vortex681

No problems!

I agree with you in principle, just not for $1800 (the Xforce PC).

Yes, it's okay but it's nothing special. Just an i5-8600 with a single 500GB SSD and a GTX 1070 doesn't represent good value at that price. If you're upgrading, why buy a CPU which is three generations old with a relatively low power GPU. Building yourself is really not difficult and you get a much better system for your money as you're not limited to the components a manufacturer has to offer. If I was paying $2000, I wouldn't accept anything less than an i7-8700 with a GTX 1080.

This would be a great system build towards the top end of your budget: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/QB3dFt If you don't already have Windows you'd need to add that to it (less than $100).

Micosoft Sidewinder Force Feedback 2. Out of production for some years now but still available on eBay for usually a lot less than $100 for a good example. Excellent build quality, very solid/heavy and no chance of the centring spring weakening as it's centred by motors. Team it up with FS Force software and the feedback forces are very effective (much better than default) plus you get ”real" stick trim - when you adjust the trim, the stick datum actually moves. You can use different profiles for different aircraft and they are all fully customisable. See: http://www.fs-force.com

It sounds as though you're running NVIDIA Inspector whilst running FSX. Just to avoid any confusion (sorry if you already know this), NI is just used to select the settings for your GPU and doesn't need to run after you've done so - think of it as an extended NVIDIA Control Panel.

When you say you stopped using it, what do you mean? Profile Inspector is just like an extended version of the NVIDIA Control Panel. They are both there to change graphics card settings, not maintain them. Once you've changed a setting with Inspector, even if you subsequently uninstall Inspector, the setting remains the same unless you change it again with either Inspector or the NVIDIA Control Panel.

With your current setup there's no point changing to a 64-bit OS. Your system can't even support the maximum memory available in 32-bit Windows. This is from Microsoft: "The benefits of using a 64-bit operating system are most apparent when you have a large amount of random access memory (RAM) installed on your computer, typically 4 GB of RAM or more. In such cases, because a 64-bit operating system can handle large amounts of memory more efficiently than a 32-bit operating system, a 64-bit system can be more responsive when running several programs at the same time and switching between them frequently. " Even the statement about "4 GB of RAM or more" is misleading if all you have is 4GB of RAM - a 64-bit OS will not handle that amount of memory any better than a 32-bit system. It's only once you get above 4GB that you start to see the benefits. If you already have the software you want to run on this system, why not try installing it? You have nothing to lose and it might actually run. Even if it runs particularly slowly it may be good enough for what you want.

It won't work with so little RAM. Even 2GB (the maximum for you can install) is not enough to do anything useful. But with a maximum of 2GB RAM, there's no point. Time for a new system!

This is still true if you try to buy MS Office 365 to use with Windows 7. Older versions of Office will install without problems in Windows 10 (I'm using Office 2013). When the Windows 10 1803 update arrived I decided to up uninstall Bitdefender just before the update and reinstall the latest version afterwards. I had no problems - Windows automatically defaulted to Bitdefender. I also use Malwarebytes which, again, has no problems running in Windows 10. Perhaps it depends on which AV app you use.

I'd give another big endorsement for EVGA PSUs. I have an EVGA SuperNOVA G2 and would highly recommend it. High quality components, silent, very stable and has a huge 10-year warranty.

But this is still down to memory addressing (the same as OOMs). That's the main advantage that 64-bit software offers. My question to zmak was why he felt he specifically needed 64-bit.

Why? The only thing that going 64-bit solves is OOM issues.

Whilst I wouldn't argue that some people have had issues with the update, if it's such a disaster why have most people, myself included, had no problems with it? I sympathise with anyone who's affected but I've had zero issues. If it was so bad, the Internet would be awash with complaints (gamers, in particular, seldom hold back) and that's just not the case. Just like problems with previous updates, it seems to be very system-specific rather than being some fundamental fault with the code.

Sounds like you've arrived at a good decision. I got my QHD monitor when I still had a GTX 970 and I didn't think that it would be too successful running at 4k with the sort of detail I wanted. That said, I'm happy with my setup which is just as well as I've no plans on upgrading the monitor for the foreseeable future.

The only time that's happened to me is during a major update (the Spring Creators Update, for example, when it updated my NVIDIA graphics driver). That said, you can easily stop Win 10 from updating drivers: https://pureinfotech.com/exclude-driver-updates-windows-10/ In the Windows Update Settings, Advanced Options, Delivery Optimisation, Advanced Options you can change the amount of bandwidth Windows Update uses.

If it's a new install, yes. You'll avoid any of the boxed edition's potential registration issues and it contains a number of improvements: https://fsxinsider.com/fsx-steam-edition-and-boxed-fsx-what-is-the-difference/. Force Steam to install it into a folder off the root of the drive like C:\FlightSim to prevent any problems with permissions. As an extra bonus, many people seem to see a small performance improvement with FSX:SE.

The biggest difference between the two is input lag, which is much higher for "vsync 1/2 refresh rate". For a detailed explanation of fast sync, watch this: https://youtu.be/L07t_mY2LEU. As I said in an earlier post (and as the linked video repeatedly states), fast sync shouldn't work at framerates at or below the refresh rate. However, I had quite noticeable tearing with FSX on my 60Hz monitor. After trying all of the alternatives, I tried fast sync (with unlimited frame rates in-game) and the tearing was gone with no noticeable performance hit - my FPS is averages around 40-50. Another alternative is to try "adaptive vsync 1/2 refresh rate". With a 60Hz monitor, if your FPS are above 30, vsync is active (with some input lag) with no tearing. If you FPS drop below 30, vsync turns off but there could be some tearing (but no input lag). If I were you, I'd try fast sync first and if it doesn't help, try "adaptive vsync 1/2 refresh rate".

Have you tried Fast Sync? In theory it's only supposed to work at very high framerates but some people on these forums (me included) have found it very effective with only a small performance hit.

Vortex is fine. For reasons I won't go in to, it had some significance in the real world for several years. It all adds to the mystery!

Yes, but I'm a little paranoid about my privacy - I'm sorry if you find that unacceptable. I hope you don't consider my posts any less valid as a result.

"a viable alternative to Honeycomb?" but at MUCH greater cost! There are a few other alternative throttles at much less cost than the Throttletek: https://www.fsxthrottle.com/?page_id=481#!/TwinPro/p/78782836/category=0 https://goflightinc.com/product/tq6/ https://www.virtual-fly.com/en/shop/controls/tq6-hands-on-for-real

I'm struggling to find it now, but when I bought mine there was a web site which said that the panel manufacturer and model number for the AOC Q3277PQU and the BenQ PD3200Q was the same (I think it may have been made by AU Optronics). They were both released at the same time and, based on the panel info, I bought the AOC monitor because it was a much better deal at the time. There was also a Samsung 32" QHD monitor released at the same time as the other two which also had the same panel but flickered at low brightness levels which is why I took it off my wishlist. Edit: Ignore the above! It was a different BenQ monitor (the BL3200PT). I found the link for the original web page I used: https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/comparison/5875110ca

Not recommended, particularly if you ever connect to the Internet. How do you know that your system is clean? Not all malware has a noticeable effect on performance. I had a perfect example of this a few years ago. I was helping a friend, who also didn't use antivirus/antimalware, with a hardware-related problem. Because it's something I always check, I ran a system scan before I started and found two trojans - worryingly one was a key logger. He had no idea that either of them was there and hadn't noticed any change in system performance. The subsequent hassle of having to change all of his passwords, credit cards and bank account access details convinced him of the value of malware protection. If you have no Internet connection you're probably safe. However, even importing data via CD-ROM or USB stick puts your system at risk. On a modern system a good antivirus app uses up very little of your system resources and protects you (and your friends, if you ever email them) from potentially serious problems. I wonder how many people who suffered with the WannaCry ransomeware attack last year had no (or out of date) antivirus.

Alex, AV-Comparatives is one of the best respected antivirus testing sites: https://www.av-comparatives.org. Take a look at the results of their latest real-world protection and performance tests. It's important to check them both out as you'll see that the app which has the least system impact is not the most effective at protecting you. My personal choice, Bitdefender, consistently gives good protection with a low performance hit. It has an automatic game mode which uses hardly any system resources when running.