MickH

But you don't have to Buy the whole of the USA though, its completely optional. Anyway from what i've seen so far the scenery is as good as FSX add on, so basically it saves you buying the sim then rebuying add-on scenery.

Thats really good news, hopefully should lessen the load of the CPU and make everything better all round.

Surely performance comes into play here? So FSX may have it in the same resolution, but how many frames per second do you get with everything cranked up? I don't want to have to overclock an Ivy Bridge to 6ghz+, if its even possible, to play Flight and don't want the same problems we had when FSX was released - give me FSX tweaked with FS9 performance and i'll be quite happy.

Apart from the Pic with the airport on it, its basically very good topography with better autogen and there is no reason why Flight can't have superior topography than FSX, Xplane manages it fairly well and that barely runs on 2 cores, so something optimised for 4 or 6 shouldn't have too much trouble - here's hoping that it will be optimised.Ironically you may find its the big cities that the add-ons may focus on, and that wouldn't be a bad thing really - i'd prefer much improved landclass's than big cities if it came to a choice.

It's looking better and better all the time.

I don't have any problems either, but it appears some do.

I think in general, people on a whole are pessimistic and fearful, especially of new things and always seem to think the worse; they also latch onto slight negatives and enhance them.Whilst i'm not entirely for the whole microtransaction aspect, if its going to happen, i'm sure that most 'serious' flight simmers already won't use one default aircraft or airport or even default ATC, so having to buy 'additional' scenery or aircraft on 'Live' won't be any different really.Its only natural now for an internet capability to be included, yes some still don't have broadband but many do, and there comes a time that developers have to call time and move on. Its not much different from hardware requirements, there comes a time when your old rig just doesnt cut it, but you wont see developers catering to you.I'm hoping Flight will be everything FSX should have been, and hopefully more; but only time will tell.

HiJust going off on a slight tangent here, as I haven't used the Wilco product, have you considered the Ifly 737, this one I do have, and its extremely good with very good systems modelling, with everything you'd expect from the likes of PMDG etc.http://www.iflysimsoft.com/RegardsMichael

The way I understand it, and I may be completely wrong, is that FSX is indeed a single threaded application, at least originally, and needs one core to run really fast to be effective. Since SP1 or SP2, I can't remember, it has had some multi-threaded ability, but really only in the scheduling of scenery and other items, not the main part of the program.So basically the more cores you have should make scenery loading etc better, meaning it'll run smoother, at least from what comments i've read, but you also need a fast cpu, near, or above, 4ghz to get the best from it with demanding add-ons.I'm not sure about this but the I7 is supposed to have a good memory controller which may give an added performance increase, though I may be talking out of my hat as i can't verify it, the increase that is not the controller.Michael

HI KrishanI don't have one myself, still on an o/c E8400 @ 3.7, but from what i've heard there should be a significant increase when using the I7-950. An I7 @ 4ghz is supposed to be great for running FSX, if thats what the upgrade is for.I'm not sure if the 260 will hinder you when you o/c your chip or not, but you may want to upgrade your graphics card like you mentioned.RegardsMichael

Thanks for that, but I sort of know my way around overclocking a little, though I know where to stop as well.I'm not into messing with voltages really, raising fsb's, multipliers etc, memory ratios, using Prime95, im fine with all that.What I was meaning was is the 970 as much of a doozy as the 1090t is supposed to be to overclock, or do you get some increase and then find its a game of cat and mouse with the voltages.At this moment in time, im going to see what Sandybridge brings, and probably wait till Bulldozer is out to decide what to get.Michael

HI JalexbBy no sweat, i'm presuming you mean a multiplier increase and either no voltage tweaks, or minimal ones?I've not really heard much about the 970, but i had about the 1090t which is why i mentioned it.Michael

Hi Art_PJust letting you know i recently swapped out my motherboard, as I was having overclocking issues with my old one, and I wasn't quite sure what would happen with the Windows 7 OEM I had, but when I put everything together it still validated and activated ok, and it seems to work fine.Michael

HiIt sort of depends if you're going to overclock, or not, really. With the 970 being faster than the 1100t by 200mhz, unless 3 cores or less are in use, its probably the best cpu to go for as you are guaranteed 3.5 across all 4 cores, all the time. Now if you're overclocking the 1100t seems to be able to hit around the 4ghz mark without much effort, and 3.8ghz very easily.My personal preference would be to go for the 1090T, its about £20 cheaper than the 1100T, and will o/c to about the same level.I'm running an E8400 o/c to 3.7ghz and I find that both cores are maxed out nearly all the time, so having 4 cores or more allows you to off load FSX from core 0, where windows etc run, and put it on its own core, then use the other 2 cores, 4 for the x6, for scenery loading etc; speed is still the game in town, but more cores definitely won't hurt.Michael

From what I can see, it's got a 400mhz advantage, running at 2.8ghz compared to 2.4 of the 9750. It also has 4mb more of Level 3 memory cache, which shouldn't hurt. All other things being equal, and if you're running at the same settings as before, you'll probably see a 15-20% improvement in frame rates,maybe? from the many articles i've read FSX seems to scale 1:1 with cpu speed.One other point, you may see some improvement in having another 2gig's of memory installed too.Michael

HIThe 1090T is supposed to be extremely easy to overclock. Being a Black Edition it was basically made to be overclocked, with having whats called an unlocked mulitplier, which makes overclocking child's play supposedly.One thiing though I don't know how far you'll get with the stock cooler, you'll really need to get an aftermarket cooler, but something about £20 - £30 / $30-$45 should be ok, from what i've read. Some come with pre-applied paste, others you'll need to buy it and apply a blob on the cpu, after using some TIM, thermal interface material, remover, which you'll also need, to remove the old paste off the chip.Its not that complicated, i've done mine a couple of times, but you do need to be clued up on it. The good thing is there are loads of articles on the web, just google 'overclocking 1090t' and similar.Hope this helpsMichael

Mike I think you answered your own question in that last statement. The default software, whether FSX or FS9 is a game when compared to someone using it with payware aircraft, Radar Contact or Vatsim etc. as well as the miriad of scenery and controls available to purchase.Its a case of whatever floats your boat, or in this case Aircraft, really.Mick

My current setup is:E8400 overclocked to 3.7ghz4gb 800mhz ddr2ATI 1gb 5770The only tweak that I really use is to raise the bandwidth_multi, which defaults to 40; I used to use about 400, but recently after reading an article on the web i've been using 800 and above. I've found using 800+ really cuts down on the load time of textures, though it also means running less fps, so its a trade off. Currently i've got my fps locked at 20, again after reading an article and everything is very smooth, and frames stay at almost 20.I'm currently using the Ifly 737, PMDG747, REX, Ground Environment and Traffic 2005.Some say that a QuadCore gives you added performance when compared to a DualCore chip, but I can't say for sure. Maybe you could try overclocking your Q6600, supposedly they are good for a bit, though you would need an aftermarket cooler too.Mick

Personally speaking I look for most of those aspects. Afterall some people spend £300 on a graphics card so they should get some eye candy for their money don't you think?Also whats so bad about being easy to learn and use? Does something have to be a complete nightmare to operate to be 'real' or 'serious'?I'm not sure what you're meaning by 'smooth flight' though? Actually can you elaborate on what you are meaning please.And was there really any need for the Xbox comment?

HiI thnk the shaking aspect is generally down to the uneven surface of the taxiway and the movement of the aircraft, deceleration and acceleration, which could be a problem to emulate, at least for a desktop payware addon. I know in FSX PMDG added some noises, clattering sounds to the 747, at least for a takeoff roll but i cant remember if there is anything for FS9 or taxiing in general.With regard to the sloped runways, yes its always been a problem in MSFS, though i think FlyTampa have released a pack with sloped runways in it, unfortunately its only for FSX it seems.Sorry I cant be much more help.Its things like this which i'm hoping we may see in 'Flight', fingers crossed.

Thats really what I was thinking too, I just didn't want to go into too much detail, so just left it with 'performance'; Basically it needs gutting and bringing upto date to embrace the technology we now have and use it to its fullest.

By any chance do you have this weeks lottery numbers to hand too?Seriously though we don't know diddly about Flight yet, apart from those teasers and the odds and ends than MS have thrown us. For me if its basically just FSX but with much better performance, so I can run it with add ons and don't require a supercomputer to do it, that'll do me fine.

As does every other business on this planet.Though one of the best ways is for them to make a product people want to buy.

Surely a contraction of Mathematics is Maths, no? its either Arithmetic or Mathematics, so really if you're going to say 'Do the Math', you should say 'Do the Arith'.But thats just me being pedantic.

'It's so fun' is probably something that's come from the same parentage as....'Do the Math', when it should be 'Do the Maths' or even 'Do the arithmetic''I could care less' when actually meaning 'I couldn't care less'It appears to be a change in the way some people say things, usually Americans it appears, and it looks like it's here to stay.