pbagrat

I am trying to install the latest BETA and having the same problem I did with the last one. Per the instuctions on the Flight1 Forum I uninstalled my previous version. When I run the OpusFSX_v271_beta.msi file I get the following error message about a missing cabinet file: http://i1045.photobucket.com/albums/b458/cherokeecruiser2002/OpusBETAError_zps21af99d7.jpg I can download and install the regular updates just fine...seems to only be the BETA. By the way, yesterday when flying the PMDG 737NGX I was descending into KATL and around 12000 feet I encountered some turbulence that made my aircraft yaw violently side to side a few times. I was on an RNAV approach with LNAV and VNAV engaged. It did recover but it seemed a bit over the top for that altitude despite the fact there were some thunderstorms in the vicinity. I do have the turbulence bumps aircraft turned on. I have also been noticing lots of noticeable cloud shifts. I have my cloud draw distance set to 100 in FSX and Detail Radius is large. Overall I think the program is coming along well and the regular updates are great. Hope everyone at Opus Software has a great Christmas!

Captain Sim...not the best on the market by far...

Actually I saw i slight increase in frame rates without AS2012 running any more and just using OpusFSX. As previously stated the only real bottleneck would be caused by any textures that were installed by REX or AS2012. Unfortunately I can't use the 32 bit cloud textures on my machine without sending my FPS into the teens so I use the DTX5 compressed textures @ 1024x1024.

I think you'll be happy with the 660ti. I have everything maxed out and get around 30 FPS in the PMDG 737NGX. I also run Battlefield 3 at Ultra settings and get 60 FPS. It will take some tweaking but its worth it! Make sure you use Nvidia Inspector to get the most out of the 660ti. My max GPU utilization in FSX is 78% and 1.2 of the 2 GB VRAM being used.

I just purchased and downloaded 2.60.8 and have to say I am impressed with the difference from As2012 not only in terms of depiction but performance. The live camera was really easy to set up on all my aircraft and I figured out how to get the transition speed just the way I like it. Why did I decide to go for it? The fact that you offered a demo that let me fully explore the features before purchasing. That along with the great support I see here on the forums made my decision easy. I look forward to continued improvements as your product continues to mature. Thanks again Cheryl!

I have to say while I do like the live camera I think the transition to another view could be a little smoother and more natural. I have tried different settings but it seems to be kind of abrupt no matter what I do. Your weather engine is excellent and once the winds aloft are perfected I will purchase your product. Good work!

Is the camera supposed to work in the demo? I read the user guide but mine still doesnt do anything. For me the choice between OpusFSX or EZCA will come down to how realistic the camera effects are since I already have a weather engine (AS2012). I tried in both windowed and full screen mode. The weather on the ground seemed pretty accurate to me but no different from what AS2012 displayed so its really hard to judge just taxiing around.

Good here too on Win7x64

+1 for Norton 2012 as well

After reaching what I found to be good performance I decided to change some of my Inspector settings. Specifically, I upped my Antialiasing to Super VCAA_64x_8v8 and was impressed with the visual improvement. My frame rates did not drop a bit, but using the Inspector monitor while flying around KLGA with AS2012 running I noticed my GPU usage went up to 90% and VRAM used was 1380. It also really sharpened my textures all around. This is the only thing that has really pushed my 660ti so far.

I added this line to my [DISPLAY] Section : TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=2800 Also, my TextureMaxLoad=6 as opposed to the 512 in yours. See if that helps you. It really improved my texture loading.

For FSX I've used an Nvidia 8800 GTS for a couple of years. Three years ago I built a new PC (i7 860 @ 3.6 Ghz) and got an AMD 5850. I never really had to tweak much...it just worked out of the box with no .cfg tweaking either and I got decent frame rates. When the PMDG 737NGX came along I knew I needed a little more horsepower, so two months ago I built a new i7 3770K rig with two SSD's and an Asus GTX 660 Ti. While I am now pleased with it's performance in FSX it did take many hours of tweaking and testing. Honestly I never had a problem with AMD or Nvidia drivers and I have owned both chipsets for over a decade. You will pay a premium for Nvidia versus AMD. If this is ONLY for FSX then I really believe it comes down to personal preference. The new Nvidia 600 series GPU's are extremely power efficient and thus run cooler than the 500 series (Fermi) cards. While the majority of people claim FSX is smoother using Nvidia there are plenty of us that have used AMD cards and have been very pleased with the performance they offer. One thing to keep in mind is that the 660 Ti has a 192 bit memory bus compared to a 256 bit on the 670. The AMD 7950 has a 384 bit memory bus though this is probably overkill for FSX it may benefit other games.

I would spend the extra $70 and get the 670 but I highly recommend using a non-reference cooler design such as Asus, Gigabyte, or MSI because cooling is better. If you can wait a few weeks for Black Friday you'll probably be able to buy one for what I paid for my 660ti ($299).

Price is a little on the high side though. This cracked me up!

Problem solved for me! I posted my .cfg file here http://forum.avsim.net/topic/389591-ngx-performance/page__st__25#entry2509272 Incredible difference in image quality and performance...it just totally blew me away!