Spud128

Sorry to bump this but any opinions on my conundrum would be greatly appreciated by anyone with knowledge on the subject. Thank you. Spud

Hello everyone, About 4 years ago I built my own system with an i5 2500k processor (overclocked) and GTX 570 video card. I have been happy with my machine and it runs P3d @ 1920x1200 at a consistent 25-35 FPS with the type of flying that I do and settings on the high end. The reports on Avsim and elsewhere for P3d in 4k look impressive. My issue is that since building my own machine I have been out of touch with technology and therefore I am curious if someone with more technical knowledge would be able to answer the following question pertaining to a potential upgrade: Would I simply be able to replace my older GTX 570 with a newer GTX 9xx (or similar) video card in my existing build and be able to run 4k at a reasonable FPS or should I be getting back into the books so to speak and focus on a new build if I want to move to 4k? I think I would be fine with a slight loss in FPS if it saves me the time and money of an all new build. Also, if the advice is to upgrade my current machine, what video card might be recommended with my set-up? I have been planning on a new build in the coming years but would prefer just to upgrade now if possible to have 4k capability. I know it won't be the same as a new build, but can this path still produce good enough results to hold me over for another 18 months or so? Thanks for any and all advice. Spud

I've had the P-51 and DCS world installed for a couple of months now and I'm having fun with it. I am a regular FSX user as well and 700 hour pilot IRL. Here is my pros and cons list for DCS world and the P-51, these are only my opinions whether right or wrong: Pros: -Excellent flight dynamics. There is no comparison here in my opinion, DCS blows FSX away. Stall and flight characteristics are highly accurate and realistic side to side friction and momentum on the ground are notable aspects. -Sounds: My favorite thing to do is fire on a ground target and then push F3 to lock the camera in front of you while you wizz by. Their rendition of the RR Merlin is pretty much spot on. I'm guessing the DCS engine has much newer technolgies than FSX for sound implimentation as well which makes this possible. -Systems programing: I'm not a P51 pilot but everything seems like it's there and functioning as it should. -Graphics and game engine: Leeps ahead of FSX (of course it's newer also). Anyway, I can turn everything up to nearly max on my system and rarely get even 1 studder. Cons: Scenery: DCS world is based on modern warfare and it is limmited to Georgia (not the USA Georgia either). Thus there are no 1940's period scenery to fly in nor can you fly in the US or Europe though I think there's a Las Vegas area coming out or maybe it's been released already I don't know. Anyway, as the sim grows, I expect the scenery areas to grow also. Battle scenarios: Aside from dogfighting the AI P-51, there aren't any other realistic battle scenario's for the P-51, yet. If I'm missing something here let me know but when I use the quick mission builder and get close to my target I get blown away by modern day helicopters. I expect this will develope over time though. Tough learning curve: I think I crashed over 10 times before I finally got it in the air, probably crashed on my first 20 landings too. You really have to stay ahead of this plane and fly it the whole way. I haven't mastered this thing yet but I've improved greatly in all phases. I guess it's not really a con, but it is a bit frustrating at first. Lack of customizable conditions: I'd like to have more control over weather settings, time of day, etc, and be able to change this mid flight without having to reload the sim. FSX beats DCS in this aspect in my opinion. So, I figured I'd post this for the benefit of others. I like the potential that DCS world has and I'd like to see it grow. For now, quite honestly, there's not enough variation for me in DCS so I still mainly fly FSX. However, from time to time when I want a more realistic feel, I load DCS. Note: The above bullet points are my opinions only, feel free to let me know if I am missing something. Also, I do not own the A2A aircraft, so I cannot compare DCS with that product.

Upper level winds are likely the main driving factor as stated above. If you want a general snapshot of the latest jet stream I have this site bookmarked: http://virga.sfsu.edu/crws/jetstream.html . The latest maps will give you a good general overview of current wind patterns at 300MB (about 32,000 feet). Another factor I think is worth mentioning and could be the reason why airliners sometimes take the southern routes is due to abnormal levels of radiation at the upper altitudes further north. I don't know how many airlines look at this information these days but there's a good possibility that their dispatch department may route them further south or fly them at a lower altitude to avoid high exposure areas. Like a say, I'm not sure if all the airlines consider this but I think some of the larger ones do. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. Not that this would be at all a factor in FSX but for what it's worth.

Awesome, thanks for the helpful advice, i will give it a try as outlined above. Best regards, Spud

Hello,I'm looking for some help from the experts. I recently built a SB computer and think I may have made a mistake regarding the allocation of my programs. I put W7 and FSX on my 80GB SSD because I like the quick load speeds. But now I'm running out of room with ORBX, REX, ETC and I'm wondering if it's possible to keep further scenery installs on my 1.5GB HDD while maintaining FSX program files on SSD? Will there be any conflicts or loading problems if I were to do this? Also, are there special configuration tips that anyone may have? I've got two other NA scenery's from ORBX that i'd like to install and i'm down to less than 10GB on my SSD so I'm pretty much maxed out. Would like to avoid an FSX re-install if at all possible. Thanks in advance.Spud

I'm happy with the pricing model they chose. I can learn how to operate the plane properly (long process I'm assuming) with the base pack at a VERY reasonable 70 dollars. Then a few months or whatever later I can add the expansions for a mere 30 bucks if I want. But then again, I'm one who would've paid probably a lot more than what they're asking for that beautiful bird :)

I was having the same debate with myself on my recent build. Couldn't justify the 580 from a cost perspective so I split the difference and went with the superclocked 570 by evga. I don't know how much (if any) gain over the 560ti it was but I'm happy with the decision I made however as the graphics exceeded my expectations within FSX. I also came from an 8800GT so i'm sure the 560 couldn't have been a bad decision either.

Ok wow, I didn't know that. I should've researched more, the positive reviews on the card were probably 3 years old LOL. Many thanks for your reply and I'll give the shader mod a try. Still wondering about the goofy menu letters if someone can explain? Spud

Hello all, I am hoping someone who knows more about this stuff than I can assist me. I had an 8800GT graphics card that worked great until it stopped working on me about a month ago. In a haste, I bought (what I thought was) a temporary replacement to get me through the summer months before I decide to upgrade my system with a Sandy Bridge around October (when the weather gets cold again!). The new card I bought is an ATI 4670 1GB (128bit - low end i know!). Now admittedly it was probably a dumb purchase, but is there any chance it should be working better than it is? *Please see screen attached* I have been getting goofy letters on the menu bar and the terrain mesh is loading slower and slower with every minute that goes by in the sim. Should i possibly need to re-install everything to get this to work right? I remember a post by PMDG Ryan who said he had to re-install to get things to work correctly on a new graphics card. OR is there a possibility a problem with my motherboard or power supply caused the old card to fail in the first place and hence a problem still exists? I'm getting ok frame-rates with add-on planes and orbx scenery (16-18fps) but the picture isn't anywhere near as fluid as it was with my old card (24fps+ always with mid settings) and the slow terrain loading is driving me nuts. My system is a 3+ yr old Gateway q9300 @ 2.5ghz, 4gb ram, nvidia mb, ssd 100gb. Should I try a new MB or Power Suppy or did I just make a really dumb choice on this $79 card? Any help would be appreciated greatly. Thanks all, Spud

I'm hoping realair does a b200 - if it's half as good as the duke I'll be pleased. I may purchase the c90 by carenado to thank them for the effort but ditto to the posts above regarding the likely technical/performance side.

This happens to me a lot as well when I switch to other programs while in the sim in full-screen mode. What fixes it for me is to alt-tab through all the open programs 1 time until the FSX button is highlighted, then hit enter and it comes back most of the time. I just repeat these steps if it doesn't and it always returns eventually.

Anyone have any guesses on how this will compare with the Real Air one? I own RealAir Spit and thoroughly enjoy flying it from time to time. I'm sure the A2A one will be good as well judging from the videos but was just wondering about the key differences? I don't own anything from A2A yet so if someone could shed some light?

Would love to see RealAir do a B200 or even a C90 would make me happy. FSX desperately needs one or the other! Especially if they've nailed the PT-6, seems like the next logical step but maybe I'm biased :)Oh, I'll be upgrading to this version of the Duke too of course.

Wow is right! Great work guys. Never thought this sort of thing was even possible in FSX. Not really my thing but cool none-the-less. Neat video too!

Yeah, I learned my lesson with FSX. I bought it right when it came out along with a new computer. It still took nearly 3 years (and another new computer) for me to enjoy it as much as FS9 thanks to the multitude of quality add-ons that grow by the day (Orbx, etc). Although I may buy "M$ Flight" when it comes out to see the features (I'm sure it will have certain positives over FSX),however, my expectations will be extremely low and I won't be investing in it at least right away. I couldn't agree more with FSXII as OP says and I think it could be FSIV by the time Flight comes out. I can't envision a switchover for at least 4 years here, perhaps longer. PS: FSXIII is just around the corner with NGX by PMDG! Can't wait.

Now that'd be cool! The first plane I ever flew in - They're built like tanks. Think that'd be a good project for Real Air honestly...I also tried the retrofit for the Aeroworx B200 into FSX. Was ok for a while (the non-efis version) but had graphics issues fairly often so I removed it. Hopefully flight1 version of the B200 is still in the pipe and if not it'd be a crying shame unless someone else is working on one such as PMDG? (yeah, don't see that happening but I can dream). F1 would do a good job I think - they've got lots to live up to from the FS9 version though, BUT they wouldn't let us down right?

The J-41 is a must own for sure and I love that plane. I also agree that the B200 King Air is desperately needed in FSX as it's about the most popular turbo charter plane out there. Anyone hear anything on the Flight1 model that was being worked on? Hopefully the long delay is because they're doing it correctly similar to the FS9 version! Would like an update though if anyone knows anything. Spud

After spending some of my free time paging through airliners dot net looking at old photographs from the 50s, 60s, etc, I thought a neat concept for FSX would be to recreate airports and perhaps cities as they looked back in the day. Imagine flying your 707 from New York to Paris in the late 1950's and pulling up to the terminal and being just about the only turbojet aircraft on the ramp? What about flying your DC3 between New York and Washington in the 1940's, surely these places looked much different then. Maybe I'm the only one with interest in this topic, I am not sure, but I would welcome feedback from others regarding the feasibility and implementation - perhaps some commercial or private scenery developer would be interested in researching this further, settling on a time period, and developing a series of cities and airports from there. But why stop with just that? here are some other ideas:-Remove ILSs, VORs, and reverting to NDB's for navigation? -Classic cars and trucks on the ramp, parking lots, etc. -Passengers smoking in the back of the airplane/on the ramp. -Vintage airline signs at terminals and around the airport-Add your idea here!I know I'm not the first person to think of any of this stuff, I'm aware there have been various efforts made by other developers as well though I may not be aware of all of them. I simply wanted to see if I could start a conversation on this forum. It seems the boundaries of FSX get pushed further everyday and maybe this is something worth looking into. Thanks for taking the time to read this! Spud

I don't know what to think about all of this :( . The full beauty of FSX has only just come to fruition in my opinion in the last year or so thanks to 3rd party developers and hardware advancements. I'm sure this NEW sim will be neat somewhere down the line, but for the short term future I'm going to be content with what I have. I do think ORBX involvement can only be a good thing, if true, but we'll need to wait and see - my uneducated guess is 8-12 months before we hear ANY further news about it. I'll remain cautiously optimistic in the mean time without getting my hopes up too much.

Quoting Paul: To clarify, I was speaking of the current products out for FSX. The DF FS9 version met all my requirements. Was/still is one of my favorites though I no longer maintain FS9 on my system. Glad to see your comments here Paul. Spud

Thanks for the info. I did find the Dreamfleet Forums and their 727 appears to be still actively developing as was confirmed about a month ago. Sounds like it could be a little while yet til we see it but I'm at least glad to hear that news. As for the person that mentioned tweaking for the CS one (I own that too), I guess I'll need to look into that more so thanks for mentioning that. I used to dispatch these birds in the airlines back when and am very picky about correct fuel burns, takeoff performance, w&b, power settings, correct speeds, etc and felt like something was missing in about all of these areas. The -200 was noticeably underpowered for example. However, it has been a while since I've used it and perhaps it has been patched since then. I'll look into it. I don't care much about the VC being the only option, as long as the aforementioned aspects are right that's all I care about. Sounds like the DF will have 2d though for those interested. Thanks all for your input. Spud

Hello all, I was wondering if anyone knows of any 727's currently being developed for FSX with detailed systems and accurate flight model? I am aware of current products on the market, just looking for something else for various reasons. The Flight1 fs9 version of which I still own was one of my favorites but upon trying to port to FSX I failed miserably. If anyone has successfully done this I would be interested in learning about that as well. Thank you in advance for any info anyone has. I think a full study 727 for FSX would be cool, hopefully someone somewhere is making one or considering! Spud

737NG AND/or the LVLD 757 upcoming also! 767 also one of my favs, just getting a little dated visually for me is all but I still fly it periodically. System-wise it's 5/5 stars.

At first I chuckled about this topic until I read a few responses and started to think about the legitimacy of the question being asked. I'm biased because I read the forums and follow the latest news on FSX third party developments. From my perspective, having been in this hobby since the early 90s, it's the best it's ever been and gets better on a daily basis given the stability of the FSX platform and ability of developers to focus and refine their technologies. I could rattle off a very long list of developers who continue to amaze me and I can only imagine what will be coming in the next few years. What I don't know is if the FSX platform is able to attract folks new to the hobby who may not be aware of all of the addons out there which basically turn FSX into a much more modern sim (if not futuristic if you ask me). And, of course, there are dollars involved in order to modernize FSX and for what segment of the hobby population will be willing to spend this with every passing year I don't know. Perhaps FSX needs to be re-packaged with certain addons in order to continue its mainstream exposure? If anyone else has opinions on this I would be interested in hearing them. Main point for me is that the hobby hasn't ever looked so promising, just hope FSX can continue its growth. I'm following X-plane development as well and their future appears promising, but at this point in time I can only see myself splitting time between the two at best (I don't own XP9 but do own XP8). Thanks for listening to my opinions. Spud.