jackcnd

Thanks for the guide, but you can clear up something?What textures are you referring to? Cloud textures, water textures, airport?Example GEX replaces the existing FSX ground textures once,you dont have to load them for each flight, you just install GEX once, then run FSX and it looks better everytime.REX, I thought improves cloud, water and airport textures.Why do I have to run this REX app and load textures every time.Can't I just pick the textures I want from REX , install them ,then just use FSX normally and see the new textures chosen everytime,without running a REX app too?Woudl be great for the REX team to release the manual for potential buyers to read and understand the product better before buying.

Can someone with the package installed give an overview of how it runs each time you use FSX?I get the impression you cant just run FSX like normal you have to run REX first and then after some loading time, REX runs FSX.Someone mentioned up to 6 minutes of waiting before you can run FSX after selecting a REX profile and any pauses when playing?

:)42" would be too big for my desk, but if it works go for it.I'm just amazed how small normal 24" monitors look after using the 32" Panny,I could never go back, and 1080P , 1920x1080 is the perfect res for FSX too.

The only monitor for FSX Panasonic 32LZ800 ... just amazing and at amazing prices of late!! (Under $800!)32" of beauty, IPS panel too.

Any other hosting that could handle the downloads?Does Yousendit have a commercial service.Got to be a better way?

1) Does REX JUST modify files in the Program Files/ FSX dir or also config files in the users AppData directory?2) Do you need to uninstall FSWC before installing REX?

Any updates on the status of this?REX forums are down, FS Store has no updates, not the cleanest release ...

I use the same processor on a ASUS p35 p5k deluxe board.I run it at 400x10, for me the secret was to turn load line calibration on, despite some sites suggesting against it.With it on, I can run at 4GHz 1.3275 volts, I also found improvements by replacing my older Ballistix 2.1 volt ram with some that runs at 1.8v.The only changes I made:FSB 400Mult 10CPU 1.3275vRam 1:1 1600 1.8v at spec timingsLoad Line ONWith a 280 FSX on V32 or XP is smooth as could be.You should be able to save your settings to a cfg file in case this happens again...

Anyone notice, in full screen mode if you press ALT to bring up the menu, then later hold down alt to remove it, a line is left along the top. Its like a few pixels at the top of the menu remain.I noticed if I press alt-enter , then return to full screen that cleans up the line.This may have been an issue before these drivers too?2nd thing - IQ looks very nice, but I see more popping of textures as I fly over areas near the plane. Seems to be trying to bring in even more detail than before, but that takes away from the sim effect at times?

Try adding the bufferpools line to your fsx.cfg.NickN made the comment you can see the above if the bufferpools are not set right. Search for his comments on google or he may reply here.Could also be a video card / driver issue.

Whats the best way to install these?Control panel to remove existing drivers, then install, or just install over the existing?Do you have to reinstall or setup nHancer again?

>>If you wish to see the difference I suggest you vist the GEX>forums. Look for a thread named: A Europe Sneak Peek... and>check out the last 2 pages of that thread>Thanks, looks like another winner!MS needs you leading their team for FS11.

Just a follow up, it was GEX making the difference!Had FSX XP use the GEX textures and the blurred ground textures were gone.GEX makes ground textures in the distance have more contrast and look sharper.Add to that NickN's excellent XP FSX optimize / defrag / install suggestions and my FSX XP install looks and runs like never before. It does take a number of hours to work the steps, add more time for bigger HD defrags, just when you think you have defragged for the last time Nick will ask you to do it again, but it's worth it.

Phil Taylor mentioned using 4M - 10M for a bufferpools value, unless your video memory was over 512MB. With the GTX280 I'd guess you would double those values?Then I found Nicks post saying he runs 70M-100M?NickN - "FSX will only use 512MB of memory.. the rest goes to other things like bufferpools and the 2nd monitor however you do need to make sure to not go too high with that setting because you can start to see graphic 'spikes' like a video card memory is overclocked too much. I run 70000000 to 100000000 because I have a 768MB video card and can do that."Phils comments:http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007...-week-or-2.aspx"So be careful here, making this smaller can hurt you, since searching for space takes time and can cause stutters, and making the number too large can waste space. 4-10m is probably the range to be thinking about using unless you have a very high memory graphics card ( >512 )"

Here's the full 1920x1080 tail view from eachVistahttp://www.pbase.com/image/106157651/originalXPhttp://www.pbase.com/image/106157652/originalThe darker water and textures in my GEX Vista install are seen,XP without GEX has more autogen.

Links to benchmark results and screenshots at the end...Here's the details:I have my main FSX install with addons on Vista 32.It has UT, GEX, and the water config add on, extra planes, etc.Same machine dual boots XP from a separate OS disc, with just a minimal install, but NO GEX or no UT.Both are using the Acceleration pack.Same PC, same hardware, but the Vista FSX directory is on separate dedicated vRaptor 150. The XP install is with the OS, on a fully name defragged HD, per Nicks great XP install/defrag tips.Both run nice and smooth.Biggest difference I noticed is with the XP install the ground textures just look more blurry in the distance. Could that be due to my XP FSX not having GEX alone?Benchmarked both. Here's the results of my direct compares.Used the FSXMark 07 flight, but left my current preferred settings.Vista Loaded UT, GEX, etc 28fpsXP minimal install No GEX 25fpsYou can see the results below, and 2 images, cropped from full screen to directly compare the ground textures. To my eyes the Vista install looks much better, XP just has a blurred look to the distance textures. Open both screenshots in separate tabs and switch back to see the diffs.Is it just GEX accounting for the better framerate and sharper more defined textures?Framerate Graph (both had a target of 30 in FSX)http://www.pbase.com/image/106154806/originalVista 800x600 crop from 1920x1080 screenhttp://www.pbase.com/image/106154808/originalXP 800x600 crop from 1920x1080 screenhttp://www.pbase.com/image/106154807/original

>Hello, I am thinking of getting a new computer. What options>or accessories should I get to maximize the frame rates? I>want to fly out of o'hare and other major cities without the>screen pausing after every 3-4 frames. Any advice would be>greatly appreciated.>>Thanks,>aal763I lock at 30fps just about everywhere, yet in big cities near the airports it will often drop in the mid teens.It runs smooth as silk most of the time, I have a quad at 4Ghz, GTX280, a few tweaks in the fsx.cfg file on Vista 32.I love it, but if I wanted I could find a number of places where the frame rate could be better thats just FSX, follow NickN suggestions for best performance, you dont need all of them but none of them hurt :)

Surprised no one has reported on a new i7 for FSX setup yet?Yet with the ram and MB prices, I can understand why.Prices are just crazy high here in Canada for a i7 setup.

Thanks Nick...Assuming many have the CPU maxed 3.6-4Ghz and are running FSX and the OS on a newer high density SATA HD.Would moving FSX to a low cost dedicated SSD as mentioned above be a better solution for load times and random access scenery in game loading?How about the single SSD vs a single 150GB vRaptor or 300GB vRaptor?The single 32GB SSD costs $125US, vs $179 150GB vRaptor.

Found this interesting post on a user who installed FSX on a SSD and compared the load times to a dedicated raptor.Here's the key facts:On the WD Raptor 74GB (Dedicated HDD to FSX, no OS nor swap file on it):Loading FSX Time: 50secLoading the complex presaved scenery: 2min 24secOn the 32GB Masterdrive OX SSD:Loading FSX Time: 19 secLoading the same complex scenery: 48 secRead it all here: http://l45.sytes.net/?p=613#more-613Wow!, looks a dedicated SSD can do much more for FSX than a new CPU !The drive is only $125 on NewEgg too, it has slow write speeds but for FSX reading looks interesting?Maybe the Intel X25-M would be even faster?

Can you see the frame rates in his screen shots...One looks like 16.5 the other looks like 7.5 ?

Cleanest/ Easiest way to boot from different drives is to use the boot drive selector in your bios.On mine, I just press f8 during boot, and then select the boot drive.With other MBs you may have to press delete then go into the bios settings and change the boot drive.That way you don't have to mess around with partitions and boot records.When installing a OS on a driveI disconnect all other drives. That way I'm sure it wont write boot records to different drives.

In theory, a lower mult / higher FSB should be the best, but in actual FSX use it makes little to no difference.Stick with 8x400, with the memory at 1:1 if possible too.

>I predict a minimum 25-35% gain in a properly configued and>video card matched FSX system clock-for-clock between a>unclocked Extreme series i7 against a unclocked QX9770 Hope your right but look at Tom's numbers for Crysis.Really no difference at all with a single GTX,between the old and new CPU.http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i...ing,2061-7.html

Crysis seems similar to FSX when using a single GPU,it's very hard to get good frames rates with eye candy on.Toms Hardware is reporting,the new top of the line chip only equals the current best Core 2 chip,when a single GTX280 is used.http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i...ing,2061-7.htmlSeems FS 11 needs a complete rewrite for multi CPU/GPU setups .Does not look like we will ever see hardwarethat can run FSX like we hoped would happen by now.Will MS commit the time and money to FS 11?Is the PC gaming market is just getting too small compared to consoles?