JasonD210

Thanks. I noticed now that many of the top-range cards are reference cards. That's good for your CPU, but they still suck in warm air from the case. I've always invested in a top of the range CPU fan, and then added two fans to the case, one sucking from the front, and one at the back expelling air. It's always worked for me.

What does "non-reference design" mean?

Hi I came to this forum with almost exactly the same question in mind. I have almost identical specs to yours and I also have recently moved over to P3D v3. I was expecting to see a nice increase in frame-rates and stability. Instead they are the same - disappointingly low when you have heavy aircraft and scenery add-ons. With the ORBX England package, I was getting about 9 FPS when flying low using the P3D F-22. I don't have all the sliders to the right, and I have turned off all reflections. So, yes, I was surprised and disappointed. Especially after playing other simulators like DCS where I get much higher framerates. Even games like War Thunder, where you have amazing scenery and many players connected with superbly detailed aircraft, I'm getting well over 25 fps. I suspect the real problem lies in the nature of aging Microsoft ESP code. It's not optimised for today's hardware. But like you, I looked at my aging PC and wondered if upgrading the video card might help. I can tell you that it will, but don't expect a miracle. One test you can do is to set your resolution in p3d to the lowest possible setting, and then see if there is an improvement in frame-rates. Resolution is determined by the GPU, so if having your simulator set to the highest GPU setting causes a lowering of frame-rates, then a newer, faster GPU will help. In my tests, with my resolution set to the lowest setting, I was getting 15fps, whereas in the same area with the highest resolution, I was getting 8 - 9 fps. Not a great difference but enough to make landing more than a slideshow. However I'm not sure what card to get. I had a look at this chart and the ASUS nVidia GTX 970 seems to be reasonable card to go for in terms performance per buck. The aforementioned Radeon R9 fury X is just below and carries a much higher price tag. So I'm thinking of going for nVidia GTX 970. http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html Hopes this helps. /Jason

Hi Thanks! I'm also in the UK and was thinking of getting the England package...presumably this just sits on top of any other ORBX global scenery. I use A2A aircraft, as well as Aerosoft's Otter, quite a lot and in FSX at UK2000's Manchester Airport Extreme and the B-377, I was getting about 14 fps on the tarmac. I haven't noticed anything different with the same set up in P3D v3 yet, which is disappointing, but my computer is due for an update, as you can see (actually my nVidia is a 660). I think I'll probably go for the FTX Global base, then add individual areas I want to enhance. /Jason

Hi I want to get some scenery for P3D - moving away from the default. I am not really knowledgeable on it and there seems to be several mainstream alternatives. From what I can gather by reading various threads, one way to go seems to be to install FTX Global base scenery, then get vector and openLC or even UTX scenery for any specific areas I want to enhance, and finally, specific airports on the top layer. Does this sound ok or is it problematic? /Jason

Where are you from?

Nothing to stop there being multiple runways at different angles. That example in the link shows two parallel runways, but you could have as many as you want at any angle you want.

Here's a slightly better link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphics/starrport/flash.htm

Here's some information: http://earthwiseint.com/pages/starrport.php

You seem not to be familiar with this proposal. The apron is on a raised platform with runways sloping up to it from different directions, so it doesn't matter which way the wind is blowing. You just change the runway, as you would in a normal airport. The reason why you don't see this simple idea is the same reason why you don't see any other -- because it would be a long term investment and profits are to be found in short term investment.

No, because forums are associated with specific subjects around which like-minded communities then evolve. One problem with using social media sites is that work, personal life and hobbies all tend to get blurred together, not everyone wants that. Sites like Facebook have gradually and successively removed almost all the privacy we had when we first joined. Google are following a similar route. Also, a Facebook page does not offer the organisational and hierarchical structure and tools that professional php or aspx forum does.

One could start with airports. Right now most airports are the result of 60 or 70 years of evolution, rather than an efficient design. Airports need to be redesigned to benefit climate and ecology also the health of the users and people who live nearby it. For example, I saw one idea for an airport where the landing runway slopes upwards to the apron, and the take off runway slopes down from the apron. Such a simple idea, yet the saving on fuel and braking is enormous. Ideas like that.

Hi If you haven't heard already, thought I'd announced this great news - this quote from Eagle Dynamics, producers of the DCS series: Source: TFC/ED Newsletter, April 2012 This effectively means a simulator platform, instead of study sim. Nice that 3rd party stuff will be allowed!

It's pity people go for such extremes, because one see's a review where ther reviewer gives it 1/10 or a 9/10, I think the review loses credibility. The review is obviously not balanced. I gave it a strict 5/10 and I'll probably change that if and when Flight changes for the better. I find it impossible not to compare it to other simulators, not just FSX, but X-plane also.

HiI've been with Gamespot now for 10 years - noticed that they've got a review out already for Flight. I don't know if you guys at Avsim knew about it. On the whole I thought it was a fair review.http://www.gamespot.com/microsoft-flight/reviews/microsoft-flight-review-6365704/I was a bit harder with my review (Jason210), which can be seen, amongst others by clicking on Player Reviews in the block on the left.Cheers/Jason