enji

Thanks for the reply!Regarding the graphics card upgrade - I know I won't see as much as an improvement as one could hope for after spending that sort of money, though every little helps! I do play BF3 though, although not seriously (my system runs it pretty well actually with graphics turned up a fair bit).Bojote's - yes. NV inspector - yes, although I've came across posts on here recently that have said there is a new application that is good to use instead. It might just be a newer version of NV Inspector though. I used NickN's guide anyway.edit: I think it was NickN that said the perfect card for FSX seems to be a 560TI / 570. Which is what got me interested in the upgrade.edit 2: Coolermaster Hyper 212 Plus.edit 3: Traffic settings are on low.

First of all, thanks for the reply. Wasn't expecting one so quick!Extensive reading up got me using an FPS limiter which i've set to 30. So 30 would be the max I receive.I've had times though where FSX stutters, particularly on approach to airports. Sometimes it's pretty bad and If I remember right, 12-15 FPS is not uncommon. In a few of the Aerosoft airports, I manage to get something like 10 FPS on ground as soon as I start up the flight.I'm looking for something that will improve my experience. I imagine that i've got most, if not all of the main addons for UK/Europe flying in the 737 NGX. I would love to be able to run all my addons and have my system performing at a level where I don't receive ANY stutters/lag at all.If my config was setup right - would an OC to 3.8GHz and a new graphics card give me the flawless results I'm after? (is anything flawless with FSX? haha). Going by a few posters, it seems that it is possible though!If you have any addons that I've not listed that you might think I would enjoy/benefit from for Europe flying, then I would love to hear some recommendations.

Hi there,I've been using FSX for a good 2 years now - however it's not been touched in the last 4 months due to getting a bit bored by some of its issues and because I was waiting until Flight came out. However, since the recent announcements on Flight, waiting for it might be a waste of time (although i'm still hopeful).Anyway, my PC rig is as follows:i7 930 @ 2.8ghz6GB ramGTX 460 768mbrunning FSX on a WD velociraptorFirst question - i'm planning to overclock my CPU which I should be able to get 3.8Ghz quite easily (my bro got the same results comfortably). I'm also planning on changing the GTX 460 for a 560 TI / GTX 570. How much of an improvement to the FPS would this make? I know the only sort of answers I can expect are along the lines of slight improvement / huge improvement, but that would help me in deciding if it will be worth the money. I get FPS issues at the moment using some Aerosoft airports or after a few hours flying which is why I'm planning on a hardware upgrade.My second question is - being that there are some 1GB models of the GTX 560TI and 1GB models of the GTX 570 that 'only' have 1GB of memory - would there be a noticeable improvement going with a card with more memory for FSX? I'm mainly talking about the ATI card HD 6950 with 2GB memory (do 'recent' ATI cards still have problems with FSX?), though I would be interested if more memory did make a decent improvement for FSX.My last question is - I've bought/got quite a fair amount of addons over the time. The main ones being:PMDG 737 NGXEZdokENB seriesREX 2 overdriveUTXGEXMytrafficSome UK2000 airports/Aerosoft airportAre there any addons that would either improve my enjoyment experience or my experience to get a smoother running sim? I mainly fly airliners in the UK/Europe (for example, I have read that VFR scenery improves FPS, though by how much??).fsuipc is something I have not got.. I've never understood or came across all the features it does, other than joystick config. If anyone has a manual for it or a list of improvements it would provides, then that would be great.Appreciate any help

is it a 560 TI or just a 560?Also, what processor do you have? I've got a 1st gen i7 at 2.8ghz which I plan to overclock some time. 6GB ram.

Thanks for the reply.I'll probably need to upgrade my graphics card if I want to get more out of a game like XP10. I've only got a GTX 460 and I'm considering upgrading to a 570 soon.

Posted my reply in the topic created for it to receive some attention.thanks

Thanks very much fvapres! Really enjoyed that.What kind of settings are you using and how do you find XP runs on your PC (i'm reading your specs in your sig)?

Hi there,If you were able to takeoff from EGPH, fly around the city then land back at EGPH, that would be fantastic :)really appreciate your time.Thanks

fvapres - i've watched your other videos and they seem pretty good!would you be so kind as to make a video of EGPH? If i'm impressed by my local scenery I'll buy XP10 Thanks

Geofa - appreciate the screenshot of EGPH. Pictures and videos always seem more interesting when it's of an area that you are familiar with :)

Sorry to jump on your topic, but I wouldn't mind a few screenshots around EGPH.I'm also in the same boat as you.

Those textures look absolutely honkin'.

Make that 3 with davew_uk.Your comment is ignorant at best. Yes, only a few people on here have stated the same view on a single topic on a small forum. Release the game to the masses and you'll quickly find that those 'few' with the same opinion escalates and multiplies quite well. I would hazard a guess that perhaps 25% of the people on this topic have agreed with the same opinion.So tell me, what's 25% of the '10's of thousands that have alreay purchased x plane'.I could even go further and say that being that this is on an X-Plane sub forum (naturally with more XP '######'), one could expect a higher % of people who share different views from yourself when it gets released publicly for everyone to see. I believe I came across someone disregarding the players of FSX, either here or elsewhere. Do you know how many people, currently playing FSX, will want to move to a simulator 5 years it's junior? A hell of a lot - and when you disregard their views on a small forum, just as I said before, it multiplies like nothing else and before you know it, that's a lot less sales of XP10..If I was the top dog in Laminar, I'd be content with people who share the same views as you, but I certainly would be playing more to the demands of the many other prospect customers who are on the edge whether or not to purchase XP10, to turn that potential customer into someone that has just deposited 80$ in my bank. And why should this be an issue for even yourself as well? Well, the more people playing XP10 means the higher demand for bug fixes, the higher demand of optimization of the game, the higher demand for new add-ons, cheaper add-ons, etc. So think carefully who you still want to 'feel free to return to FSX'.

so it isn't just me then..

Your Sim City comparisons, were they your own, or was it from reading my views earlier in this thread? It would be interesting if we both came to the same conclusion independently and if that's the case, I imagine many others would think so too.In regards to your comments about night flying - spot on. I'm not sure if I've said it in this thread, but the night lighting looks absolutely brilliant. If they can raise the bar to that kind of standard, then there are other areas of the game where that bar should be maintained. They are clearly capable of doing so.

Well done, you both still can't read properly.In reply to davew_uk's post: 'I cannot agree with this. FSX does a better job of depicting urban scenery with a fraction of the CPU/GPU resources.'You followed up by saying: You have neglected his opinion, and then tried to justify yours by using your GPU temperature as some sort of benchmark between the two simulators. Really? Really..? Unfortunately, I think a few of the 'big' things won't be improved upon at this stage, but who knows. One area where I do think they could improve without releasing huge updates is making densely populated areas look better. I imagine the other things will be left for companies who wish to release add-ons.I'm confident though about Laminar optimizing the game so people get the best performance possible. I have been impressed by the responses to problems addressed on their facebook page and hopefully by the turn of the new year, most of the major bugs will have been sorted. In fact, I'm pretty sure they will be.I know they havn't released round-system specs for certain levels of quality, but from past experiences with FSX, that's understandable. As long as it can run with high quality settings on powerful PCs/Macs without any bugs or issues, then I think most people would be happy. I imagine that a lot of buyers will have to be more realistic with their expectations, if going by the system specs a few people on the XP10 facebook page were saying. Games in general are moving on and more often than not, they require a higher performance unit to run them. I expect a lot of people to have a brand new, custom built computer within the next 6 months - 1 year. Luckily for me, I'm probably only looking at upgrading my graphics card.

Where did I say that FSX should look as good or better than FSX + payware? Nowhere. Did I specify what addons? No. Did I say that the default, playable aircraft should match up to some of the payware addons I have installed with my FSX? No. Did I say that I expect XP10, 'out of the box, can look like FSX with all the add ons'? No. Since you believe yourself to be competent enough to call my logic moronic, I suggest you go back and read again my views, this time very carefully before you make yourself out to be even more of an incompetent reader.I've said numerous times, my expectations are in regards to the founding base of the simulator. Clouds, water, weather... - important visual elements. Do I expect these important elements to look as good as my 5 year old FSX? You better believe it. This is an 80$ piece of software. Nobody should have to pay out even more money to get these basic elements to look as good as another simulator 5 years older. Specialised add-ons are a great thing - aircraft, scenery in certain areas, airports, etc. Do I expect Laminar to have my local airport spot on, building for building? No. Do I expect them to have any airport, aircraft, scenery spot on? Again, not at all.In regards to the post above by Mountain Man, referring to myself: "That "potential customer" was trolling and all but asking to be called a moron." In what way was I trolling? By giving out my honest opinion about a piece of software? I suggest you stay away from magazines, newspapers, review websites and other news outlets if you are that offended by my opinion, let alone others. I specifically said in my opening post that I have ditched FSX for a few months due to the amount of problems with it - just incase I got jumped on by the XP fan boys, which seems to have happened. So tell me, in what way was I trolling?To tkyler - I refer you to this post's opening paragraph. I also hope you have absolutely no ties with Laminar Research.

good reply.In regards to your comment about the static aircraft - that's the kind of thing I mean. Surely XP10 default should look a hell of a lot better than FSX default, being that FSX is 5 years old. They both look disgusting, but I expect more from a new game.I think what we have to remember is that people shouldn't be expected to shell out a huge amount after buying a particular game if they want a great experience and something that lives up to the expectations of this day and age. Sure, the makers of XP10 will have taken into consideration the £££ they receive from add-on sales and therefore intentionally, in many cases, chose not to excel in certain aspects of the game - but as I said before, I expect the basis to look pretty good.Also, about the add-ons for XP that you said look great - do you have any screenshots you would be willing to show me? The only screenshots that i've seen of add-ons for XP were of aircraft.At the end of the day - the better XP10 is, the better Microsoft Flight is. And vise versa. I don't care which one I play - I'd be happy for a rebranded FSX as long as the FPS issues and other problems were fixed.

Do you mean this? http://www.x-plane.com/2011/11/The second screenshot (pulled from x-plane) is the kind of thing I was talking about before. It looks like a scene out of sim city 4.If that's not what you meant, then clearly I'm lost Thanks

Mountain Man - do you have a link to that ("plausible city")?thanks

FSX was released 5 years ago.Populated areas in XP10 looks extremely underwhelming to me. Do you not think so? I'm not really sure what effect 3rd party add-ons can affect this.Water effects in XP10 don't look as good to me, (though perhaps I could be persuaded). For a simulator/game selling at 80$, I expect it to look every bit as good as REX in FSX, yes.Default aircraft/static aircraft also look disguisting. I refer you back to the price of the game.Are you happy with the graphics in XP10 (genuine question)?edit: Add-ons improving the experience is fine - hell I've got enough of them for FSX. But I expected more from the 'starting basis' of XP10.

Hi there,I've downloaded the demo of x-plane 10 however it wasn't really playable, which is why I want to ask on here.Whenever I see the videos in-game on youtube or elsewhere, it seems to me that the populated areas look like a scene from sim city 4. The houses and roads look like they have been pulled straight from that game and into XP10. To be honest i'm very underwhelmed by it.As well as that, the water in XP10 to me, compared to REX in FSX, is also underwhelming. Clouds and fog look pretty good though.I really want to be impressed by XP10 since I've pretty much ditched FSX and havn't played for a few months because of the amount of errors/issues with it. The graphics/scenery are such a huge part of a flight sim and I really did expect it to look as good, if not better, than my current setup of FSX (REX + other addons). With so much time that has moved on since the FSX release, for this brand new game not to match up graphically with an 'old' game (albeit addon'd) like FSX, that's pretty disappointing for me.Does anyone else think similar?

anyone notice that one webisode has been taken off with this recent announcement?