whitav8

*******, Thanks much for your prompt response! I won't get a chance to experiment for a few days but I certainly will keep you posted when I do experiment. Do you think that if we had a 580 (at least to test it), we might have a chance to get better results over the current 470 driving the three screens via the Matrox TH2Go? We didn't get a 580 because the video card driver is reportedly immature at this time. Also, I doubt if any more overclocking (from 4.0 upwards) would help that much - what do you think?Thanks for your amazing expertise!Dave

*******, Thanks for all your sleuthing to improve performance in so many FSX enthusiast's PCs! I worked for 30 years in Boeing's Simulator Engineering department and smooth performance is incredibly important for the illusion of flying. I have a fairly unique configuration that I am helping a friend with and I have utilized your tweaks to get very close to optimum but yesterday we went downhill in performance and I thought I would ask for your opinion to maybe improve it. The system is a very top end PC - an Intel i7 980X (Currently at 4.0Ghz) with an Nvidia 470 (3D) and a 450 (2D). The 470 is used to drive three monitors at once with a Matrox Triple Head 2 Go - all at 1280x1024. The front monitor is actually a projector that provides a 7 foot image. The side monitors are 50 inch LED screens. Due to the desire for good direct side looks, the system uses separate, independent windowed views - NOT the wraparound single view that you can get with the Matrox system. With your tweaks - especially UsePools=0 - we were able to get very smooth, highrate (40->50fps) performance (in downtown Seattle or in FlyTampa's HongKong) - simply amazing! But then when we setup the Zoom factors for +-45 deg for the front projector (zoom=.33) and +-30 deg for the side screens (zoom=.7), the performance dropped at least 15% (the field of view was increased nearly 50%). In addition to the decrease in frame rates, some stuttering started up - so that the "smoothness" really declined. I am wondering if the PC could be overclocked to maybe 4.6 Ghz and some other tweak settings might get the smoothness back - we have Vsync forced on (60Hz monitors). Any ideas for us to try? BTW, the RejectThreshold+PoolSize settings didn't seem to help like UsePools=0 did. As I said, if we return to default Zoom=1.0, the glassy smoothness returns. Thanks again so very much for your focus on the desire for a great simulation experience!Dave

As a recent former Boeing contractor (and Boeing retiree), I had the pleasure of using both FSX and ESP for an out-the-window scene in front of our inhouse 747/737/787 cockpit panels where the sim is done by Boeing(several million lines of code) and the EFIS panels are done inhouse with OpenGL. These simulators were not for pilot training but were used for engineering development and sales and marketing at airshows. ESP1.0 was nothing more than FSX with SP2 and some very simple changes to the very outer shell of control. ESP 2.0 was demonstrated at the I/ITSEC conference in Orlando at the end of last year and had several really nice improvements over FSX such as being able to use a multiCPU/multiGPU PC to do more monitors of panels and 3D cockpits/scenery. There were other improvements and it is a real shame for them to never see the light of day. I have spent 35 years doing flight sim and for those of us who want major control of our own destiny as well as fluid performance such as is available with i7, I want FSX++ or ESP++ as well as other efforts. X-plane has nice performance but is weak in Heavy Metal aircraft as delivered and multimonitor on the same PC(simplicity with multiCPU/GPU) is very poor. Also, the avionics modeling (fly-by-wire computer, autopilot, autothrottle,etc.) available now is weak as well are the very few examples of FSX quality 3D cockpits and airports (I realize this will improve and the user community is really helping). For the high end enthusiast, we need the third party addon world to be vibrant and financially healthy. I certainly do not want Microsoft to supply any more than the core engine. I realize the problems that we all have had in getting good FSX performance and robustness (elimination of CTDs), but we are wandering now with the recent MS decision. Hopefully, we shall see signs of leadership that will result in a promising future!whitav8

David, Yours is a great idea - maybe we could get the Seattle local TV news to feature a special on the idea of a petition once we get at least 50,000 to sign - seems that even if not everyone that is a member of Avsim, Flightsim, and all the rest of the great flightsim websites, love FSX as is, they at least want a continuation and further development - especially if they have a bit of say so in what the priorities are - things that need to be in the core engine but not what the third parties can add (plus some serious performance improvements). Maybe we could get a nice video together that shows the variety of its use - not as a competitive game but as serious training and fun for our children, young adults, and seniors in these days where few of us can fly for real. Post it on youtube, send it to the TV stations, and get all of us petition signers to view it a few times in order to get its stats way high. Maybe then Gates could grasp its significance - I'd like to know how large a number of small business employees(third party add-ons and other professional groups) there are, website volunteers, plus the serious users that employ ESP/FSX in systems to train our soldiers and commercial/instrument rated pilots. It just isn't clear to Microsoft how LARGE our community is because they don't make direct money from all of us - even if they only ge $60 apiece from us, each of us spends maybe. Also, this product is used worldwide - everyone wants the idea of a worldwide database. GoogleEarth isn't as satisfying as FSX when visiting the mountains in Nepal or wherever. With todays impressive photoreal scenery, we can fly over areas we've never seen before. What we really don't know is why it was shelved - did the team get too big, did ESP fall short of expectations, were sales projections too low - no way of knowing. And since we don't know, it is hard to aim our efforts at reversing the decision. No matter, it still would be worthwhile to see just how large a group we are and if we can unite.ThanksDave

Here is a website address for a video of mine that show some of the MegaScenery Earth for Seattle at evening and night - I find the daytime (noon lighting) to be too bright in color. The textures though are very crisp and seem to be 1meter/pixel in quality.http://www.vimeo.com/2787435

Kevin, I downloaded the US Air livery and also downloaded the latest photoreal scenery for New York City from megasceneryearth.com (MY #1) - looks good but there isn't a set of winter textures.Dave

Kevin, It appears that the latest version of the US Airways 1549 requires a US Airways A321 - not just any A321 which is all I have - you get an aircraft initialization error. No real problem though.Dave

The "best" flap setting for the actual aircraft and that for FSX may be two different things. I know that the FSX default A321 seems fairly realistic (feels similar to the Boeing 737 in a lot of areas) but certainly Microsoft testers never tried much flying with the engines cutoff. The best performance (most ground covered vs longest time in the air) is certainly a complex set of factors - CG position, flaps, engine windmill drag, weight, winds, weather,... I do agree with one post above that usually full flaps isn't the best answer since they are selected on final approach and have the most lift but also the most drag and without any power will cause a quick speed bleedoff on the actual aircraft (unless you really point the nose down). I do notice on the FSX A321 PFD, an Alpha Floor indication. The actual aircraft is, of course, fly-by-wire and therefore the computer control law that is called into action with this gliding without power situation may have a lot to do with "best" flaps as well. What we do know is that the Captain made a very good choice - maybe the only one that would work out. With all our computerized systems, he still had to make the call. He didn't have time to do a Google Search on "best emergency landing fields".Dave

I too enjoyed the collaboration from folks around the world. My career has been flight simulation(Boeing and the US Navy) and there is much interesting investigating work in trying to understand each accident or incident that occurs. Never before FSX and X-Plane really has there been enough momentum in the numbers of folks who have home flight simulators that are accurate enough to try to recreate (in some measure) the accident/incident scenario. I'm not saying that the NTSB needs us (they have all the inside data which they will not share except for a public debrief of highlights) but there are many issues of interest about what was going through the minds of the crew that have to deal with the situation - and we can refly those scenarios as evidenced by Kevin's effort on this effort for Flight 1549. I have found that the crew can have the "right stuff" (like Captain Sullenberger and Captain Al Haynes at the United 232 Sioux City accident) or they can get into task overload and make some critical mistakes. I don't blame them at all because training may not cover all the situations at hand - flight control failures, engine failures, microbursts, terrain in bad weather, structural failure, mental stress, and more. It is the study of the sequence of good and bad decisions that need review and can augment the future training of flight crews. Some of this review could be done unofficially by our folks at least for their own edification (and shared in the forums) - maybe some of you all are real pilots (I fly Cessnas) and can learn something that might save your life and others with you. Our simulator world is mainly for enjoyment but it can also enlighten our understanding of the business of flight crews during emergencies. It may take some modifications to the flight model or in this case, the ability to land in the water, to come closer to the real situation. We have some REALLY smart folks in our group to make those changes. Kevin, I would appreciate it if you would take a look at the video and let me know what you think! I would be glad to make some changes. I made the video because you provided the incentive - the hard work to get the voices, engine flames, and the engine cutoff. Thanks!!!!Dave

Kevin, The video is ready ( ) and the water landing looks fair (crash detection is off) - not enough water spray - and it doesn't settle in the water deep enough. When I try to lower it a little more, I get the "shudder". If you have any ideas on improving the video, let me know at whitav8r@hotmail.com Thanks much for the inside info and pilot insight - I think both you and I know (from flying the mission) that fortune(blessing?) was smiling on them that day - a turn to the right - even just a little - or the flock of geese at a lower altitude - and he wouldn't have made it to the river - what then? Did you hear that The Today Show Matt Lauer's interview with the captain was postponed by the Pilot's Union? What's up with that?Anyway, thanks again Dave

I mentioned in my last post that I would mention the URL for the HiDef vimeo.com video that I made of this mission. It is as follows:http://www.vimeo.com/2885049After we upload our WMV file, they take a while to convert for streaming so give it a few minutes (Monday the 19th at 3:30pm EST)Dave

Kevin, Thanks again for your hard work on this mission - one that I wish many would try! At Boeing, where I worked in the engineering simulator department investigating some of the incidents and accidents, I would fly the 737 simulator for hours and practice landing with the engines cutoff - if you put the speedbrakes out, it's kind of like landing the Shuttle. Captain Sullenberger did a great job - under severe pressure - to estimate where he could get the A320 safely. Like you say, there aren't many emergency landing sites - even freeways don't really work for airliners (looks good in the movies though!). One question on the mission, are the British accents on the voices that I get a function of my setup or is that the only choice? Also, what flap setting and speed do you use to get to the Hudson? I barely make it. I have created a hidef video (1280x720 at 25fps) on vimeo.com - I am still downloading it (it is about 250mbytes for the 4 minutes). Once I know the URL for it, I will reply to this thread again. I wanted you to see it because I have come close to getting the Airbus to float in the water! I combined the "contact points" for the Beaver with the wheel contact points for the Airbus 321 in the "aircraft.cfg" file. Here are my edits:______________________________________________________________________________________________[contact_points]max_number_of_points = 21//remove the original ones or comment them out//The first ones (type 4 and 5) are from the Beaver and the last three (type=1) are from the A321point.0 = 4, 0.00, 4.80, 1.00, 2200, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 2.5, 0.390, 0.0, 0.0, 3, 0, 0point.1 = 4, 0.00, -4.80, 1.00, 2200, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.5, 2.5, 0.891, 0.0, 0.0, 2, 0, 0point.2 = 4, -18.10, 4.80, 1.00, 2200, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.5, 2.5, 0.891, 0.0, 0.0, 3, 0, 0point.3 = 4, -18.10, -4.80, 1.00, 2200, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.5, 2.5, 0.891, 0.0, 0.0, 2, 0, 0point.4 = 5, -20.10, -4.80, 1.30, 1600, 0, 0, 50.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.000, 1.0, 1.2, 0, 0, 0point.5 = 5, -20.10, 4.80, 1.30, 1600, 0, 0, 50.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.000, 1.1, 1.5, 0, 0, 0point.6 = 2, -6.90, -25.0, 4.50, 1800, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 5point.7 = 2, -6.90 25.0, 4.50, 1800, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 6point.8= 2, -30.23, 0.0, -0.00, 1800, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 9point.9= 2, 0.48, 0.0, -2.17, 1800, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 4point.10= 2, -27.50, 0.0, 7.50, 1800, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 7point.11=1, 43.00, 0.00, -9.70, 1600, 0, 1.442, 55.92, 0.6, 2.5, 0.9, 4.0, 4.0, 0, 220.0, 250.0point.12=1, -11.20, -12.45, -10.30, 1600, 1, 1.442, 0.00, 1.0, 2.5, 0.9, 6.9, 6.9, 2, 220.0, 250.0point.13=1, -11.20, 12.45, -10.30, 1600, 2, 1.442, 0.00, 1.0, 2.5, 0.9, 7.1, 7.1, 3, 220.0, 250.0gear_system_type=1static_pitch=3.6 //degrees, pitch when at rest on the ground (+=Up, -=Dn)static_cg_height=7.4 //feet, altitude of CG when at rest on the ground_____________________________________________________________________I realize that the values don't make much sense for the A321 but it works and when I try changing them much, I get a severe shudder effect. Anyway, you might want to try it - make sure you backup the original aircraft.cfg.Best Wishes and Thanks AgainDave

fsx_missionguy Thanks for all your help and info - you have taken this seriously and done a fine job! The details will come out slowly - but if as you say, he got the flaps out immediately (is that the emergency procedure? ), it sure made it all possible. These PC based flight simulators really can help answer a lot of questions - sure, the aerodynamics aren't as accurate as full fidelity sims because the aircraft manufacturer (Boeing or Airbus) won't release the data (except for a $million). But, it can be close enough to get a very good idea of the situation. It's pretty clear that the pilots could quickly see that an emergency landing at Teterboro just wasn't going to work - I don't know if the NAV display would still be working which has a range arc that would have showed if, at the current rate of descent, the aircraft could glide that far. Probably, they simply estimated by looking out the windscreen an saw that Teterboro was "too high". Have you seen the video of the actual touchdown on the water? Some security camera caught it - that should really help investigators plus it might be used to help train others for the future. What keeps FSX from allowing us to have the Airbus from touching down like the Beaver?Thanks again!wjitav8

I am very interested in this mission. It is a challenge to all of us PC based flight simulator guys! BTW, also make sure you look at the NYC area with GoogleEarth - especially with the 3D buildings! What I don't know is how to set up the Airbus321 so that it actually lands in the water instead of "bouncing" back into the air and restarting the engines. Do I have to set up the aircraft config file so that it is similar to a floatplane like the Beaver? Also, I notice that even with a quick finger on the elevator trim (really should be stabilizer trim), it is hard to set up and maintain the desired glide speed (what should that be anyway - 150 knots or so?) Also, what should the climbout speed be - maybe 220 - did he get the flaps up? They apparently got up to 3200 feet. Did they extend the flaps for the landing? Congratulations to ALL the flight crew (not just the Captain) - Here they are:Captain Chesley B. Sullenberger, III - Age 58, joined US Airways (PSA Airlines) in 1980. He has a total of 19,663 flights hours.First officer Jeffrey B. Skiles - Age 49, joined US Airways (USAir) in 1986. He has a total of 15,643 flight hours.Flight attendant, Shelia Dail - Age 57, joined US Airways (Piedmont Airlines) in 1980 and has more than 28 years experience with the airline.Flight attendant, Doreen Welsh - Age 58, joined US Airways (Allegheny Airlines) in 1970 and has more than 38 years experience with the airline.Flight attendant, Donna Dent - Age 51, joined US Airways (Piedmont Airlines) in 1982 and has more than 26 years experience with the airline.Thank God for their training and professionalism!whitav8

To all experiencing slow downloads with MegaEarth I was having a similar problem - downloading at only 30kb/sec - very painful. I decided to check with my cable provider about it and found that I had a defective modem and after replacement, got 600 kb/sec. Maybe the MegaEarth servers expose a certain bad download behavior, but everything is faster for me now. Just ask your cable provider to test your modem from their office - you also might have too long a cable run or too many splitters.whitav8

I was able to try a 52" Sony Bravia at work at 1920x1080p (HDMI input) and was extremely pleased with the immersive feeling at about two and a half to three feet. No pixelation apparent but it was important NOT to use the "Standard" color setting but instead a Custom setting that was like the Cinema setting but brighter - otherwise the picture was oversharpened/too bright for good antialiasing (was using a GTX 280 with 16Aniso/16XAA). As said above, use a Zoom of maybe .6 to .7 - the 737 virtual cockpit screens were somewhat less than full size but very legible and the field of view is maybe 70 deg by 40. When I used FTX Tasmania or Megascenery SoCal in the mountains, I had my own personal IMAX. This price of HDTV is maybe $1800 USD but one of the best ways to go for highres immersion (if you could afford it! ).Dave

JohnE, We all need a little more info first like what Ghz are you running the E8500 at and do you have SP2/Acceleration installed - also, have you followed any of Nick N.'s improvements? What resolution are you trying to run the monitors at - 1680x1050 x 3 or maybe just 1280x1024 x 3? What settings are you using for AI traffic (minimal, I hope to start with). But before any of that, just run a single monitor (maybe at 1680x1050 or so) WITHOUT the TH2Go and test your system - speed(fps) and ground texture clarity. Shoot for at least locked at 30 fps in an area like Palm Springs airport where a lot of us get 60fps easy. If you get at least 30, then go back to using the TH2Go - the frames per second should drop only 3->5 fps if your video card can handle the increased fill rate. On a GTX280, I was able to get the 3->5 fps drop from single monitor to TH2Go at 1680x1050 x 3.Good LuckDave

Alphahawk3, Thanks for your answer but it doesn't point to the specific instance of why an AV could "always" cause a pause a few feet above the runway. Are you thinking that the sound file that is loaded for tire screech is getting evaluated by AV?whitav8

Alphahawk3 and Nick, OK, you eliminated the pause at landing by changing to a better AV but the question of interest is WHY did that fix the problem? Why would the AV affect repeatedly a landing and maybe a takeoff. Understanding this might prevent other pauses/stutters from happening.ThanksWhitav8

Rider007, Thanks for setting up the question of the various solutions for high resolution, "wide horizons", multimonitors. I have been experimenting at work with similar equipment. I have seen the same problems as you for the following configurations - note that I have a pretty great PC to try this with - a q9770 with three GTX280s and three 24" monitors (they prefer 1920x1200) and three 52" Sony Bravia HDTVs (prefer 1920x1080) and a Digital Edition Triple Head2GO! I personally am interested in performance similar to Full Fidelity Sim Cockpit visuals (60 fps widescreen - maybe 120deg by 40deg ). I also am interested in the 3D virtual cockpit experience accepting somewhat less performance. I am testing FSX SP2 and ESP 1.0. Also, I use the Megascenery for Southern California, the new OZ Grand Canyon, ORBX Tasmania, and other photoreal scenery with minimal Autogen to achieve the high frame rates. I may want to try TrackIR as well. 1. Matrox Triple Head to Go with the new firmware at 3 x 1680x1050. Pretty good experience with this configuration in that the frames per second (good visual smoothness) drop for driving 5040 x 1050 pixels was minimal - maybe 3->5 fps at most - the GTX 280 doesn't breathe very hard on this - even at the locked 60fps setting (unless you get near to a low frame rate airport). This image looks pretty nice even though the monitors are running at less than their native res - would probably look sharper with three smaller 22" monitors at their native 1680x1050. Of course this won't work for you with the different monitors and the resolution of 1680x1050 on your 30" monitor would be poor anyway. The geometric distortion of the side windows is moderate (buildings/towers that lean and general "smearing") and depends on pitch angle. I personally like the image with a ZOOM of maybe 0.60 - I tried the 737-800 cockpit and I want to be able to read the PFD (airspeed/altitude) clearly and get at the Autopilot MCP without slewing the viewpoint. I also want a reasonable amount of side viewing for turning from base to final. The one problem with this layout is the lack of vertical vision in turns - everything is fine when straight and level but with a 30 deg bank, I can't see much in the side windows that is useful - that is the nature of the beast though - maybe TrackIR would help here. The image in the side windows with TH2Go is certainly not what you would get with a three channel visual system where the side views would be separately generated. Another problem I had was that for some reason (I tried to work it with Matrox), I couldn't get the TH2Go to drive the three HDTVs at 1680x1050 (worked fine when driving directly with a GTX280) - I had to reduce to 1360x720 or something like that. That lower res just didn't look that great on such a large monitor. 2. Separate Monitors(either the 24" or the 52" HDTVs) - each on its own GTX280. This has the potential of being a great solution as far as each monitor having high resolution but the immediately noticeable problem is the very significant drop in frame rate - in my case, from 60 fps to 30 fps with both side views up. This situation is obviously requiring FSX/ESP to draw multiple views but with the current design can't use the multiple CPUs and multiple GPUs (remember that I have three GTX280s on an nforce 790i mobo). We have our own internally written out-the-window scene system that uses this configuration very nicely (locked at 60 fps) - each channel has its own CPU and GPU with a fourth CPU to talk to the flight sim as well as load up new scenery. I am hoping that ESP2.0 (FSX11???) will have such a design. While a PC per channel (the Wideview solution as well as most Full Fidelity sim cockpits) works well, it is just too much complexity for a home system for most of us - and expensive if you want 60fps. I still am hoping that we can eventually get a three channel system from a single PC with two video cards even though the side channels would have to use the same GPU. I would also like the user to be able to set a desired frame rate and have an effective framerate overload management system that would remove Autogen buildings and trees, AI traffic, etc in the distance so as to maintain the rate especially on final approach. I saw the recommendation by "beatle" (Tim Gregson - a highly competent pioneer in the MSFS world!!) to set up the view lock and I will try that. The other downside of the three channel setup so far is that the horizon will seemingly "misbehave" in that with pitch angle, the side channels will tilt while the center channel will pan up or down. In a Full Fidelity sim cockpit, the projection system and lens that collimate the view at infinity corrects for all that so it looks great to the pilot while with three monitors in front of you, it looks strange (this doesn't happen with Th2Go). 3. A single large (at least 52") HDTV. Surprisingly, by sitting close (3 feet way) to a large screen HDTV running at 1920x1080, with the picture settings at a modified "cinema" - brighter, softened clarity, low saturation - the image generated by FSX at 60fps with photoreal scenery and ZOOM set to .5 or .6 is very compelling! The view is about 80 deg by 45 deg. I was surprised how comfortable it seems and how immersive it appears - at least to me. With the Megascenery SoCal, I feel like it is my personal IMAX. Aerobatics feels nice - I have good side and vertical vision (probably would be enhanced with TrackIR). Maybe if I could do the cockpit with a couple of separate monitors (2D), the illusion would be nice. Anyway, I just wanted to encourage FSX folks to try an HDTV at 1920x1080 (use an HDMI input) but be sure to set the picture settings away from "normal".Rider007, I wish I could encourage you WRT multiple monitors and maybe Option 2 above will work for you even though the frame rates are significantly lower. I do know that Microsoft is showing a VERY prebeta ESP 2.0 at the I/ITSEC conference in Orlando this week. Maybe the multiple monitors issue is being addressed - don't know. As everyone agrees, we are on the verge both in hardware and software to having a relatively inexpensive (and simple I hope) immersive flight simulator experience maybe even better than what has been a standard in the Full Fidelity sim cockpit world.whitav8

Nick (and others) The major thing that you pointed out was simply that I had left the CPU voltage on AUTO when overclocking to 3.2Ghz instead of inching it up manually - so far 1.30625 looks reliable and I enclose a snapshot of the temp results - much better!! Thanks for the catch! As far as the rear case fan, I have the side off for now and will work that problem some more. I have no idea how to cut out the large hole without taking everything out which of course is a bit of work. Thanks again for all the help!Dave

Hi y'all, Just another quick post with SpeedFan results for Idle and FSX loaded - jpeg attachments. The CPUs are running at 3.2 Ghz (not 2.4)Dave

Nick, Sam,and John Thanks much for your efforts to provide the info on quad temps - Nick, the photo of the "bad" tower case looks just like mine - I would have thought that TigerDirect would have been more discerning since it sold the case/quad/PSU as a combo package. I will open up the rear port and add a grill as you say to increase the flow - I also think that the PSU should be further away from the quad as you show for a better case - BTW, do you have a recommendation for a mid tower case? Nick, you said "Temps depend on what software you are reading. Using a correctly calibrated SpeedFan for the offset I run a QX6700 1.47v Vcore @ 3.6Ghz on a Thermalright 120 extreme and it tops out at 72c (average core diode temp) and idles at right around 49. The case temp sensor (not the tower, the CPU case) is always 10-13c lower." I'm not sure how to calibrate but I enclosed a small JPEG that shows a screen capture of SpeedFan when I am running FSX with NO overclocking.Thanks again for the help. BTW, I am an engineering flight sim developer for Boeing and we use much of the same hardware as for FSX at home, but have BOXX or some other company build it for us. We do the out-the-window scene with Quadros (8800 Ultras with 1.5 gb memory) but develop the scene software in OpenGL and require it to run at 60HZ. Doing it at home for <$1000 or so is a trick - glad you all have so much experience.Dave

First off, thanks much to Nick and the other experts who help us all tune our PCs for FSX! I used this help a lot in putting together a G0 q6600/8800GT PC recently. My problem is that CoreTemp is reporting >60 deg temps on my Q6600 even without overclocking. I have a NZXT Hush Mid-Tower with two 120mm fans (set at max speed from BIOS), a XFX 680i LT mobo, and a 8800GT along with, at first, a Thermaltake 775D CPU fan which I just upgraded to an ASUS Lion Square which was reviewed (http://legitreviews.com/article/728/1/) as being quite good. I just don't get anywhere close to their results (before or after the CPU cooler upgrade) in that I get over 60 deg with no overclocking and over 70 at 3.2. Their results show less than 50 with 3.0 overclock and running super-PI (I use Prime 95 but I also tried super-pi). In summary, I get at least 10->15 more deg C (Using CoreTemp) than the reviews and this keeps me from overclocking - I know that I can run at 3.2Ghz reliably but don't want to fry the CPUs. I tried different amounts of thermal paste (maybe too much and then too little?) and removing the side panel seems to take off about 5 deg but what gives? Why such a disparity from the reviews?Thanks for the helpwhitav8