stevenp

Interesting...would you think a desktop firewall would block an HTTP opening? I would figure that a desktop firewall wouldn't do things like that. You might want to try to restart your router...in case the DNS isn't resolved correctly or something like that. Or just type 67. 215.175.77 into your browser address line.

Ha. I got into flight simulator and building computers back then (I'm a EE now- so figures), and a 4.77 GHz pentium V is just naughty. A bit off topic- but digital circuitry at that speed and size is just naughty. The Core 2 multithreading redesign was a smart move, but it's still a very antiquated x86 design...not necessarily bad. One thing to note and a coworker noted this too, my computer that was built in 2010 really isn't that much slower than a computer built with parts designed with 2015 parts. My work laptop is a 2 year old lenovo T430 and is the best windows laptop I've ever used even comparing to the brand new lenovo's or dell's. The only change in my laptop was a ssd just for preventative maintenance. We are starting to reach hard computational limits. Especially with FETs that are reaching 8 or less nm in gate size. At that point, you're using more analog circuitry to control the leakage currents and DC buses than the actual circuity itself. For example, an IC designed at 1.3 um needed only one voltage regulator while an IC designed at 60 or 45 nm needs something like 12. Sorry Rant/ I've always loved planes and so fs natural to me. I plus many others felt that Microsoft FSX is a half hearted attempt from Microsoft to resell fs9 with a new UI plus a few light reflecting goodies. PMDG, is this the case? I think no. But the software is 10 years old and fs is reserved for those who are very much plane and challenge oriented. In 2006, I purchased the LDS 767 and it blew my mind that you needed to start an engine with a pneumatic procedure vs. just turning the key to an electric starter. Do we need a more modern platform, yes. Is FSX still very powerful, yes. With PMDG working on it, yes. It seems like PMDG is really the only company really working and keeping the public informed on fs. It seems like most fs producing companies are just part time workers when aren't tired form their real job do a couple lines of code. LDS I'm certain has the intention to release a 757 for FSX, but their goal for a high fledged simulation is very aggressive and their lives and work get in the way plus standards of simulation get in the way. PMDG on the other hand is one of the companies left really pushing aggressive products to the market. They are serious...A good example is they are very serious about piracy...I was involved in one such case and paypal will never be used by me again. ever. Not to say other developers care, but PMDG cares about their work and it shows with venturing into commercial realms including P3D. Now on to P3D. Is it a good evolution to FSX, yes. Problem is EULA and I won't get into that here. Do I understand where they are coming from, yes. Do I agree with what they are doing, yes. Do I wish it was different, yes. Although FSX is antiquated, we see companies coping with the limitations and going above and beyond, but I don't see development subsiding. The difference we've seen in the past is the inflation of eager developers who don't finish addons. We are now just starting to see the workhorses and the ones who really are willing and able to allocate resources to this hobby.

Didn't Boeing begin designing a 747-500 and 747-600 at some point? And wasn't one of them a trijet? That would of been cool to see.

Sorry to hear that Tom. I hope for the best for you and your family. Avsim will live on and will be a resource for all those in the future.

I don't remember anything what I did 6 years ago regarding getting it working (plus that computer is long gone) and it seems like theres a jumble in the thread. Soooo...to start off...what's your system and what are you trying to do?

All The Very Best of Luck. Do well. Thanks! It's going to be a very interesting experience.

Looks good! Keep it up. I probably have to wait to buy this one as I'm starting grad school in EE next year. So in that sense take as long time as you need to get it up to your level of standards.

Dream Theater is pretty freaking awesome. That's cool to hear.

It's very understandable that these should be modeled correctly. It's a tendency that many of us have to model absolutely correctly and fully. Considering the complexity of algorithms and implementation, take your time. As a EE , I fully understand what takes time. So take your time.

Ok so if the point in this is research, do you have any places to get accurate data? That's the first step to research since some of these things are proprietary.

Congrats!

Why not take the lds project over and bring them aboard?

Yes...but I fly small planes in real life.

Get a cpu cooler and overclock. Much cheaper and way more performance.

Ha I saw "Is 7" and I thought it first read ls7 (the engine) and I got all excited.However, don't do it unless you have to. No reason to if you are happy with vista. I wouldn't trust it and do a backup and reformat the drive, but you should be fine. Now did you build your computer? Reason I ask is do you know what drivers you need to run?

Umm keep this out of here. We don't want an argument.

fsx is a fine platform. Maybe lockheed will make it more consumer based in the future as a $500 license is ridiculous. However, I'm not surprised about flight. MS is a money making company they are going to base most of their market strategy over something that makes money for them i.e. xbox360 and microsoft live based ideals. There will be another simulator out there sooner than later so I wouldn't worry about it too much and since hardware is becoming faster it shouldn't make too much of a difference. Lets keep fsx just as a platform and let the addon companies use their own autopilots and let them tweak the fsx flight dynamics. Or we could go to xplane- go back on scenery and design the flight dynamics from the ground up. I've heard that Austin doesn't really care if you throw his system out.

Yes. The 990x is the same as the 980x...the true difference is whether it performed intel's tests better. Now sandy bridge is a newer architecture and I would go for that. It is clearly a better processor.

Get the newer generation. I have a i7-980 and I wouldn't of done it again--I just really didn't like the onboard graphics of the other ones.

Did you register?Try to re-register if you did...

I disagree with that one. The captain sim version is too buggy and the weights system sucks while the quality wings one is not detailed.

I suggest, as much as I love my macbook pro, please don't use it for fsx. These machines aren't designed for it. However, if you insist the previous post will help. I just love my macbook pro and they do not like big games like fsx.

Well did you turn down the sensitivity of the pedal brakes? Did that with mine and it worked like a charm.

Wow I haven't checked out computer hardware in a while and I just saw the clock rate for the memory on the 580! 4 Ghz! What! How do they keep the power usage down on those things. It's amazing how fast this technology moves!

Well for a flight sim company I would have someone who leads everything and does the accounting and finances and makes some executive project decisions while you have others who really work together in their own field to get a plane put together. As in system logic (may two or three for this because of the extent of the systems), model, paint and textures, and sound.