lost16

The Caravan is nose heavy with that big PT-6a in it. Kodiak has similar nose drop.

The actual engine that renders the graphics is different from the API(advanced programming interface). In simplistic terms think of the graphics engine as your car and the API as a kind of fuel. For example Crysis uses the Crytec(2 I think) engine and it is designed to use DX9 and DX10. For the same engine to run DX11 would require some revision (but not much). The engine that renders Flight Simulator has more in common with the graphics engine that runs Wing Commander 3,4 and Prophecy than the Crytec engine as they depended almost entirely on CPU power to render graphics unlike most graphics engines today which rely on the GPU to take the lead in rendering the pixels you see on your screen. I don't know if my explanation is in any way accurate but I'm sure someone will correct me if it isn't. Will

People tend to forget that the reason we have FSX in its present state was the cost of replacing FSX's terrain/graphics engine. Phil and crew wanted to rewrite it, but MS nixed it on cost grounds. That alone causes most of the headaches in running FSX. The graphics engine is still a mish-mash of FS 7,8,and 9 code at its heart. Using the same engine would NOT solve anything as it is a SOFTWARE renderer not a HARDWARE renderer. That is why FSX and previous editions are so CPU dependant. This time, I hope MS has learned it's lesson and gives Flight a hardware driven graphics engine(like every other PC game out there) so that it will work much better across a wider rande of PC/Windows platforms. Will

Turning off Hypertheading is best help for stutters with I7's. Disable it in your bios since there are no apps that utilize virtual cores anyways.Will

By that time Intel's new Gulftown should be out (6 cores 12 threads) but still using x58 architecture. I suspect 2 more cores will not make FSX run any better though,lolWill

Unfortunately there will be immediate fallout in the FS third party add-on developers. For example I can see Saitek curtailing their Pro Flight system peripherals. Without MS developing FS11 there will be little to attract new users to the FS community and therefore fewer yokes, throttles, headsets and switches will be sold and no incentive to develop new equipment that is affordable to the average simmer. It will probably be the end of royalty free payware add-ons if FS is sold to another software publisher as they will seek to maximize profits in every way possible. Will

MS is after profits to impress Wall Street after the latest numbers came out today which were bad for them. Flight Simulator has a limited base to draw on for potential profits, while console gaming and MP3 provide exponetial base compared to FS. Sombody will probably buy the FS franchise and continue to run with it. I'm sure they had one of those meetings recently where the execs came out with the proclamation that they must focus on their core products (the OS and Office) and expand into areas where they will find increased profitability (consoles and music). Which is why the money losing Zune will go on (have to compete with Apple). ACES is a casuality of bean counters trimming the so called "fat" in MS. I'm sure there was a lot of "fat" trimmed in other divisions, other MS products curtailed or cut (at least 5000 jobs, probably more as MS "refocuses"). I am sorry that people lost their jobs but with consumers pulling back and not purchasing like they used to its the beginning of a vicious cycle. People cut back, buisiness cuts back with layoffs and consumers cut back further and business responds in kind with further layoffs so they can post decent numbers for the Street.

At least 4 options1. FS franchise goes into long term holding pattern (3-4 years for next version)2. MS concentrates on PC business and OS software ditches PC entertainment software to cut costs. Sells FS franchise3. EXP coming to shelf near you for 49.95 to recoup investment loses for MS 4. We all now eagerly await the next iteration of X-Plane since they're the only one left standing (ducks)

A large part of the FPS hit on either rig is the choice of using the Flight 1 ATR. Aside from issues with Sp2 and Vista64, it is just a conversion. Model was built using FS9 SDK and just ported over to run on FSX. To see an example of this use a Carenado 182Q FS9/adapted for FSX, then use the newer FSX/DX10 182Q (model converted to FSX SDK format). Even on my old E6700, I get a 10+ fps difference between the two. I think a more objective evaluation would be using FSX scenery, FSX optimized complex A/C (PMDG MD-11 comes to mind), FSX SDK built AI (not the current FS9 AI that is mostly being used now) and FSX weather program (ASX,FTX,REX)

If bus speed is key to graphic card edge, why not use Nvidia's 260 or 280 cards,(448 bit and 512 bit memory buses respectively vs 384 bit for Ultra)? And both have more memory that the 8800 Ultra (896 mb and 1 gb vs 768 mb)? As for driver issues, I'm getting used to the black squares and rectangles when I pan too fast with just about every version of Nvidia drver software.

This 777-200 is actually a port from another fs9 product by aerosim called Shuttle Flight. Its on the Japanese version of web site and has the same exact 777 and cockpit shown in pictures along with a 777-300 and 747-400 and multiple Japanese airports. The english web site made it sound like it was all new for FSX. You live and learn..

Pulled the trigger and bought. Exterior model is nice some, has raised detail around tail area and things like vents on exterior too. Going into VC however showed things were different than expected. Looks dated not as nice as pics on website. Lettering fonts in VC looked like just from old IFly 747. very low resolution and textures make this model appear to be a FS9 port. Panel screens had blue gray tint instead of black tint. Upper VC panel has better raised detail than Lvl-D's 767. The bad came with flight model though. Got good frame rates with FSX (7 to 10 FPS better than Lvl-D). Pitch rate average or above for airliner of this size, however roll rate was way off more like a default baron or caravan. Took out the level-d 767 and default 747 for comparison. They rolled at much lower rate than AeroSim's 777 and are similar aircraft. Do not recommend unless AeroSim fixes and updates VC textures and flight model. Maybe A FMC would be appropriate since this is only $5.00 cheaper than Wilcos (which has a bugged FMC). I'm out 35.00 as AeroSim takes the same policy as SimMarket, no refunds, buyer beware (But that I knew going in so its on me). Hopefully there will be a patch but I'm not holding my breath. This is only after 10 min of flying it. Haven't use navigation yet.Will

I have the same processor but the problem for you appears to be the video card. The x550 is one of those all-in-wonder ati types and it has low memory (128 meg). I'm guessing your pc is a HP or Compaq? Is the video on-board or is it actually a seperate card? If it is on board do you have an open PCI x16 slot? If you have the X16 slot, I would recommend repacing the x550 with a 512 meg or better card from nvidia or ati. FSx is a video hog compared to FS9 and you will need the memory for texture rendering. I've just gotten back into flight simming again. Fsx has been a disappointment in the FPS department and despite all the tweaking, I can't get above 12 FPS sitting on the ground at KLAX, but I can get 30fps + on the runway at Lake Tahoe. Hope this helps. (miss the days of playing F-19 on my Commodore 128) Will