foibles

The one thing that annoys me the absolute most about FSX is how autogen buildings and objects just pop up across the scenery as you are flying low and fast (example - 737 doing 250 at 2000 ft). That is the single thing that most detracts from the sense of realism. Do you still get those popups in P3D? Another question - does FSUIPC work with P3D?

[delete]

After rebuilding my computer, I attempted to reinstall my copy of FSX Gold (in other words, Deluxe + Acceleration). I had previously reinstalled it a few times as I was making hardware changes and doing benchmarking. Now, after installing the Deluxe part but before attempting to install the Acceleration files, I tried to reactivate the software over the internet. I got an error message that said I had exceeded the allowed number of activations! I was given the option to try to call Microsoft's automated activation support line and enter a long id number that was displayed on the message screen. I called the automated support line, entered the id number, and was asked something along the lines of How many times have you installed this software on Windows Vista? (I don't remember the exact wording). I was flabbergasted because I had only bought the software a few months ago and haven't used a Vista computer in 5+ years. The automated line rejected my attempt to reactivate the software. This was on the weekend, so I figured I couldn't do anything else until Monday, when I would be able to call and try to speak to a live Microsoft agent (only available for this Mon - Fri). Meanwhile I completely uninstalled the FSX files. On Monday, I then reinstalled the FSX Deluxe files and carefully, this time, read the license agreement, which says I figured that with that language, there should be no reason for Microsoft to not reactivate the software since it is for my own use and for use on only one device at a time. Armed with that info, I prepared to do battle with the agent. I clicked on Activate Now, expecting to get the same error message I had gotten before, which I would need to tell the agent about, but this time the internet activation went through without a hitch! :blink: #####?

I was hoping to draw attention to the differences in efficacy of the various TIMs, rather than to promote direct die mounting per se.

Where does that help you in the sim though? Does it help in reducing how long it takes to start up the sim? How long it takes to load a flight? Frames per second during play? Less stuttering during play? Lars (Saab340) previously posted his results https://www.dropbox.com/s/uq6taqp0dlpwhhw/FinalResults2.GIF comparing different scenarios involving a 5400rpm HDD, a 10,000rpm Velociraptor, an Intel SSD, and an OCZ SSD, as mentioned. I believe the data showed that FPS did not change regardless of where he placed the OS and FSX. If he put OS and FSX both on the 5400rpm HDD, his FPS were 41 and stutters he was able to measure were 29/min. Same if he put the OS and FSX both on the Velociraptor. Same if he split the OS and FSX between mechanical drive and SSD, or between two SSDs. And except for when he put FSX on the 5400rpm HDD, the time required for texture loading that he could measure (at least within the specific constraints of his experimental setup) did not vary much -- texture loading took 20 or 21 seconds regardless of how FSX and OS were distributed. The only things that changed were the amount of time required to launch the program and then to load individual flights. It's true that I don't know how Lars was assigning the drives in terms of SATA controllers, and it's also true that he was using older SSDs/slower SSDs than are available today. Plus, he didn't tease out the effects of placing scenery files on a separate drive. But his results seem to be reason to be sceptical of the argument that splitting all the sim components up makes a significant difference in the sim experience, once you've got your flight loaded. In fact, another user on one of the other forums said, "I tried Win7 on the 80GB SSD and FSX on a WD Black, then vice versa. Ultimately both on the SSD. Seperated, they performed about the same, better than on the spinner, but, with them both on the SSD for my FSX, there was a vast improvement across the board. Stuttering was greatly reduced and I could actually add a little more eye candy. I like lots of traffic, detailed clouds, and RW weather. I also have quite a few large photoreal sceneries and am planning more." http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?236348-FSX-Scenery-etc-what-install-size-%2860Gb-SSD-Win7-x64%29&p=1602140#post1602140 (I bring up this last point to get back to some of the earlier points made in the thread, not to whether assigning separate SSDs for each component makes a difference.)

I just came across this interesting thread comparing different thermal pastes and other TIMs on a delidded 3770K over in the anandtech discussion forums. The tests were done on a chip die without replacing the lid, however. http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34297433&postcount=67 The whole thread is worth a read. I found several useful pointers there. One of the other things the experimenter found was that using larger amounts of TIM unexpectedly reduced temperatures by a few degrees C. (But apart from the cost, there are risks associated with doing that with electrically-conductive TIMs). http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34310264&postcount=106

Just wondering whether others here have had SSD failures. If so, about how long ago did you acquire the SSD, and how long did it work before it died?

Ben, glad you did the graph. (I wanted to, but was too lazy lol.) The relationship in those data is clearly linear above 4.0. Pierre predicted a linear relationship between OC speeds and FPS for Sandy Bridge processors after analyzing FSXMark11 results posted by contributors here. (I believe he found that the slope of the curve was not quite as steep as Arjen's data are showing, though. But the data Pierre was looking at combined a variety of processors and systems, and of course each processor seems to have its own personality.) __________________________________________________________________ As for the original question, I don't think you are going to get any definite answer, Arjen, because you are asking for a yes/no answer to a question that involves considerations along a spectrum. (Similar to a question like Will I get lung cancer if I smoke a pack of cigarettes a day for 40 years? There's no yes/no answer for a question like that because there are increasing levels of risk along a spectrum.) I have been interested in this same question of what is the safe upper limit for Vcore for Sandy Bridge (i7-2600k in my case) for the past few weeks. Several people have opined on other boards about what the risks might be -- kind of hard to tell who to believe, since a number of the opinions were posted when the chips were still new and people hadn't yet had a lot of experience with them. Some examples: A Tom's Hardware reviewer discussing automatic overclocking programs that come with some motherboards (October 2011): Sin0822 in a January 2011 guide to overclocking Sandy Bridge at overclockers.net, although that thread continued for at least a year after that (also note that he comments that his chips are early chips, not the retail chips that most users would buy): Miahallen in a January 2011 overclocking guide for Sandy Bridge: A poster commenting in a July 2011 thread on the Intel community support website (from the poster's avatar and the language used -- "we do not" -- it seems that he is an Intel representative, but it's an old thread plus he is pointing out that Inteñ does not provide support for overclocking):

Two questions: (1) Has anyone compared FSXMark11 scores between Windows 7 and Windows 8, everything else left the same? (2) Does an increase in FSXMark11 scores from 40 FPS to 50 FPS correlate with noticeable improvements in the simming experience?

A couple of minor points about the version of the FSXMark11 installation and benchmark guide that I read (I may have missed it, but I don't think this has been noted anywhere else in the thread): The installation and benchmark guide says to set the FSX Current Realism Settings to "Hard" and shows in the accompanying screencap an image that has only two (unselected) options for Engines, which are "enable automixture" and "unlimited fuel." However, my FSX Current Realism Settings, running under Acceleration, shows three options -- the same two as in the guide's screencap, plus "engine stress damages engines." The guide doesn't say whether to select or leave this option unselected for those whose FSX versions include this option. (It's confusing since the guide indicates that under Crashes and Damage you should select "aircraft stress causes damage.") The other point is less confusing: Under Test Execution, the guide says that "you should also see a yellow FPS counter in the top right hand corner of the display ...." In the version of FSXMark11 I downloaded, the FRAPS FPS counter displays in the upper LEFT hand corner, not the right. Following on what was noted above, it might be helpful for those posting their FSXMark11 results to be sure to indicate whether they are running Acceleration vs SP2 vs raw FSX.

Chris, how loud is that Hailea? And what parts have you included in your water cooling setup, if I may ask?

Rob, what MOBO are you running?

Fxsttcb, interesting results. A couple of questions: Aren't you worried at all about such a high vcore? (Or does that chip tolerate higher temps better than a regular ol' Sandy Bridge?) And are you really running 8 RAM modules, or was that a typo?

(edited) Pierre, Fantastic! One question I have though: Where you wrote 'about 1.4% gain for each 0.1 MHz overclock frequency added,' did you actually intend that to be 'for each 0.1 GHz overclock frequency added'?

Going 30 ---> 33 FPS? Meh And even if it is released in the spring, it probably won't be ready for primetime until several months later, after the early adopters feel the pain of having the initial kinks worked out. Interesting stuff, but if I were looking for a new CPU now, I wouldn't be waiting for Haswell.

:LMAO: Lord have mercy, Sara Louise! That is fantastic! Of course, I don't have the DIY skills for anything like that, apart from not having the space. lol But it is very interesting. What pump model are you using? And what chiller? Also, the Bit-tech article I referred to says this, "A word of warning though: adding a radiator to a loop with a water chiller is counterproductive, as the radiator will actually transfer heat from the air into the loop, raising the temperature of the coolant. Do not use a radiator with a water chiller!" You obviously don't agree!

Just to follow up on my previous reply, here are a few studies that compared what I have now (CoolIT Eco ALC) with models fairly similar to the Corsair H50. In each study, the improvement in temperatures gained with the CoolIT versus the Corsair was small. http://benchmarkrevi...=1&limitstart=4 http://benchmarkrevi...=1&limitstart=3 http://www.overclock...eco-alc-review/ The one thing that the Benchmarkreviews studies suggested, though, was that it might be possible to further lower the temperature improvement by 7 to 14 degrees C by switching the fan that is included with the CoolIT Eco ALC to a higher-powered (and louder) alternative fan, like a Yate Loon or Panaflo. The Overclockers' reviewer also found an improvement by switching out the stock fan, but by a much lesser degree, no more than 3C. There could be several explanations for the difference between the studies -- notably, apart from their having used different CPUs, the Overclockers reviewer ran the tests with the computer case open and with the cooler fan mounted completely outside the case, while it seems that the Benchmarkreviews reviewer used a closed-case setup that would be more typical of how a user would normally operate the computer. In the end, though, I want to gain more than just 7 - 14C improvement. So I don't think this path would help me enough. JP and Liamp51, if I am reading your posts right, it sounds like neither of you has used a water chiller though. A water chiller is a separate component that can actually lower the temperature of the pumped fluid to a degree below the ambient room temperature (in theory). The typical water cooler setup that does not include a chiller can't lower the temperature any lower than the ambient temperature, so it can't go as low as a loop that includes a chiller. The Hailea-type chiller, which is made for aquariums, would also substantially increase the cost of the setup since it would be by far the most expensive component of a (simple) loop, running $300 - 600 by itself.

Thanks for replying, Alex. But I'm not just interested in water cooling per se. I'm specifically interested in cooling using a water chiller in the loop as opposed to a radiator. The Corsair H60 would be more or less on par with, just a little more effective than, the weakish closed-loop water cooler I'm already running. I'd like to take it to the next level (without spending a fortune).

I'm considering adding a water chiller to help with overclocking the rig I have now as well as whatever components I might pick up over the next 2 - 3 years. Reading through the threads this weekend, I noticed that several posters have mentioned that they are using water chillers or have tried them. I'd really like to hear specifically what systems you have tried and any tips you could give concerning them. I'm leaning toward going with a Hailea chiller, along the lines as described in this article http://www.bit-tech....hiller-review/4 (If it matters: Currently I have an i7-2600K at 4.0GHz & 1.30V, and I'd like to try to move up to 5.0GHz territory. It's always hot where I live, with temps at home typically running 27 degrees C (80F), plus I've got a GTX 590 that blows hot air into the case, so the CoolIT Eco ALC that's supposed to be protecting the CPU can't keep up with all the heat that is generated during stress testing. At my current settings, while running FSX, max core temps run around 65C; but during stress testing with IntelBurnTest, max core temps get up around 85C. I'm not necessarily planning to put a block on the GPU itself, at least not at the beginning; with its very active internal fans, its own temps hardly nudge from their idle temps around 40C while running FSX, and the prospect of trying to put a block onto that huge brick of a component without damaging it is not something I am too eager to attempt at the moment. I also realize I could alternatively try to optimize airflow with more and large case fans and maybe a trial of something like the Noctua NH-D14, but I'd rather avoid the additional noise from the fans and I get the sense that that route would never achieve as much of a reduction in CPU temps as water cooling with a chiller potentially can.)

Congrats on your OC. Very impressive. Is it really loud, with all that air movement?

A study by Tomshardware confirmed that this is generally true. Testing for benefits of additional RAM with 32-bit applications but without a RAMdisk, confirmed that 6GB or 12GB provided no benefit for single-task applications over 3GB. http://www.tomshardw...ade,2264-6.html BUT there's that caveat of "not counting that used by the OS or anything else you have running," which it turns out may be crucial (as with the reference to SuperFetch): Ah, this is a great idea! Tomshardware looked into this a couple of years ago (not for FSX, of course, unfortunately but for other 32-bit applications), and found that there WERE definite improvements (eyeballing it, it looks like about 10-15%) going from 8GB to 12GB if the additional RAM was used as a RAMdisk for swap/temp files. (Interestingly, going from 12GB to 16GB did not make a difference.) Take a look at their charts: http://www.tomshardw...ade,2778-5.html They also made the point that in some cases although 32-bit applications might not show improved FPS when running with more memory on 64-bit hardware, there might be other, visual improvements that are much harder to quantify. They found, for example, that even though FPS were virtually unchanged in Grand Theft Auto IV from 6GB to 16GB, there were fewer visual artifacts at the higher RAM levels. -- So this has me intrigued. I wonder whether some FSXers have been able to get benefits from more than 8GB with RAMdisking. --The other question, is how does having an SSD factor into all this? Accessing a RAMdisk is faster for the system than accessing an SSD, but is it so much faster that it makes a difference that you would actual notice while playing? --Yet another question this raises is how does the increase in RAM above 8GB factor into overclocking? More RAM modules and higher RAM sectors mean more work for the memory controller, so more heat and voltage. Would it mean so much more that there would be a negative impact on how much you would otherwise be able to overclock the system, so that, on balance, there would be no net benefit (and possibly even a detriment) for those who overclock?

Here's a review posted just a few days ago that directly compares several closed-loop water coolers to the air-cooled NH-D14. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/h100i-elc240-seidon-240m-lq320,3380-12.html

There are different forms of water cooling. A lot of aficionados have had good results with custom-built water coolers. An alternative are off-the-rack water coolers. As I understand it, you won't get as effective cooling with the latter, but you won't pay as much as with a custom-built cooler, either (although I haven't checked prices on custom cooling in going on two years). While custom-built water coolers require maintenance, there are off-the-rack liquid coolers that are advertised as "maintenance free." I have a CoolIT Eco ALC, for example, which is a closed loop system that supposedly requires no maintenance. It was selling for about $70 I guess at the time I acquired it. (Note that I'm not recommending this particular model or company, just providing additional info.) Here are a couple of reviews in which this model was compared to other coolers, one of them including the Noctua NH-D14 Premium air cooler already mentioned in this thread: http://www.guru3d.co...o_review,6.html http://benchmarkrevi...=1&limitstart=4 The risk of leaks is real, though. The first liquid cooler I had was installed in a high-end gaming computer that I had had built by a computer specialty firm about 4 years back (back in the days before I realized how easy, and less costly, it is to build your own!). They put in a CoolIT Domino ALC. Two years later, the cooler line spontaneously failed and leaked all over the components beneath it in my computer case, destroying an expensive GPU. I hadn't opened the case, hadn't even moved the computer between the time I originally received it and the cooler failed. Just all of a sudden one day, the display was acting up, so I took a look inside the case and discovered the mess. The company that had built the computer shipped me an updated model from the same cooler manufacturer as a replacement at no charge (although I was now out a GPU). I discovered that other people had also had cooler failures with this same model that had failed on me, for example: http://www.tomshardw...blew-wanna-pics So that is one potential problem that I would weigh very carefully if deciding on going with liquid cooling. No matter how well the liquid cooler is built and installed, there is always the theoretical possibility that it could fail in a way that could ruin other components of your build, a risk that is absent with air coolers. (In fact, I often wonder whether I should keep the cooler I have in place or dump it out, of fear that it could fail like the last one did. I guess I am trying to weigh how long I think the cooler will last before a failure against how much longer I think I will go without wanting to replace the current GPU anyway for a more updated model.)

I'm not seeing the attachments in the OP. For example, all I see for the first set of data mentioned is: Is it just me, or have the attachments been removed?

When you say you saw no difference going from 8 GB to 32 GB, do you mean that you saw no difference in running FSX alone or that you saw no difference in running FSX along with your other programs? (And by other programs, do you mean FSX-related stuff or completely unrelated stuff like mp3 or video players?)