"> <FloatPosition>124.000,444.000</FloatPosition> <Select id="Select"> <Expression id="Expression"> <Minimum>0.000</Minimum> <Maximum>1.000</Maximum> <Script>(A:Light landing:2,bool)</Script> </Expression> <Case id="Case"> <ExpressionResult>0.000</ExpressionResult> <Image id="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_right_inboard_off.bmp" Name="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_right_inboard_off.bmp"> <Transparent>True</Transparent> </Image> </Case> <Case id="Case"> <ExpressionResult>1.000</ExpressionResult> <Image id="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_right_inboard_on.bmp" Name="overhead_popup_switch_landing_lights_right_inboard_on.bmp"> <Transparent>True</Transparent> </Image> </Case> </Select> </Element> I would love to upload the modified files for others to download, but as they are originally not made, only modifed by me, I am unsure that AVSIM would allow these files here.

The latest nVidia driver has been giving me issues in Battlefield 3 where the textures get completely screwed up and sometimes even 3d geometry, but the most annoying thing is this stuttering even with 120+ fps. This may be partly responsible for the shaking of the ground/flight model as the graphics engine is out of sync slightly with the video driver. The only fix was to roll back to driver 306.97 and I have fluid frames again. Unfortunately, nobody with a 7xx series card can do this as their device is only recognized with the 320 series drivers.

XP is essentially an ever-evolving product. It may or may not be still in beta, but it is far from a finished product. The only problem is that nobody, including LR know when productions will cease on a particular feature and not be revisited util XP11. Once Austin feels an item is checked, there is little any of us can do to sway him unless we all come to a consensus and chew his ear off. When you buy XP10, you can download a nearly fully working demo and test it for yourself. It doesn't have the scenery that the full version will include, but the aircraft and program are the same as in the full version, so nothing will change as far as how the program works. If you like what you see, buy it. If you are missing something that is a deal-breaker, don't. I am missing ATC and AI traffic in XP, but the recent AI traffic addon has closed that gap pretty well. Now for an ATC module to go with it. My biggest issue is that I don't know until I hear that XP10 is final what will or will not be continued in development and fleshed out. That is what is referred to as a continual beta lifecycle.

If you've ever been divorced and had a fall out with the ex, that is what seems Five's and jcomm's views. My roommate got divorced with a bad fallout, but 2 months later after he moved out on his own (the room he had with me reminded him of that bad few years), he was in a bad way financially and didn't have money to put food in the pantry and was lonely. She (the evil conniving you know what) wanted to mess with him, so she got in touch and said all the right things, wore the right clothes, she bought food with her food stamps for him and gave it up. He felt like crap for giving in afterward. Seems like some in the XP community have the feeling with FSX. Five hates that she got suckered back into that relationship again with such a lucrative token. If they allowed the return, then that is the decision only they can make. If they stand behind their words and allow the refund, that just puts another feather in their hat as far as delivering great customer service that is key to companies in this market we peruse. Hell, look at Wal-Mart after super bowl sunday. Lots of people buy a big screen TV before the game, watch it during the game and return it saying something is wrong with it. Wal-mart takes lots of crap that people buy knowing they'll just return it. At least Five didn't buy with the intent of seeing how good it was knowing that she would then return it.

Five, not arguing, just saying that some people out there may be CPU bound and upgrading a graphics card may not be much if any of an improvement. If you have an awesome CPU overclocked to 5.0gHz and a 9800GTX from 12 years ago, it may have been a good card, but an upgrade could yield some results. Someone with a 560/570/580 or 7970/7980/7990 and a 2.4gHz quad-core processor probably won't see much of an upgrade as their CPU is what is really killing them. Upgrade both and you'll probably be good, but that's 90% the guts of a computer anyway. Barring any vendor-specific issues from ATI, changing from new or recent hardware should yield limited results.

I have an ASUS GTX 670 Direct CU II 2GB GDDR5 VRAM (custom fan and heatsink) that is pretty good. It has a slight overclock on it from factory, but it is pretty solid. I can play most games at 100% settings 1080p single display and get 50-100fps depending on the game. I wouldn't get a 660 for any reason over the 670, but a 680 with the 4GB option would be a good idea for a sim, but is way more cost (nearly double). The new 760/770/780 coming out look very interesting. Anyone looking for a new card should definately wait until the dust settles to see how much better these cards are, but just remember that XP and FS are not usually GPU bound as much as CPU bound.

At least the trees appear to be in the right places :-p

The breakdown of features between i3/i5/i7 is pretty simple. Basically, you take a base processor and call it the i3. Then you give it the ability to self overclock (3.3gHz to 3.8gHz) and call it an i5. Then you add hyperthreading and call it an i7. So basically, an i5 is an i7 with the only exception being the ability for hyperthreading. There are a few differences between an i3 and i5 that make the i5 more stable for overclocking for gaming, but sometimes the i7s are vastly more expensive than the i5s, so I went with an i5 quad-core. The first version i3/i5/i7 was slightly different where the i3 was dual-core, i5 was dual-core with overclock and i7 was quad-core with overclock and hyperthreading. Now its a bit more simple, but there are also 6-core i7s out there, but the expense can be put into a better video card or new yoke/joystick/peripheral. The setup you described above looks pretty good. I have a 128GB SSD for my OS, 256GB for Battlefield 3, Star Wars The Old Republic, FSX and XP10 all installed. I also have XP10 installed on a 2TB 7200RPM HDD. The boot time and loading time in XP is VASTLY better (4-5 min for loading on HDD versus 45sec-1min SSD) and in FSX, no blurry textures at all as they are ready for use. Take a look at the buffer size and read times. Those will show you the better SSDs. Also, make sure it's SATA6 capable as the motherboard you picked out is SATA6 and the bandwidth provided is substantially higher than a SATA3 connection. nVidia vs ATI, I have the GTX 670 DirectCU II from ASUS. The one thing I love about it is the non-reference coolers. I hate how most of the cards out there utilize that tiny fan to suck in cool air to put along the hottest parts of the card. With the abuse that we can put them through, I want as much cooling as I can get. It's a 2GB card, but couldn't afford the extra $200 for a 4GB 680. Now with the 700 series cards coming out, I'm interested to see what kind of specs they'll have versus the 670/680. Base models may be 2-4GB GDDR5 with higher-end ones being 4-6 based on how the previous generations of cards have gone. That would be the last component I would select and select carefully.

Check out this item at NewEgg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157288 Basically, look at the specs where it says 16/8/16/0 or 16/8/8/8.. This means that all in all, the memory bandwidth for all cards is 40x (16 + 8 + 8 + 8 = 16 + 16 + 8 = 32 + 8 = 40). This means that if you have 3 PCIx16 cards (for anything mind you, not just video, but other devices may one day use the 16x bus for processing data and offloading from the CPU for task-specific functions), you can run two (first and third slots) at 16x, the second at 8x and the fourth will have nothing available. Putting in a card to the 4th slot will cause the 3rd slot to downscale from 16x to 8x (splitting the bandwidth). This other board is for the 1155 series intel CPU, but the same idea applies: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157330 This one has 2 PCIx16 slots, but only one can be used if you're going to run either at full capability. Putting anything in the second slot will yield a limit to performance. If you were wanting to run an SLI system (which is pretty much obsolete except for multi-monitor outputs beyond what one card can pump out) and allow both cards the same full 16x bandwidth, the second board wouldn't allow it. This was the case with a system I built before this one and had selected a board just because it had a nVidia NF200 NorthBridge instead of using the i3/i5/i7 integrated video NorthBridge and all the intel NorthBridges were 16/8/1 or something like that and the NF200 was 16x/16x/1x or 16x/8x/8x depending on what you needed. Note that for an SLI config, all 3 cards will balance with the bandwidth supplied to the lowest card, so if one is getting 1x, all 3 will get 1x. 8x effectively cuts the bandwidth from CPU buffer to the GPU memory buffer in half and 16x is full steam ahead, but getting enough 16x slots on your board may be a bit tough to find the right combination depending on how many monitors and cards you want in the tower.

Just make sure the motherboard you choose can handle that bandwidth from the PCIx16. There are a few cheepos out there that have a PCIx16 slot, but the chip (usually a via or other separable chip) that controls the video side of the board is underwhelming. To be sure, a board with no on-board video capabilities should do it. Sometimes, because the Intel chips come with video capabilities built-in and the board utilizes it, you have to share memory bandwidth between the two, even if you disable the onboard video in BIOS or windows, it still has an effect on what bandwidth is available to your card. ASUS, Gigabyte and any other high-end board manufacturers should be safe. The key is DO YOUR RESEARCH on all the parts. A kick-&amp;@(&#036;* CPU/Video Card can be hamstrung easily by a mobo that can't cut the mustard all around. It sounds like price is not the overall deciding factor for your purchases, so don't go overboard, but don't go inexpensive either.

Rendering of all the final pieces that are loaded into memory can only be done on one thread. Other threads can be used to load data into memory and for AI cars, boats, planes and clouds, but drawing all of that has to be done in the main thread. That is the limitation of any graphics engine due to program achitecture. XP can use other cores and threads for the peripheral experience and run your gauges or ATC or anything else on any other core for the system, but it is similar to FSX limits in that the performance of the system is still bogged down the the maximum limits of a single core. The best single-core performance with limited additional cores for peripheral threads is a win/win. Overclocking isn't necessary for performance completely, I notice almost no improvement in FPS when I go from 4.5 to 5.0gHz with my clocks, but there is more stability in going from 3.8 to 4.5. There are fewer things that happen with the processing bandwidth afforded by my system at 4.5gHz. GPUs are relatively the same on the outside, but the inside is vastly different from one company to another. Check your clocks on the card. A 2GB card isn't just a 2GB card. It has a RAM clock and a GPU clock. When one clock has 900mHz clock and another has a 1200mHz clock, there will be significantly more capability in processing power of the 1200mHz clock as it is working 130% of the 900mHz card at full load. The RAM clock tells of how big the pipeline to the memory in and out (kinda like a superhighway, is it 4 lanes both directions or 8 lanes - obviously at rushour, the 8 lane highway can move more traffic in the same amount of time). The GPU clock tells you how fast the actual GPU can calculate the mesh and textures and create the world you see. You may also see a Fill Rate or Gigaflops per second if you research the card. These are good indicators of how the card can perform, but not a great indicator for how the card will do with gaming, just benchmarking. Some cards do great at the benchmarks, but miserably at the gaming table, kinda like some people can pass any written test in the world, but applying that knowledge to a real-world scenario is lost on them. The last bit of advice is that 6-12 months a new line of cards comes out. Usually, the beginning of the year is the most exciting. Don't rush and buy anything til the gaming market has put up some results. They can speculate all they want, but once you drop cold cash down on something that should perform great, but doesn't you'll feel cheated. I tracked and debated for 4 months before choosing my current setup and am very happy with the cost to performance ratio. My wife didn't kill me, I have more money to spend on addons, bills and golf and yet still have an amazing system that doesn't seem to be held back by any game. Simulators, on the other hand, will never be 100% as they're trying to render the whole world instead of a small sandbox that is artfully crafted for looks AND performance at every angle. Simulators don't have that luxury of everything being fine-tuned.

It IS a laptop and there may be intel onboard video. Make sure that your preferred Graphics Processor is set for the High-performance NVIDIA processor and that the Power Management mode is not on adaptive. Also, try using CPU-Z to determine you actual processor output and usage while XP10 is in use. It may be that your CPU is being held back due to some laptop power saving scheme or your max CPU usage is locked at 60-80% bottlenecking XP (a 3.6gHz processor would act like a 2.7gHz @ 80%).

Maybe your aircraft is too close to the tarmac and considered on the active surface area and making the approaching aircraft execute a missed approach. Maybe it's just lousy ATC coding of a pre-mature under-developed feature (one I laugh everytime I read that Austin feels it's "good enough").

They (Lockheed Martin) might be using it or a corporate or government agency using P3D may be using it for their purposes and LM released it so that anyone also using the tool might gain from it. Don't forget, small people and companies that have aged tools aren't necessarily the aim of LM with P3D. They may release tools that benefit the SDK for things they have on hand which may be way out of our pay grade and ability to get so easily. What they see as a minor investment may be the difference between dropping someone off the payroll to afford the licenses for a small business. Not saying we're completely out of the loop, but a tool like 3dSMax 2012 might be a requirement to LM, but we out in the small world may barely afford the old licences we had with older versions, but the export tools or scripts may not work in such an old tool and LM would say that is the cost of advancing technology.

While working on the Fog, maybe they could fix the cloud/horizon issues where the clouds don't quite get generated down to the horizon (visibility should only be 50-60nm max below 10000' with max visibility increasing as you go higher and have less atmosphere to restrict your view.