Ivan Kovacevic

I've been able to achieve 4GHz on my i5-750 on air easily. Water cooling the thing lowered the temperatures considerably, but the maximum overclock didn't go up much. The 4GHz number is the sweet spot by the looks of it. Anything above requires a lot of voltage for minimal speed gain.

Peter, I was thinking about the same thing, since that is indeed the 'little brother' card in the new GTX 4xx lineup, however - if the G-card was the bottleneck, I thought overclocking it to 900MHz (from 725) would make a difference, at least a small one. It didn't :D. It gave me 20 more FPS in Unigine Heaven tesselation benchmark, but made absolutely no difference in FS. That lead me to conclude that FSX might not be taking full advantage of the card to begin with. I think the real bottleneck is my hard drive. Unfortunately, SSDs are still quite expensive in my country (as are VRaps even though they are old technology) so I'm kinda stuck with regular HDDs. For example, the 128GB Kingston V+ is almost 300EUR.And yes, I am running W7x64 Ultimate. Speaking of which, the W7 performance rating is stuck as 5.9 because of HDD performance :D Memory is 7.9, CPU is 7.5 and GPU is 7.5 - but HDD IOPS is 5.9 lol.

Hello folks,Here's a quick list of what I've got at the moment: CPU: Core i5-750 slightly overclocked to 190 x 21 = 3990MHzRAM: 2x2GB Mushkin Blackline 2000MHz CL7 (running at 1900MHz CL7)GPU: nVidia GTX460 Overclocked 725MHz Core (plan on clocking further to ~900 when I water cool it)System HDD: Samsung SpinPoint 1TB short stroked to 320GB, also contains FSX Monitor: a 24'' Samsung 1920x1080 monitor. The CPU is currently liquid cooled, and I'll soon submerge the GPU as well. Now, this setup lets me fly most of the complex addons (PMDG, Maddog 2010, etc...) with complex scenery (FlyTampa, FSDreamTeam...) and reasonable framerates/stability (I get a minimum of 30 when online).The problem arises, though - when I try to fly with scenery such as Aerosoft San Francisco X, or similar highly detailed cityscape addons - I seem to get a lot of stuttering (that matches HDD activity and peaks of CPU usage).Now, my question is - what would be the best investment to improve the performance that small bit to make it flyable in high density areas (I'm one of those nut cases who find 28FPS or below unflyable). Three ideas I have are: Replace an i5 with an i7-860. <-- expensive, might not make a differenceAdd 4GB of RAM <-- not as expensive, but will almost certainly limit overclocking abilities of the CPUGet an SSD for FSX <-- expensive, rather young technology - not all kinks ironed out yet. Get a regular HDD for FSX only <-- relatively cheap, but I don't know how much benefit it's gonna do.If anyone has any experience with solving a similar dilemma I'd really appreciate the input.

I'm not arguing about RAM, I'm arguing the "you are wrong" statement of his. RAM just happens to be the instrument used to get the point across. :( Nevertheless, I'll be quiet now.... :(

You've really proven yourself wrong in the first line. 1GB = 1024 ^ 3 - correct, because 1KB = 1024 bytes and because 1MB = 1024 kilobytes. Of course, since 1GB = 1024MB, indeed it is correct that 1GB is 1024^3 bytes. Following that logic, 5GB is indeed 5 x 1024^3, which is 5 x 1024 x 1024^2 (5 x 1024 MB = 5120MB, since 1MB = 1024 ^ 2).EDIT: Example with a different unit - Volts. 1KV = 1000^1 volts, 1MV = 1000KV = 1000^2 volts, 1GV = 1000MV = 1000^3 volts. See the resemblance? Now, officially - as an SI prefix KILO does mean 1.000 (10^3) and KIBI (pronounced: kee-bee) is 2^10 - but that's just splitting hairs. Any "computer literate" reader will be able to make the distinction, based on context, quite easily. We are, indeed talking about RAM, not HDD space, so I don't see why you're bringing that up.

1GB = 1024MB 5 x 1024 = 5120 ... thus -> 5Gb = 5120MB

It might be that, if you were using Active Sky or something like that, the outside temperature spiked to a value that is considerably higher than the maximum cruise temperature for that flight level at that weight. It has happened to me a few times the TAT remains positive at FL300+ over Europe - it was caused by an ActiveSky error.

Same here :(

Thanks for the prompt reply. I did install the update from yesterday, but forgot to re-check the A/T assignment.I'll check that later today, and will post back if there are still some issues. ThanksIvan Kovacevic

I tried assigning a key combination to disengage the Autothrottle on the MD11, but after several attempts it didn't seem to have any effect. I've tried several key combinations and none worked. P.S. The A/P disengage works the way I'd expect it to work and I had no issues with that. Rgds,Ivan Kovacevic

Is there any fuel planning data available in the printed manuals? best regards,Ivan Kovacevic

Frankly, I wouldn't mind paying (reasonable) triple digits for a *proper* PMDG style simulation of the classic Boeings such as the 707, 727 or the 737-200!A nice thing to have would be the DC-10, but I think another company is making it already, and it might be worth something! :)

Well, something had to have changed - because I as I mentioned before, I used to be within 1-3 tonnes of the planned estimate, now even if I'm taking a bit LESS than what the manual says (not taking the normal contigency) I am still a good 10 tonnes over the estimated fuel.

When I originally started this topic, I was comparing what the PMDG supplied manual said compared to what the PMDG model performed in the Sim. I find it completely useless to ever compare 'performance' of the real plane (and it's manuals) with FS planes and their performance. Of course, I wouldn't be too happy to see the 80$ addon completely out of sync with reality, but whether it takes 107 or 110 tonnes - I really don't care. There are so many factors that contribute to this (temperature, pressure, climb profile (econ, high speed, high angle) traffic situation and many many more) that it's really hard to actually compare the two.I do, however, like to have the supplied manual for the addon saying what the addon really does. Unlike some other addon manufacturers that shall not be named, who put in the manual that the takeoff EPR is 1.95 and the minimal N1 is 101%, but when you sit in the plane, even with throttles full forward you can't achieve anything over 1.8....that's just pointless. Regards,Ivan Kovacevic

Hello,Ever since the latest update for the FS9, I've noticed a small difference in the performance of the 744, fuel wise. I used to do flights like Heathrow to Seattle and achieve great precision in terms of the fuel (difference of less than 3000kg over the estimate). Unfortunately, with the new update (where the engine data was supposedly revised), even though I'm real happy with the new spool-up times, the fuel consumption seems to disagree with the manual.I haven't changed the method I use for fuel planning, but I've now started getting to my destination with over 10 tonnes more fuel than what I anticipated. I'm just wondering if there will be an update to the manuals or anything like that, that would allow for more precise fuel calculations again. Regards,Ivan Kovacevic

Hello, I'm a happy 747PAX user from PMDG from Day1 basically. And I really enjoyed the good fuel-planning documentation that came with it. A couple of times, on 10+ hour flights, I've achieved great precision when it comes to fuel planning (within the +/- 500kg limit) and I've always been within the 1000kg limit on all of my flights. Unfortunately, the documentation does not reflect the Freighter model that much. Firstly - while some things are updated, others arent. For example - in the Flight Planning diagram, the MLW is still at 285 tonnes, although the Freighter model's MLW is about 396.5 tonnes. Similarly, the main fuel planning tables are still containing the PAX model figures, which do not match the performance of the freighter. Thus - I've ended up with up to 2.5 times more fuel than planned, when flying the freighter. This meant that instead of a normal ~19 tonnes of fuel upon landing, I'd land with something like 30-35 tonnes. Why is this a problem? Well - exceeding the MLW, for one thing. I've started compiling my own data that I intended to use for planning purposes, but soon found myself in a recursive formula that wasn't simple for one bit :S. I also tried "updating" the figures from the main table (the one containing trip fuel, time and weight corrections for the PAX version) but again, found myself unable to solve a recursive formula I made.Anyone know any tips or tricks for this issue? ThanksIvan

Thanks for a prompt reply!What should I look for specifically? CheersIvan

Hehe! What a cool idea! I'm a proud owner of a Dell Axim X51v PDA, which would most likely handle something as simple as an FMC thingy. Hmmm, there has to be a way to do it...*puts on the thinking hat*Ivan

I have a problem with all 737 and 747 aircraft variants from PMDG. For some reason, I can not trim the aircraft manually, and the autopilot can not engage (probably as a result of the trim issue). I've successfuly used both airplanes in the past, and the only difference that I can think of now, is the fact that by solving a code problem for FSUIPC, I have that thing fully registered. What happens with the 747 is as follows: when airborne I hold the ANU trim button, and the thing fluctates around 4.5, and never moves to any position. The aircraft is fully trimable on the ground, but goes back to the default 4.5 units ANU after takeoff. AP can not be engaged.On the other hand, I can trim the 737, but the movement of the elevator surface is not normal at all. It shakes up and down, and takes twice as much time to trim then it used to. Again, the AP can not be coupled. I've tried un-installing both the 737 and 747, installing only the 737 and had the same problems.Happy New Year!

Now that I've read through that part of the manual again, I do have a completely different understanding of the failures simulated. I withdraw my initial comment. Thanks for the help!

Hello! I am interested to know whether there will be some changes in some of the systems on the 747 FSX release. The first thing I had in mind were the failures. Sure, most of them ARE simulated....however, all you can do is manually arm them and then, of course - you know they'll fail. No element of suprise there :) I was wondering whether there will be an option of a completely randomly and independently generated failure? Something like having the anti-ice failure on one of the engines, for example. Or something as severe as the hydraulic failure! Have the #4 system leak, and land on the main body gear only! :) Would stuff like that be possible? Of course, to make it realistic, it wouldn't be right to have a failure on every flight, but also wouldn't be much fun having a failure only every 4000 hours of operation.....Cheers!Ivan