TomBrooklyn

I wound up getting FSX and it worked fine with the integrated graphics.

Where does one find this Tutorial Number 8? And where are Tutorials 1 thru 7?

What is a "B" Grade video card?

Since the GTX 670 is a couple of years newer than the 580, and is probably a whole new generation of technology; and since the 670 costs about 15% less the 580, but has a futuremark 3DMark11 score of 9410--33% higher than the 580's score of 6610, why is the 580 even under consideration? http://community.futuremark.com/hardware/gpu/NVIDIA+GeForce+GTX+670/review I saw the chart comparing the Theoretical Benchmarks of the 580 to the 660Ti http://www.hwcompare.com/13161/geforce-gtx-580-vs-geforce-gtx-660-ti/ someone above pointed out, showing that the 580 had more Memory bandwidth. But the futuremark score for the 660Ti is 8660, quite a bit higher than the 580, like the 670 is. So how does this Theoretical Benchmark reconcile with the Futuremark actual benchmark test? And what does it mean for the actual performance with FSX?

Is a video card required to run FX9 smoothly? CPU: My CPU is a 64bit Intel Sandy Bridge i7 2600K Quad Core Hyperthreaded unit running at 3.4 GHz with a built-in turbo frequency of 3.8GHz, an 8MB cache; and perhaps most importantly, it has integrated Intel HD Graphics 3000, which is the equivilent of having an after market video card. RAM: 16GB Monitors: Dual IPE Panel, 1920x1200 I have been advised in the FX9 forum that FS9 will run well on less than state of the art computers.

Are you saying MS FLIGHT is easier to get started with because it's simpler to use; and FSX is not as good to start with because it's more complicated than optimal for a beginner?

I like ATI (AMD now) for a couple of reasons. I think it works particularly well with CAD software, which I will also be using; and because my motherboard supports AMD Crossfire, but not Nvidia SLI. So going with AMD would allow me the option of adding a second GPU if it seemed warranted sometime in the future. After taking a look at what GPUs are out now, I like the AMD 7850 at under $200. It seems to hit a sweet spot for power and value. As for my RAM, I have 4x4GB. There's no changing that now. 4x4GB was far less expensive when I bought it in Dec 2012 than 2x8GB.

I didn't know add-ons were so important. I thought I was only making a decision between a $27 piece of software (FSX) and something that must be even cheaper (FS9.) I would certainly prefer the less expensive option if there is substantially more software required.

I think I got that covered. My System Specs Are: CPU: Intel Sandy Bridge i7 2600K quad core CPU running at 3.4GHz with stock TurboBoost to 3.8GHz and overclock ready with an aftermarket oversized air cooler in a gaming case with plenty of ventilation. RAM: 16GB VIDEO: I don't have a separate GPU at this time, but I'm prepared to spend about $200 for an ATI one. HD: SSD with room for the programs

Maybe we can get back on track. I don't have any particular plans right now on how to use the software at this time other than generally flying. I know there are add-ons available; but I have little idea what they are, or the extent of what they do. I'd like to get software that has good flexibility for expansion, for if and when I decide to do that. My system specs are: CPU: Intel i7 2600K generally running stock speed, but overclockable MOTHERBOARD: Asus Z68. Supports overclocking RAM: 16 GB GRAPHICS: Integrated, but I'm expecting to spend about $200 on an ATI videocard. MONITORS: Two. Both IPS panel. 1980X1200 AND 1980X1080. Might put a third IPS monitor on it. HD OS/PROGRAMS: OCZ Vertex 4 256GB SSD. A lot of room left on it. HD DATA: 7200rpm 3 TB I put it together myself.

I haven't been very active in the forums; and the only flight sim I've ever flown is the one on Google Earth; and I've only done that for an hour or two, since trying to control those airplanes is like trying to ride a horse bareback on a floor covered with marbles. In order to get a simple answer to a simple question, and a very logical and sensible question; since it's normally common and expected that the latest version of a software is the most desirable, do I really have to search these forums, going through threads that have nothing to do with the topic to find where they've been hijacked by ostensibly inconsiderate people, and try to piece together whatever bits and pieces of information I can find in this cumbersome manner? I have no intention of doing that. Further, if this thread is typical of the way information is shared and disseminated around here, it is not surprising that people hijack threads. Why should they be any more helpful or considerate than anybody else? To the couple of people who provided some rational insight above, thanks. I would normally have had some follow-up questions related to what flight sim software I would be best off acquiring; but this sophomoric environment is obviously not conducive to further discussion of the matter.

I would like something economical and easy to get started with, but a package with the capability to grow and become more realistic would be a big plus. Are you suggesting FS9 would be better to start with than FSX? And if so, why; since FS9 is an earlier version of FSX?

By the SSD being fast as !@$, do you mean fast loading the program, or quick in some response time in game play?

For someone with virtually no experience in flight simulators, who wants to try it out recreationally: is MS FSX the best AVSIM software for a beginner? Is so, why? If not, why not--and which software is better?

Why are you still using FS2004? Why haven't you switched to FSX?