Ivan Kovacevic

FWIW: I'm getting the same deal here. 45FPS with VOR lines off, 29FPS with VOR lines ON.

Has anyone experienced any performance issues with the latest hotfix?I don't know if it's true, or am I just imagining things but I seem to be getting a bit lower frames than I was getting previously. The difference is between having about 35FPS minimum on intensive scenery with bad weather to having it dip below 28FPS in rare but incredibly annoying situations.

I'm guessing the logic behind that decision was to use a warning that's recognizable enough (that you don't need a manual to decipher) and can not be mistaken. The flow of action:1. Intermittent horn alarm occurs2. Can it be a takeoff warning? Gear is up, flaps is up, airplane is in a climb above 10.000ft, probably not a takeoff warning.3. Is it a cabin altitude alert? Look at cabin altitude gauge? It's indicating higher than normal.4. Problem diagnosed. Obviously, like any other warning system - knowledge of the airplanes systems is necessary. :)

Hmm, actually - the FCOM says the cabin altitude warning is the same intermittent aural tone as the takeoff config warning.

Shouldn't it be the same as the takeoff config warning (ie. an intermittent tone rather than a constant tone like for the gear warn).

Like this: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/300591-pictures-of-our-fsx-computers/page__view__findpost__p__2022288 :P

So did the freeware Tupolev 154 since about 2005 :)

Here's what I think of that: The CPU cooler isn't the greatest - there are better coolers out there. Do you really need ~2.7TB of storage space or would an SSD + 2TB storage HDD make your system more responsive, quicker to boot up, start applications, etc... while still keeping a lot of storage space. The motherboard isn't the greatest, it seems to have a rather shabby voltage regulator setup with some really limited heatsinks attached to them. Overclock 30% - with that system, you'd hope for a higher overclock than that, something in the 40% region. Power Supply - that system, even overclocked, won't be consuming more than 400W of power, so investing in a BETTER QUALITY 600-650W PSU would be better than getting a PSU from an unknown manufacturer with a higher power rating. Quality of supplied voltage is just as important as total power. Better quality power supplies (Seasonic, Corsair, Enermax...) tend to perform better even when overloaded and in unrealistically bad conditions compared to cheap power supplies. These are just my opinions... :)

Actually, every component on any plane is required to be able to withstand 150% of the maximum limitation to even be certified to fly. So, the flaps at ~10% higher speeds would probably not rip them off the wings. ;)

Nope, the harddrives can work in any orientation (it seems) as long as you don't move them around while they're running. That's the only no-no. The CPU is an i5-2500K overclocked to 4.8GHz and with Prime95, the max core temperatures read 61*C on an average day. Bear in mind that the same water cools the GTX460 overclocked to 915MHz as well. The maximum temperature of the GPU never reaches above 43*C.Oh, and here's a new 'step' in the direction I'm taking. New tubing, pump placement for better flow and quick disconnect fittings that allow me to take the pump/reservoir out without spilling any water.

I'm finally at a stage in my build where I can show a somewhat decent picture of it, so here it is:

Ok, after an agonizing 24 hours with a Gigabyte board, I have disassembled my PC and put the ASUS board in. I was a huge fan of Gigabyte and their new motherboards LOOK absolutely amazing, but the shenanigans with BIOS are just too much to swallow at this point. Maybe in a few months when they get their head back on straight or something, I don't know - but for now, I have to admit - Asus rocks :\

Actually, given how buggy and error-prone these Gigabyte boards seem to be - it might not be hard at all. I'm already well annoyed with it, and I've only just started. ROFL.

I just put my P67A-UD4 in place of the ASUS P8P67 I've been using for the past 5 days, so I'll report back with results in the next couple of hours.

It does have dual BIOS and it's ALT+F12 :)

Gary,I'm pretty sure RealTemp and CoreTemp show the 'core data' by reading the "distance to Tjmax" registers.I can't attest to how correct they are, or how are they gathered. I was always under the impression that each core had a temperature diode or some type of DTS built into it (the cost of this would be negligent next to billions of transistors).

Because we're talking about (and measuring) the core temperatures and not the case temperatures. The datasheet talks about the case temperature limit. I think Tcase is about 10-12*C lower than Tcore.

Corey, I gotta ask - why are you suggesting he goes to 4.8GHz straight away? @Chris - you should try going for a lower clock first, see how the hardware behaves, and take it from there. For example, if it works at 4.5GHz at 1.3v, go to 4.7GHz. You do this as long as the temperatures and voltages are within reasonable limits for 24/7 use. I personally wouldn't go above 75*C and 1.35v, at least not until Intel comes out with some real data about voltages. Also, remember that an odd hundred megahertz don't really make a big difference in performance. You shouldn't try to achieve a certain clock at any cost. Sometimes, settling for a 100 or 200MHz lower clock, with the benefit of significantly lower voltage will be better overall. If that doesn't work, bump the voltage a bit, and try again - if it works, try for 4.8GHz, and again - if it fails, bump the voltage a bit. You can determine how much voltage you need to bump by the severity of the failure. For example, if you just get a 'soft' error in LinX or Prime95 after 30 minutes of testing, you probably only need a small amount more, if it gets an error right away, you're probably somewhat more below the required voltage. If it BSODs during widows or fails to start at all - you're probably way below the required voltage or you're doing something else wrong. Various protections and safeties nowadays make it near impossible to permanently damage hardware by overclocking, unless you really go crazy and start pumping 1.5v into the Chip or something :)Also, you should probably loosen up the timings to 9-9-9-27 for starters, and see what the CPU does - then once you got that stable, tighten the timings and verify it's stable again.

I was getting around 28-30FPS when flying around FSDT KJFK with PMDG MD11 in heavy cloudy weather now I get about 40-45FPS in similar situations, and it's visibly smoother. My performance in San Francisco (with Aerosoft Mega city or whatever it's called) didn't improve overall because I still have a slow magnetic HDD to load scenery from, but in between scenery loads FPS goes up to 40-50 as well. I tried overclocking to 4.8GHz (1.33v vCore) but that didn't improve performance much.Please note - my sim is more optimized for smooth operation, so I don't have stuff like traffic turned on, because it adds very little to improve the sim experience but reduces the smoothness considerably.

I don't know if there's a factor that's causing this or is Sandy Bridge really that much better than Lynnfield, but I've just done a quick test around KJFK in the PMDG MD-11 and I'm getting almost double the FPS I used to get. Overclocked to 4.6GHz, with vCore 1.32v and RAM at 1866MHz CL9. It looks like I could probably lower vCore by a notch or two, but that's fine tuning - this was just a crude test :)

The reason that cover is on there is in case your PSU only has a 4-pin EPS connector, to let you know which of the two possibilities (left or right four) should you connect. If you have an 8-pin EPS connector on the power supply, remove the cover and connect all four.

Some sort of a power saving options may be reducing the available number of cores/threads in low load conditions. Either that, or Thermal Protection. Or you just disabled all buy one core in BIOS.

I've been trying to say it....We saw no REAL difference in performance between a quad core system running a GTX480 and a quad core system running a GTX460 on the same resolution, with a Virtual Cockpit view of a PMDG MD11 or 747, with FSGlobal, Aerosoft Heathrow or FSDT Honolulu, as well as REX 4096x4996 clouds with typical British weather.

Dazz,That's the problem with Flight Sim - it's so unpredictable and illogical in some performance and hardware aspects, I've long given up trying to figure it out. Something on your PC (could be something totally silly) is using a resource that FS wants for itself, obviously. Or you've set or installed something in FS that puts extra load on your PC. The problem is, it's really hard agreeing up on what to test. Some of us find it pointless testing on default aircraft/scenery, others think it's pointless testing it with only one layer of scattered clouds, etc...

What sort of 'complex' addons are you talking about, freebird77?