Speedbird 217

Really nice. Especially love #4 and #10!

Very nice! Love #4!

Stunning shots! Thanks for sharing.

Thanks for the very kind words! :smile:I'm sure I'll find some time to report on the upcoming flights. Gonna post here too, so you won't miss it!

Something new from me after a little break. Flight was from San Francisco to Denver on B767.Enjoy, and as always the full report can be found here: From the Bay to the Mile-High City: SFO-DEN UAL 756

Very nice shots! Love the one over Causeway Bay (HKG)!

Ben is right. If you need your PC for Gaming / FS, AMD may be cheaper than Intel, but they are really inferior. Just read a review on the new FX6100 6-core and it was performing up to 50% under the 4-core i7 2600K in benchmarks. I had one AMD CPU a few years ago, the rest was all Intel.If you want quality / performance go Intel, you won't regret it. As much as I would like to see AMD coming up with a great CPU again (it would mean competition and we all would benefit from lower prices) you have to be honest and say that AMD is no competition at all for Intel at the moment and hasn't been for a few years now. They build cheap CPU's. That's it...

The curse of the Airbus...I remember Rob (Flex1978) said in another thread that the plan is to first release the 320 Advanced incl. 318/319/321, then the 330/340 and then the FSX version. So the million years is actually not that unrealistic at the current pace. :DDon't get me wrong, I would buy the Advanced in a heartbeat. But I can't get myself to spend 40 $ on an allegedly buggy A320-only. So sad, this was the most promising Airbus for FS ever and it got stuck on the finish line (at least it seems that way). Would be more than happy to see it crossing the line in the near future though.Okay, edit is not working for me anymore. My last post is regarding the Airsimmer of course, not the FSLabs...

Very nice pictures! Not only a great aircraft, but also a great airline. And SF is nice too...

Absolutely fantastic shots Darryl!

Exactly, there NEVER was a 747 into DCA. The biggest plane in history to land there was a UA DC-10 during a thunderstorm, where all other airports in the Capital Region were closed and they ran out of fuel. It was that spectacular back then that it made all the news and headlines. Biggest plane that's operated into DCA on a scheduled basis is the AA 757-200. If you have ever been to National airport, they already look very over sized in this environment. I guess landing a 747 into DCA could be compared to landing a 777 at London City airport. :(

Have fun flying this beautiful approach! How I loved to watch all the traffic on final from the Mall. There's nothing like driving over the 395-bridge, and a 737 just flying over your head... :(

Yes, you're making a lot of sense Stephen! Actually the nice FPS improvement is just in a fresh FSX installation. I added some addons and when I load up the NGX in bad weather with traffic in Heathrow, well, the FPS go down to about 15 again. That's a little better than before but still not enough for me to switch from FS9 to FSX for IFR flying. VFR could be something different now. Funny thing is that it still doesn't matter if I set the sliders to medium or all maxed out, the FPS won't change at all.I noticed a huge performance increase in other games though. BF3 or Batman Arkham City run like a charm on the new card. Not really very surprising if you consider that these games use the GPU a lot more efficient than FSX does, and also the PhysX-stuff improves performance. They were very enjoyable before, but 60-70 FPS in BF3 on highest settings is not too bad. :biggrin:I guess I'm gonna keep the card and upgrade to an i7 2600K with a P8P67 and CPU Cooler later this year. Not sure if I'll need new RAM though, I already have 6GB of DDR3 1600 high performance memory from Corsair.

Very nice shot!

Today I got an EVGA GTX 570 with 2.6 GB Memory to replace my HD5850. I was very excited to run the FSXMark again, after benchmarking a little while ago with my old card.Here's the results from the first run with the HD5850 again:And here's today's results with the GTX 570:As you can see, there is an average improvement on the AVG frames of a little under 10 FPS. The Min frames seem to have stabilized at 21 now and didn't really change. The Max frames on the other hand went up by almost 17 FPS. It is fascinating to see that against all the talk that FSX is only dependent on the CPU, there actually are better results with NVIDIA cards. What is really interesting to see now is, how FSX will perform with addons and traffic. If the improvement melts away in this case, the new card is still not worth keeping. But this is a promising start.

Very nice pic! Is that the Olympia Mountains covered in clouds? Had the exact same weather the other day on my flight into Seattle :(

Awesome as always! Love the DC-10.

Sorry, but you wrote "[...] and FSX will gain performance from this". This doesn't sound like a speculation in any way, that's a fact by definition. Second, there is no reason for you to attack me personally. I just pointed out that you should consider to make it more clear that this is nothing but speculation. Because to use your own words, it is not really "helpful to other simmers" to just state personal expectations as facts.I'm glad we sorted this out, now back to topic.

I'm not saying it might not be the case. But right now we don't know anything for sure and therefore we should wait until we actually have results before making statements like this.

Post #7. If you can't see a difference, go see an eye-doctor :wink:I can always tell you if my FS runs at 25-30 FPS or at 60+. It's harder to tell the difference between say 40 and 70 FPS, compared to the more obvious difference you see between 15 and 30. But my mind clearly tells me this looks a lot smoother at 70...

Wow, now that you've said it I can see it too!Where did you get the Beta Screens from FS 11?? Looks like they really did rewrite the Frostbite 2.0 engine for the next FS...awesome! :(

And you know that how? Nobody outside Nvidia really ever got his hands on the new Kepler cards or knows how PCIe3 will affect performance. The articles on this topic (PCIe3) that I've read so far talked about minimal gains in performance that are not even noticeable without Benchmarks. So at this point everything is pure speculation and therefore you shouldn't walk around and act like it was a fact. Just a piece of good advice.

Very nice atmosphere here!

I agree with Paul. Your system can't be compared to the i5 and 2.33 GHz is not always the same, it depends on a lot of other factorsThe FPS you're getting with your setup seem about right to me too. I also highly doubt your friend gets 50 FPS with a PMDG in a FSDT scenery. At least not if he has anything else installed like GE, UT, REX and Traffic; which in my opinion are necessary to enjoy FS9 today. My system is pretty up to date and I sometimes get as low as 25 FPS with PMDG/iFly in complex sceneries like LHR or JFK with traffic, other upgrades and the enbseries mod. So don't expect your "old" system to work wonders.

Thanks for your advise. I will keep an eye open for the 660 then. Tried that, and while it gives me a good increase in performance in a fresh FSX installation, it just creates problems and conflicts as soon as a I install addons. When I sit in the NGX at a detailed airport with traffic, frames go down to single digits - no matter if with or without the Shader mod. Not to mention all the other problems that come with installing this mod like artifacts, stutters, weird graphics in some situations and incompatibilities with addons, to name a few. It's a nice piece of work though, because it outlines the problems FSX has with ATI cards.