Bert Dromer

i can promise you that i7 2600k+gtx660ti will give you at least 36fps in even a heavy plane in a very heavy photoscenery (30GB nl2000) with a heavy airport with quite high settings .

Hi Word Not Allowed, Thanks for your reply, i always like to hear from people who are as crazy about tuning FSX as me. I bookmarked your guide, i didn't know it yet, alhtough i knew most info in it. I use dx10 (and windowed mode) simply because it's much faster on my machine then dx9. This seems to be different per pc for some reason. About the very low 0.03 FTFF that i use now: As you say in your own guide: lower FTFF gives higher FPS, in photo sceneries (much heavier then ORBX!) this is the single most important tweak. For >150knots flight i use a higer value, but for VFR this is a great balance. You say FTFF works the same in P3D, after extensive testing on my machine with the same flight/scenery/plane/settings/etc in p3d a higher (0.99) FTFF gives higher fps, i recommend retesting this. One tweak that might be interesting for your guide: Search AVsim for "0cc5b647-c1df-4637-891a-dec35c318583". This give me +3 fps. Some other remarks: Poolsize=3000 works better for modern PC's, give it a try. Very complete guide you wrote! One last advice: I always recommend changing just 1 setting at a time and then re-benchmarking using a 30 second save flight (i use a landing). I think any guide should start with a similar advice.

I couldn't decide between Gigbyte Radeon HD 7950 v.s. MSI GTX 660 Ti Power edition (priced the same). So i got them both and ran them through standard 70 second test scenario in FSX and Prepar3d (a landing on my home airport EHHV, with a somewhat demanding Katana and very demanding NL2000 photo scenery). And the results are in: FSX: 34 FPS for the 660, 32 FPS 7950 P3D: 46 FPS for the 660, 30 FPS for the 7950. So the 7950 is going back to the shop Some more details on the tests: - Yes the tests were exactly the same (same save game, same 70 second "auto landing" test). - Yes i applied some card specific optimizations (both overclocked, and AA controlled from the driver/nvidia inspector for both, but not for prepar3d). - I play windowed Some FSX.cfg details (although i don't think they are relevant for the comparison): - PoolSize=4000 (tested with 0, 1000 and 9000, but 4000 is the best for me) - DX10 (yes, DX9 performance far worse on my pc) - TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=200 - FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.01 (yes i tried higher values, and actually in P3D 0.99 performs best for me) - MAX_ASYNC_BATCHING_JOBS=3 - SmallPartRejectRadius=4.0 (i'm always open for ideas for improvement.)

I really can't make up my mind. Any advice is welcome. Option 1:Dell Ultrasharp U2713HM (550 euro) 2560x1440 px. + Needs less space on my desk - Less visibility then 3 screens + Less performance hit then 3 screens i think + Bigger screen is also nicer for normal windows work - when zooming out more, the widescreen effect on 1 monitor looks works then on 3 monitors that are placed at a slight angle of each other Option 2: 3x 25inch LG E2541T-BN (420 euro) 5760x1080 + broadest view - performance hit in FSX? - still same windows resolution is i currently have - centre screen is smaller (and i'm looking most of the time at that one..) (- needs ATI eyefinity card, that i'm going to buy soon anyway) I think i'll go for option 1 because i don't really like 3 monitors (plus 1 laptop) on my desk, and i like higher res for windows use)

I installed Linda but it doesn't seem to start. In the log it says: System time = 21/04/2012 18:00:24, Simulator time = 12:32:27 (10:32Z) Aircraft="Diamond DA20-100 C-GDAI" beginning "C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Games\Microsoft Flight Simulator X\Modules\ipcReady.lua" [E] *** LUA Error: ...es\Microsoft Flight Simulator X\Modules\ipcReady.lua:1: attempt to call field 'runlua' (a nil value) ended "C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Games\Microsoft Flight Simulator X\Modules\ipcReady.lua" Any help would be appriciated!

I would like to run 3 monitors (19 inch, 24 inch, 19 inch) from 1 or 2 GPU's. What's my best buy for under 300$ ? (i mainly use FSX, some xplane and Aerofly FS)I'm thinking HD6950? I looked at several posts and the FSX benchmark results but couldn't get to a conclusion.My PC:I7 2600K, 8GB ram, SSD

I like to think and hope that MS Flight just needs a little more years, just like MS always needs more time (think windows 95/98, then XP, Vista then 7). However is seems to me that Microsoft not only changed revenue model, but also target audience, and thereby left us simmers behind. If they really were targeting simmers too, they wouldn't be as foolish to leave out this much simulation/realism: - ATC - Flight planner, world map, gps - Jets - A large continent with more large airports - Alot of important small stuff (i.e. ILS, VOR's, weight n balance, etc) And they p1ssed of some addon suppliers like PMDG, so rescue from from 3rd party addons is less likely too. To me it seems like Microsoft wanted a piece of the 3rd party addon revenues, but then forgot that die-hard-simmers were spending all that money, not casual / arcade players. Marketing research and strategy gone totally wrong.

Just ordered it. Looks promising! Too bad there are only 5 planes or so yet, and only few regions to fly.