brown_257

I didn't say any of that!!! I just said about how the simulator uses hardware!! You have started to talk about loads of planes etc. I don't expect the simulator to be perfect. I said that the base product is good and that I really like FSX and the platform it is on, I just thought that it would have been a good idea to make it into 64bit. I also never said about anything being free, if you read my post correctly I said I would be happy to pay good money to get a newer version and I know that majority of programs written in 32 bit don't take a lot to make into 64 bit otherwise companies wouldn't do it, or they would only make it into 64 bit in the first place. Maybe before posting a ridiculously sarcastic comment back you should read what I actually said instead of just brushing over it. It was just a point of discussion I didn't suggest that it would be amazingly easy but they developed flight in a 6 year time frame and a 64 bit upgrade wouldn't take that long. As to all you other people that have posted constructive comments back, I agree that it is a shame that MS have dropped out of the market. However, when I had the thought I was mainly thinking that the option to do that would have been around the time they chose flight. The only shame is that MS couldn't get enough due to the fact the 3rd party addons were really the revenue stream of flight sim. Maybe a commission for developing and on every sale would have been a possibility for them to make money, but then maybe the 3rd parties wouldn't have gone for this. But I am just speculating and just wondered what other people thought on this.

Hi everyone. Sorry if someone this has been brought up before but I had this thought the other day and was wondering if people agreed. FSX was obviously designed as a 32 bit piece of software and centred around CPU's that were going to be very large single core CPU's that never appeared. Microsoft then create flight which obviously was not a great success and people like me and most people I know that use FSX would never go to it. From my point of view, apart from some rushed programming the sim itself if not bad in the slightest. My point is that I think that the best option would be to improve an already good product by making it use multiple cores effectively and it being 64 bit, whilst still being able to work to the programming the addon manufacturers have to conform to, the basic programming shouldn't be too much of a change. Hence the addons would still work or would require very basic changes so that they work better. Then Microsoft could sell the 64 bit version. I know if there was a new version out there to improve the way the program uses hardware I would buy it straight away. Does anyone agree with that?

Possibly, I'll look into it. This is my first build PC and I as good as I am with computers, I had never properly delved into the BIOS side of things and changing parameters in which my computer actually runs. Was that low 60s at load in a stress test? Also at the min I have stock thermal paste, which I am told will help a lot as well?

Hi Zack, I would be able to get higher but for now not been wanting to push it since I only OC'd for the first time last night so was a little worried about getting it completely wrong. Having said that I did actually get to 4 really easy. Did a short 2 hour flight earlier and my max temp was 62 and that would have been just hitting it for a very short period of time. With the processor OC'd and just browsing the net and watching a VATSIM video on youtube I have temps of about 29-31 at the min. My Vcore is 1.32. I have a question for you since you have had a similar set up. First is it the 960 you had? If so what temps and Vcore where you at when at 4.2? Secondly, how bad does HT affect FPS or in general FSX? The reason I ask is that I am a Mechanical engineering student and regularly use my PC for CAD as well as playing other games so I would like to have it on if it isn't going to cause me issues. If not then I'll just have to turn it on when I would need it. I used to play fs9 a lot when I was younger and had a lot of addon's for that but when I got my new computer in 2009 (the one I still use as an entertainment hub now) I couldn't get it to work well in vista or win7 so I moved to fsx but then I found the system just wasn't good enough to run it, so when I started having problems with this one I was very very disappointed since I spent so much on it. I then got it right like I said above and then I obviously wanted to take it much further and splashed out this weekend, so thanks for all the advice!! Mike

Thank you very much for pointing me in the right direction got it spot on now, 100% traffic and really high graphics and a solid frame rate. Can't moan at that.

Hello everyone I need some advice. So in march I built my own gaming computer and it is very good for playing games on. The main intention was to get the most out of FSX that I could on the budget that I had at the time. So I was flying with scenery addons, which were mainly airports and cities i.e. Aerosoft Manhattan and Heathrow etc. This would be in a PMDG B744 or 748 and I would get frame rates of around 20-30 with quality set fairly high. This lasted until the 30th August when I brought GEX, UTX, REX and PMDG B737. I would fly form default airports (e.g. East Midlands) with these on and again at fairly high quality to get the most out of REX and GEX etc. I would get FPS of about 15-30 outside the plane and in the VC so the system was not struggling too much but obviously this was a lot to add in. Flying in the 747 out of heathrow would see a huge hit and I would get around 8-15. This is when I decided it was time for some overclocking. So I spent last night to my surprise increasing the clock fairly easily to 4GHz. When testing out of heathrow and a 747 I saw an increase but not by much to 8-20, with it spending most the time at around 12-15. This was an increase but not by as much as I though, but then again this area is the max I will have in terms of scenery in my sim. Then I decided to finish a flight that I had saved before overclocking at the top of a decent (flying into East Midlands), now at cruise I was getting a max FPS of 80 in VC (av:40-60 FPS) and 100+ (av:50-70) outside so it obviously had an improvement. So I start the decent and I get to about FL100 when my frame dives down (as expected with more detail, but I was getting it jumping down to 3 or 4 at times and I just down understand why? I tried a take off afterwards and I tended to be ok and then dive down to around 5-6 and this is in default scenery, when before the overclock I was getting 18 at a minimum. Does anyone have any idea why it is slightly inconsistent? My Spec is: CPU: I7-960 @ 4GHz (Stock 3.2GHz) (Runs at load at a max temp of about 65C) MOBO: Asus Sabertooth X58 Cooling: Corsair H100 RAM: Corsair Vengeance 16GB Case: Antec Lanboy PSU: Corsair 750W GPU: Asus nVidia 560Ti SSD: 60GB for Operating Sys HDD: 500GB 7200rpm Sata 3 for programs FSX GOLD PMDG - B737(800,900),747(400,400F,400LCF,800i/f) REX 2.0 essentials GEX Europe UTX Multiple Aerosoft scenery packages WOAI

I was wondering if anyone could help with this. I recently installed FS2Crew for the 747 and I really really liked it but I found that my MCP didn't function properly. I would get so far into the flight and the altitude would start increasing randomly and sometimes the alt controls on the MCP wouldn't respond normally. Manually controlling the plane was also very difficult and ILS approaches just wouldn't work. After a while I un-installed it and my 747's all run perfectly fine now. I was wondering if anyone else have had this type of problem? Cheers

Hello Everyone, This may have been discussed or I may have missed it when reading the main post (if so I am sorry), but is the 777 coming in all -200 and -300 variants or just -200? Nevermind I have an answer to this. Cheers