Robert McDonald

I agree that the -4GB- Overclocked GTX 770 is probably a great value for money (about $400 street) as contrasted with the ~ $1000 USD Titan Black (Formerly GTX Titan), but if X-Plane is ever a consideration and money is not an object, the extra 2GB (6GB total on the Titan) can pay off -if- you are trying to run at max rendition levels. Of course the 6GB of Vram on the Titan is useless in FSX, as you rightly stated. If you are considering a 3-pc / 3-screens setup in X-Plane, I can vouch that there are times with Ortho Scenery where those OC 4GB 770s are a little less than ideal compared with the center-monitor / center-PC w/ Titan 6GB video. Plain language, the Titan can generally plow through all but the very most extreme scenery loads, while there are times when the 770s overload. This is at KSAN (San Diego) with the KSAN ortho scenery pack which is a FSX to X-Plane conversion. That scenery ALONE is 1GB. The freeze up/stutter issue only happens about 10 miles out to the East from runway 27. I think that is when the default textures are unloaded and the ortho-scenery loads up. So far it's the ONLY place in XP where I have encountered the problem, which I empirically believe is caused by inefficient coding resultant from migrating FSX scenery to XPlane via software conversion.

A question for the ages. You may not like or agree with the following comments, but if you're looking for advice based on personal experiences, please, read on. If you are solely an FSX pilot, you will see a bit of improvement, but likely a relatively negligible one. If you are looking for butter smooth graphics and great frames rates it would be my suggestion you play around with X-Plane 10. Forget the demo, buy XPlane 10. The demo is too time-limited, and you will become insanely frustrated when the timer runs out and you are barely off the ground. What does x-Plane offer you that FSX does not, from a purely TECHNICAL point of view? 1. SCALABILITY. The more PCs and graphics cards and monitors you have on your flight deck, the better the overall flight experience can be. 2. 64-bits. Not a sure-fire cure-all, but it DOES allow your simulator access to your maximum system ram. 3. Split views with less distortion (as compared with WideView in FSX). You can set up 180-degrees field of view on three monitors, driven by 3 pcs, and achieve a level of performance that is nearly mind-boggling. 4. The ability to use ALL of your graphics-card VRAM. The Vram (or 'video-ram' on the Titan Black (Formerly GTX Titan) is 6GB. In FSX, that Vram goes principally to waste. Not the case in XPlane, it can and does use it to permit stunning graphics and rendering. IMHO, the 'minimum' acceptable Vram and best bang-for-buck for XPlane 10 is on the msi (and other brands) OC GTX 770 with 4GB Vram OPTION. (Also available with only 2 GB vram, NOT recommended). The FSX cognetti will tell you more than 2GB is overkill, I do NOT agree. 5. A decent bronze power supply at 750 watts or better is a wise investment. Best $80 USD you can invest other than your actual GPU itself. Plan for high heat levels- invest in great case, well vented, and with muchos circulating fans! If you're a distant relative of the late Lloyd Bridges, you might consider liquid-cooling, but for the rest of us, there's NOCTUA DH-14 (beware the razor sharp fin blades- wear heavy gloves during build). Scalable means you can start with a 'centerpiece' PC, and then branch out with wingman pcs for multi-screens and crazy frames rates. Why all of this hubub and push for XPlane vs FSX? Simply because no matter what else you're trying to do with your sim- you keep adding extra work to it (scenery add-ons, weather engines, ATC, complex aircraft, texture packs, ortho scenery, etc...) you will cause even the most powerful of PCs to come to a grinding halt. Because XP can divvy up the video work between multiple PCs, and because software like Sim-Avionics can run the complex airplane electronics on yet a 4th Networked PC, you benefit by splitting the tasks up amongst many PCs, not burying your "one and only" with the incredibly hard job of doing all of the calcs and renders on just ONE computer with only ONE graphics card and all of that in 32-bits! Since FSX is severely limited in several ways (32-bit, does not take advantage of todays modern GPUS with huge VRAM possible), along with very old base-coding (programming), it can pay off to move to the dark side. Usual caveats apply: XPlane -does- have warts and weaknesses. People who have invested a lot in FSX upgrades and hang-ons will feel a strong pull to keep what works, and what they have. If you're happy with your present setup, there is simply NO REASON to change it. Do NOT watch XP videos. You may become unhappy with your chosen sim. If you're curious to see what the differences are, my YouTube site (link below my sig) has vids from both FSX as well as XP. I think if you watch the night-vid of the approach to KSFO on triple-screens with triple-PCs, you will see what possibilities exist. Throw in glass-cockpit software from FlightDeckSolutions (Sim-Avionics) and a couple of nice hardware bits (Pro-MX CDU and JetMaxx MCP/EFIS, also from FDS), and the impossible becomes reality. And the frames are incredible. Your CURRENT system could become part of your new multi-pc setup. Remember, if you go XP, you will be rewarded for better components, particularly the GPU and the VRam on those GPUS. Cheers.

You have me completely mystified. You are not asking for help with Backup software, you in fact have a problem where your SOURCE drive is growing in size unaccountably. This is far beyond this topic, and would require quite a bit of troubleshooting. It could be a number of things, including but not limited to the possibility that your drive is being unwittingly used by others for file sharing (a 'bot'), or other types of malware or virus infection. At any rate, I am unable to diagnose the issue for you. I would recommend you consult an IT professional. If you don't own the full-on Malwarebytes software, I recommend you purchase and run it. Not just the free version. Also, do a Google search on the subject of drive size growing unaccountably. You might find some threads there. Best of luck.

You might try totally formatting the target drive before trying to clone an image to it. This would positively remove any prior image. Then see if the ballooning occurs. This is only for testing purposes. If it works and you never have a balloon issue again, you can conclude there is a defect in the backup software where it is not properly totally erasing the drive before cloning. Also, Acronis Clone has a feature called "automatic" where the software will clone a smaller drive to a bigger drive and vice-versa (if space permits). You might try playing with the manual feature in lieu of automatic and see if that works with the cloning process and see if it will keep your drive image size the same every time. Finally, I would inquire if you are manually running this clone process (I assume yes) as opposed to making it a scheduled task? Otherwise, I'm stumped. I recommend you contact Acronis Support. You can't be the first person experiencing this issue. Likely they will have a solution available. Be sure you have the 2014 version of their product. Earlier versions had some known issues, though this one is pretty off-the-wall to me. Best of luck.

I'm a little lost by your question. I'm going to try to paraphrase it and see if I understand you. You have two drives, you use Acronis True Image 2014 via clone drive function to duplicate your drives. Sometimes one or both of the resultant drive images are not true to size but are much larger than the real drive being cloned. In addition this process takes a very long time. After performing this cloning process, you can change the boot order and the cloned drive functions as expected. If all of the above is true, I have to say I'm confused. I cannot understand how a CLONED image could be twice as large, unless the software is failing to erase the prior image from a previous clone process (?) this is only a guess. Simply put, 'cloning' implies an exact duplicate, with no compression used (regular backups use compression algorithms to save space). Thus, clearly this is an issue for Acronis support (if indeed you are using Acronis) - and you should search their forums to see if someone else has experienced your issue. If a USB device is part of this cloning process, then the extremely long times could be due to the very poor data throughput of USB 2.0. In addition, if you are trying to backup to a NAS (Network Attached Storage) device across a network, there can be a slowdown due to the verification of data packets as they transmit/receive across the network. One solution here would be a gigabit network, which requires all gigabit components (network cards, cables and hubs all must be gigabit).

Actually, if the make of the drive is different, you -might- still have a licensing issue with Microsoft Windows, which is easily resolved by calling Microsoft and explaining your situation. You will be asked that the current copy of Windows is installed on HOW MANY MACHINES? You would answer "ONE" and the new key would be issued to you by Microsoft. You may even be able to do it using their robotic assistant and their 800 number. I would not be afraid to migrate to a new LARGER drive, if you have a choice. Drive prices are ridiculously low right now. Best bet: 7200 rpm or higher (or SSD if your budget and space requirements can fit it) SATA drive, 2TB or larger. 1TB is the new 500GB drive. 64mb on-drive RAM. Big ram space means excellent drive data caching and faster performance. Can you ever have too much storage space? Note: NEVER use defragmenting software on a Solid-State Drive. The data does NOT need to be sequentially stored on a non-mechanical drive! There is NO GAIN in performance. 2nd Note: Will even a Solid State Drive eventually wear out? YES. The NAND storage cells eventually will fail to retain data. Although the failure is not "mechanical" like in a traditional hard disk. 3rd Note: Some SSDs (notably from Crucial) do NOT play well with NON-INTEL SATA CONTROLLER CHIPS (Think "MARVEL SATA 6") and can actually 'disappear' from your system Bios and act as if they had failed. The quick fix involves a convoluted process described on the Crucial support site. The better 'fix' is to NOT USE the Marvel SATA 6 controller connections on your motherboard, but see if in fact you might have an available SATA 6 --INTEL-- connection available. Voila - no more disappearing SSD! Acronis True Image 2014 can migrate your current setup including the Registry and the OS automatically to your new BIGGER drive. It will write a temporary boot image to your hard disk (the current one), and then reboot and clone itself to the new larger drive. This would be the PAID version of Acronis. Worst case, you might have to call Microsoft to re-activate the new Windows on the new drive. I have done this several times, it's not an issue, so long as you are not going to use your OLD hard drive to boot from. AVOID keeping a suspect drive as a new 'backup' drive. Toss it. Before you do, you can use Acronis 2014 to Wipe it clean of data, including Government level wiping. Be sure to dispose of dead electronic parts lawfully. Many PC parts contain hazmat materials. Many local disposal services offer e-waste disposal. Did you know? Norton 360 has excellent tools to defragment your traditional hard drives (remember to disable this feature for any SSD drives you might have on your system. Other tools remove dead temp files and perform other housekeeping duties. The only KNOCK I have on Norton 360 is 'disk thrashing'. Norton claims to run cleanup tasks only when your system is "IDLE". Trouble is, it doesn't seem to STOP THRASHING once it has begun, even if you are USING your system, like trying to write a forum post or answer e-mail. "SILENT MODE" is a feature in Norton 360 where you can STOP the disk thrashing, but is limited to ONE DAY MAX and then you have to re-enable it again if desired. This is a HUGE knock, IMHO, of Norton 360. The concept is strong, the execution of "only when your system is idle" is poorly executed.

You're right, the Seagate clone software is a boiled down el-cheapo version of Acronis. You're also right that some software reads a combination of the hard disk drive to verify licensing. That said, major software vendors will make it right if you call in and explain all you did was move to a larger hard disk drive. Microsoft has gotten a little edgy with their licensing in the last few years. The 3000 lb Gorilla has now become the virtual DeathStar. Years ago (think DOS and even XP days, before the "Registry" came to pass) you could easily migrate your entire setup by simply copying everything over to a new blank drive. This is no longer the case in Windows 7 or 8. Microsoft has an easy migration tool built in to their accessories, system tools folder that can move your own pictures, music and videos to a new system, but sadly, it can't move your operating system as well, so all of your custom setups and add-in software have to be re-created and re-installed. In addition, the "license" that came with your off-the-shelf PC does NOT transfer to the new PC you just built yourself! That seems wrong to me, but I can't win a fight with Microsoft or either one of my ex-wives. Happily you CAN buy a "System Builder" version of the Microsoft OS, be it Windows 7 or Windows 8. These are typically Home Premium editions. For most folks, those are fine. Not crazy about Windows 8, but that's just me. I will say Win 8 boots faster on a hard disk system than my 4.7 ghz Solid-State screamer system running Win 7. So if boot time is important, Win 8 has an edge. That's about it, unless you are a touch-screen user, then you might like the i-Pad-like tile-sliding... Not a huge thrill, and I -do- have an HP Rove all-in-one 20" touchscreen (see my videos) for the PFD and ND in my glass cockpit. Touch screens aren't 'quite there' yet imho. They work sometimes, but often you must repeat the touch to have it work. Annoying. M$ has just announced end-of-life for XP support. That's a bummer for some pilots who have systems with custom software built around XP that costs extra $ to run on Win 7/8. Which statements below are FALSE? Computers are time-saving devices Computers save money Computers make day-to-day tasks much easier than the 'old-school' way Computers are easy to operate and maintain Life without several computers would be like a return to caveman days Anyone can buy a computer, Even a 2 year old can run one. All computers can be upgraded. Buy a happy-meal, then turn it into a powerhouse by upgrading! Like most things you never knew you needed, Computers are a necessity. There is no need to protect your data stored on your PC. If you answered all 9 statements, you win an extra-large pizza from your local Italian restaurant, plus an armed guard to deliver it to your home. Pizzas now cost more than some computers!

Hi Wendall, Many of us have been in your shoes, have the DVD and the t-shirt! Learning about backup and restoring is something all PC owners should consider. The more complex your situation, the more complex and redundant your backup strategy should be. Operating systems, drivers, software and hardware failures are a recipe for disaster, and even a 'backup image' may be invalid (corrupt) which is the same thing as NO BACKUP AT ALL. So how do you play the strongest version of prevent defense? MULTIPLE IMAGES on MULTIPLE DEVICES at MULTIPLE LOCATIONS. Really critical data (say your financial stuff like taxes and banking data should even be encrypted on a portable USB key. The CLOUD is another good place for really important data (be sure it's strongly encrypted though). RAID MIRRORS are a help but not a surefire one. If you totally blow things off your drive and dump the recycle bin, it may be nearly impossible to recover data that is erased by an innocent (or malicious) child, co-worker or significant other. Raid Mirrors can help if your data is in tact but one of the two drives in the raid mirror is teetering on failure. However, cloning a drive that is becoming full is far easier on a non-raid setup. Making moving to a larger hard disk from one that is nearly full-up a snap. Acronis clone disk is ideal for this task. That is part of their Acronis True Image 2014 paid version. Watch for special offers. You can sometimes get a real deal on Acronis. Each PC needs its own license key for Acronis though. You can't buy ONE copy and then load it on 3 PCs. Windows 7 has a built-in backup (Windows 8 might have this as well), but as far as how robust and flexible that is, I cannot say. Best of luck to you in future. Other threats and good reasons for backing up besides what I've mentioned thus far also include Malware and Viruses, along with poorly written (buggy) software that may or may not uninstall properly and gracefully. When things go awry, a solid backup image can save the day.

Contract ACRONIS they will get you your license key. They have been around a long time, I'm sure they'll be fair with you.

You caught a lucky break. Good for you. Still your drive may have flaws, but if you can get away with cloning it to a new drive, hey that's stellar. You have learned a valuable lesson that most folks only learn by experiencing total drive failure. BACKUP - BACKUP - BACKUP. In a perfect world, really critical stuff might even be backed up redundantly to a cloud server in addition to your local spare hard disk. USB 3 drives are WAY faster than traditional USB 2.0 drives, but also require USB 3 ports on the motherboard or a USB 3.0 PCi upgrade card. If you have a LARGE amount of data, I highly recommend a USB 3.0 solution as opposed to the old-school USB 2. Another way to do the same thing would be to mount the backup drive INSIDE your PC case as a second SATA hard drive, and set that to receive all the backups. SATA is light years faster than USB 2.

That doesn't sound good. It may already be too late. At this point, you may need to investigate data recovery services if you have really critical data on the OLD drive. If your old drive won't boot, it's unlikely that the NEW drive would after 'copying over' the files from the old to the new... if the old drive is corrupt and bad... cloning it would just mean you have TWO drives that are corrupt and bad... There are DATA RECOVERY SERVICES on the Internet (they're not cheap), which might be the call if mission-critical data is on that old drive. If not, you can just buy a new drive, re-install Windows, and any programs, and 'start over'... a painful lesson in the reality of hard drives. They will ALL fail, it's only a question of 'when'. The average hard disk drive will fail between 3 and 5 years of age. People who aren't backing up either don't have important stuff on their system, or are living in blissful ignorance. If you have a complex flight deck setup... BACKUP and VERIFY the backup. At least weekly would be a good bet.

Points up the need to do frequent full image backups ---and--- have the backup software VERIFY the image is not CORRUPT. Recommended product: Acronis True Image 2014. I believe it's free trial for the first 30 days. Works on all current and past versions of Windows including Windows 8 that are still supported by Microsoft. Tools available with Acronis include CLONE DISK where your entire disk can be copied to a new blank hard disk. Does NOT require the new disk to be formatted. The new drive can be smaller or larger (larger is recommended). Install new hard disk of same or greater size than your current disk inside your system (if possible) or in an external drive housing (example: Thermaltake USB housing). Install Acronis to your current system. Start Acronis True Image Home. Click Utilities tab. Click on CLONE DISK Select your old drive as the SOURCE, select your new drive as the TARGET. REBOOT. The cloning should begin. While running, choose "shut down after task completed" by putting a checkmark in the tickbox. After shutdown, remove the old (failing drive) At this point you can unplug it. disconnect the new secondary drive and connect it to the connectors that were going to your old drive. Start PC. It 'should' boot. Worst case, you may need to change the boot drive in your BIOS SETUP to the new hard drive. After Windows comes back up Double-click MY COMPUTER, find your C: drive, right click and choose properties, then TOOLS, then DISK CHECK. Put tick marks into BOTH boxes, and reboot. It will take quite some time, but it will check your drive for errors, and attempt to recover or mark out bad sectors which may have come over from the failing drive. This is your best-case scenario if you don't have a good backup image of your drive. I wouldn't wait 1 minute longer... do it now!

My rich uncle is holding out on me. I have a glass cockpit and three-monitor/3 discrete PCs setup until he busts a move... Highly recommend the Sim-Avionics software, which can indeed drive the full-on sim setup as well as my humble cross-breed... Current setup feat Sim-A glass cockpit, Flight Deck Simulations FMC and MCP/EFIS.

Wow! Very nice looking, and a long over-due improvement, Tony! Kudos and appreciation! X-Plane just keeps on improving.. and it's fun to be part of this historic evolution.

You have to admire the Laminar team. Regardless of whether you love or hate 'how it looks' (and clearly it is not perfected yet), you should admire the thought and effort that goes into making XPlane as flexible as possible. The fact that the data references are so transparent and relatively simple to work with, the fact that XPlane is already set up for networked displays for wider FOV, and (Imho) is more friendly to cockpit builders, coupled with 64-bits and a graphics system that is designed to take advantage of the monstrous VRAM options available on todays high-end cards means that in simple terms, XPlane offers greater flexibility and adaptability. XPlane is SCALABLE. If you have the budget to split the displays apart and have each one driven by its own PC and dedicated graphics card, you can push render settings significantly higher and enjoy stellar frames at the same moment. In FSX, it's a juggling act trying to drag cockpit gauges off to a separate monitor and tweaking all your ini files and render settings to try to avoid unacceptable performance. To me, XPlane is much more frames-friendly, and well-rewards additional PCs and GPU power. Arguably, FSX may be prettier and the highest-end payware airports and with products from vendors like PMDG. It all comes down to choices and 'what floats your personal boat'. Someone wrote complaining about the interior cockpit models of the payware X-plane aircraft. I dodged that by investing in FlightDeckSolutions' Sim-Avionics software. Sim-Avionics gives you the option for a full-blown stand-alone glass cockpit, which can be controlled by mouse clicks, programmed keypresses, and even interfaced with many of the popular brands of control surfaces by companies such as FDS, VRinsight and others. When you run Sim-Avionics, you disable the internal X-Plane plug-in for your given airplane. Sim-Avionics can drive the full-scale life-sized RW Cockpits of the wealthiest sim pilot, or you can network it to a spare monitor(s) and drag the various displays around to suit your personal desires. Check my YouTube videos for a look at Sim-Avionics in action. If you're serious about building a platform that will closely resemble the operation, look and feel of a real aircraft, I think X-Plane 10 deserves a look. The demo of XP is time-limited, and very difficult to transition to. I highly recommend purchasing the software, so you will have the time to set it up and get used to how it flies. A wealth of freeware and payware airports, along with software like Garmin Pilot (which can run via UDP wireless connection on Android devices, or via an adapter cable on iPad), bring all the moving maps, airport taxi diagrams (again with moving maps), hi and low ifr plus VFR charts a person could dream of. Because Garmin Pilot is subscription-based, all of the data updates as revisions come out, including SIDs/STARS/Charts/Airports, etc, etc. To me, Garmin Pilot raises the bar on your overall flying experience exponentially. Same thing for Sim-Avionics software. Many of these same features are also available for FSX, but here is where the rubber meets the road: 64 bits / GPU Vram / Multi-Core X-Plane vs FSX XPlane can use ALL your system ram (up to the limits of your operating system) while FSX cannot. XPlane will take full advantage of maximum VRAM on Gaming cards (example 6GB on nvidia GTX Titan). FSX doesn't. XPlane can use any number of CPU cores, without limit. FSX is designed for 4 cores max AFAIK. *note: multiple CPU motherboards may limit you on operating system choices. I grant that FSX has a much more mature infrastructure backed by a longtime cottage industry of third party developers. I admit that the barren default airports (by and large) in XPlane are a buzz killer. I also admit that the lack of view to the horizon at altitude is another weakness. That said, XPlane with Skymaxx weather add-on, a sprinkling of payware/freeware airports, and an investment in a setup where each monitor is powered by it's own PC and Graphics card will produce resolutions and frames rates that blow FSX apart. I have achieved a level of fluidity in views (day and night both) in XPlane that I was never able to realize in FSX, particularly when at complex airports and flying complex payware aircraft (e.g. PMDG). For that reason alone, I find XPlane is my sole solution, and I have a LOT of add ons on FSX (which is still on my system). Both VATSIM and PilotEdge can now provide ATC in XPlane in 64-bits. The long-awaited 64-bit Vatsim client for XPlane has finally been released. So that stumbling block has been knocked down. Ai aircraft are built into PilotEdge - when connected, you will be confronted with a significant amount of both military and civilian aircraft on your TCAS (Traffic) display. Having a real human being controlling you from blocks to blocks with no sudden disappearances for meal breaks (PilotEdge vs. Vatsim) or without-warning shutdowns of all ATC services is priceless compared with the FAUX ATC of either product IMHO. With XPlane (or FSX) and PilotEdge, if you fail to follow ATC instructions, you will be notified. This forces you to LEARN how to obtain and read the charts for the SIDS and STARS and the nuances of LOCalizer vs. ILS approaches, yada yada yada. PilotEdge has a limited coverage area, but there is nothing to stop you from using them at one end or the other of your flight, provided Southern California, San Francisco International and Las Vegas fit into your flight plan somehow. There is no "wrong answer" with regard to sim platforms. You simply fly one or more and decide if any or all of them are suitable to your hobby goals. This of course brings up the 'better and better' scenario. That's when flight sim A looks and flies great, and a developer offers some other new add-on (airport ground vehicles, super high resolution RW weather, etc). You add that one more item, and then UGH! The problems start. Stuttering, crashing, blue screens, you name it. Even rogue flight behavior! Where I prefer XPlane over FSX is the fact that the entire simulation resides ONLY in the XPlane parent folder, which can be backed up or copied to multiple destinations. Thus, if you add product X, Y or Z to XPlane and find out you have 'issues', it's a cakewalk to put it back to a previously good state (assuming you made backups). FSX operates in an FSX folder, but also puts some files and settings in many other locations, scattered across your PC and registry (assuming Windows environment). Something causes a problem, it may mean reverting your ENTIRE PC to a known good backup from days prior. This to me is a significant difference in platforms. Some pilots eventually migrate to the real-deal hardware (in various forms). This could range from $10,000 JetMaxx (from FlightDeckSolutions) to $100,000+ full-scale cockpit shell, flooring, inner panels, and all the trimmings, including rudder pedals, throttle quadrant, radio stack, glare shield and mip from FDS or even up to recycled rw airplane parts from the actual aircraft. That level of simming is an ultimate goal for many in our hobby. To some degree or other. What we all try to do (I think) is obtain the highest level of realism that our pocketbook and assembly skills permit. What I like to call "Better and Better".

You're right. Here's something you'll drool over!

I won't be drawn into this repetitive debate. However my YouTube channel (see link below my sig) has videos of BOTH X-Plane and FSX. I suggest you watch one or two of each, then see which one looks better to YOU. The X-Plane setup has a full-blown glass cockpit and triple monitors with triple PCs driving the displays. The frames levels are astounding. I think FSX has some edge in scenery (globally), but on an overall basis, both platforms can really produce stunning graphics. On my setup the XPlane has become the 'only' sim, though FSX is still installed. As has been said innumerable times, immersion is in the cockpit of the beholder!

According to the factory brochure, the 777 series is now available with ABS disc brakes. When equipped with that option, the vehicle can stop on a quarter. They are still working on stopping on a dime. Opps, that was for a 2014 Camaro 2SS (shown). Wrong brochure.

The parking garage is the real problem - because of it, the touchdown zone for RWY 27 is 1810' up from the actual physical edge of the runway (displaced threshold). Given it's only about 9000 feet long, that's a tremendous waste. Normally KSAN is using Western flow (landing takeoff both off 27). When the fog pounces though, they have to land the other direction, as there is only a LOCalizer on 27 whilst 9 has full ILS.

There is a freeware scenery pack on the ORG for KSAN - San Diego Intl (ver 1.02) that is an amazingly good looking airport (for X-Plane 10). Sadly, because both ends of the runway at KSAN are offset (displaced thresholds of 700' (Rwy 9) and 1810' (Rwy 27)), the approach light bars do not display properly and protrude above the surface of the runways! This makes for ANNOYING taxiing procedures, and the only 'workaround' previously available amounted to "DODGE THEM" or "Live with running over the approach lights" or "Take off from a short intersection in lieu of the furthest end of the runway(s)." None of these appealed, and so I have modified the lights to embed into the runway surfaces as they do in RL. The freeware scenery pack with the custom approach light bars embedded in the runway surface is available here. San Diego is the busiest single-runway commercial airport in the USA, and it looks amazing in XPlane 10. I hope this little mod saves others the frustration I encountered with the lighting.

There are a number of factors that can affect frames, and 64-bits means full use of the SYSTEM MEMORY, but still other factors can cause bottlenecks. Most-notably the CPU will be more burdened because it has to draw the more complex innards of a PMDG plane, and the GPU will also need to be equipped with more VRAM than you would expect. XPlane can use all the VRAM the system has on it's video card, so a 6GB GTX Titan benefits an x-plane pilot, whilst having NO impact on FSX as compared with a typical 2GB Video card. The sweet spot in graphics cards as of 2014 for XPlane appears to be 4GB. Sure, 6 is nicer and better, but the price is well over 2x as much just for 2 extra gigs of VRAM. The GTX 770 4GB OC by Msi is the 'go-to' display adapter in my system, which is 5 pcs running 3 displays (1 pc per display) and 1 for glass cockpit and 1 for the Avionics (Sim-Avionics). With 770's on the wing displays and a Titan on the main box, the frames are substantial, stutters are a dim memory in all but the most ortho-scenery laden metro areas, and SkyMaxx and HD Textures for XPlane bring the graphics eye candy to new heights. When PMDG's product(s) arrive for XPlane 10, it will likely push many of those who have avoided the move to make the purchase and at minimum fly a combination of XPlane and FSX. Check any of my XPlane videos on my YouTube site, you will see the progress that has resulted from moving to multi-PCs instead of asking ONE computer to 'do it all'. It's like multi CPUs, only they are networked instead of trying to run ALL the data across just ONE motherboard. The fact that X-Plane puts ALL its data in ONE folder and then has sub-folders within that main folder and does not use the Windows Registry is totally bonus. Plus, using a fast ethernet network, splitting the image into a 180 degree field of view on multiple systems is light years simpler with better frames and far less distortion than trying to run 3 displays off your main FS computer, plus everything ELSE. PCs have really come down in price, you can buy i5's for sub 700 price points and then you can upgrade the power supply (Corsair 750-watt bronze modular) and remove the bottom-end nVidia GTX620 for a 760 of 770. Again, the 4GB on the video card is a "MUST" for x-plane long-term (IMHO).

Is the new machine Windows 8? Possibly you may need to configure Sim Connect to run in Windows 7 compatibility mode.

Based on what you have written above, my best guess is that the sim-connect config file on one or more machines is improperly configured.

Send a PM to Philipp the developer of the 777. He can best assist you on this. Note the spelling of his name! If you go to the PM area and type his name properly spelled, you will see a photo of him, and "developer" beneath his name or somesuch. You can explain your issue. The fact that something 'did' work but now does not indicates a possible conflict somewhere in your setup. You may have some other control assigned that is fighting with the Saitek unit. (example another joystick button programmed for something else). I'm flying blind here... speculating... Thanks for the kind words.