> I've been searching for a 512MB ATI card -- no luck. 3DLabs is the only
> card I see in the 512MB or higher range. ATI card certainly has enough
> bandwidth and processing power, just not enough onboard memory for 1600 x
> 1200.

I think that Crossfire enabled two 256MB ATi graphics cards to become a
single 512MB with dual-VPU, etc. However - You should try 3DLabs :-)).
512MB, dual-VPU, VSU, etc. Funny that you mentioned 3DLabs. I was intending
to if you replied to me! I don't know them first-hand(for obvious reasons)
but they seem quality and Big Huge Gigantic Performance. Info on ATi's 512MB
X850: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/d...223104659.html

Glad it's ATi

jkb

Always set up your AF and AA within the Graphics Card. You can still setup
up bi-linear or tri-linear with FS without much effect on performance. It
will help FS9 run much smoother.

John


"Andy" <andy.cippico@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:42d625e3$0$13697$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> John,
> I guess some tweaking is in order, then. I'll take a look at AvSim. What
> I'd really like to know is whether setting AA or AF is best done at the
> graphics card driver level or within FS2004. There are simply too many
> settings and variables for the common man to take in!
> Andy
>
> PS: Just a thought, you might want to prefix your replies with the person
> you're replying to in future. You could end up getting flamed for no
> reason.. ;-)
>
>> Andy, I have less computer than your dad and run a host of add-on's
>> including Ultimate Traffic maxed out and usually run at 19FPS. He may
>> want to look at his settings to see what he can do. If he does not use
>> it he may want to take a look at www.Avsim.com where there is a large
>> community of heavy users who can give a lot of hints about maximizing
>> your system. 4-5 FPS should never happen with his machine
>>
>> John.
>>
>>
>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:eaFGvhlhFHA.3544@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>>I didn't meet the "profile" -- do you know how silly that sounds?
>>>
>>> Game vs. simulation debate -- it never ends. Regardless, how is going
>>> to an external view in a FS2004 to look at the pretty details of an
>>> aircraft distinguishing it from a "game" -- last I checked simulators
>>> typically don't let you take a birds eye view of your aircraft, and
>>> unless you develop wings neither can a pilot in the real world -- so ask
>>> yourself which is more "game" like?
>>>
>>> So do you have anything technically inaccurate with my concerns over 3rd
>>> party AC payware? You have not posted any real contradictions to
>>> suggest my observations are inaccurate or false? Just pathetic comments
>>> with no substance.
>>>
>>> Rob.
>>>
>>>
>>> "John" <diajohn2@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:%23yG4KMYhFHA.2372@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>>>I don't think you meet the profile for those who like the payware
>>>>aircraft such as the Dreamfleet 727, The LDS767 and the PMDG737NG. You
>>>>don't want to fly an aircraft but to play a game. Play away.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:u$jKRd0gFHA.1948@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Too All those folks (and you know who you are) that are cashing in on
>>>>> the add-on aircraft market:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. stop with the ridiculously low frame rates as compared to MS
>>>>> default Aircraft
>>>>> 2. learn how to optimize GMax
>>>>> 3. Provide a simplified version of the Aircraft (frame rate
>>>>> friendly -- no that doesn't mean just add 2D panels)
>>>>> 4. Panels that NEVER match up to MS's standard control configurations
>>>>> key set so I'm forced to re-program my GoFlight system for every
>>>>> add-on aircraft
>>>>> 5. Panels with NO obvious method of closing
>>>>> 6. Overwriting the default MS GPS key
>>>>> 7. Stop adding endless DLL's to the Modules dir to the point FS just
>>>>> can't handle it any more
>>>>> 8. Provide accurate step by step startup procedures for these
>>>>> aircraft -- documentation is horrible and incomplete
>>>>> 9. Check DLL conflicts BEFORE installing, don't just overwrite
>>>>>
>>>>> Until you folks GET A CLUE, I'm not wasting any more money on your
>>>>> products and will happily fly the free-ware products that: work
>>>>> reliably, look great, fly great, sound great, and most importantly
>>>>> don't turn my Intel P4 3.7 Ghz Extreme Edition 880Mhz FSB 1.5GB 500Mhz
>>>>> Corsair Extreme RAM, ATI X800XT PE, WD Raptor 10K rpm RAID system into
>>>>> a 5 fps crash to desktop nightmare!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone else thinking of getting retail 3rd party Aircraft, you have
>>>>> been warned!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob.
>>>>>
>>>>> P.S. Computer Pilot Magazine -- you need to be more responsible in
>>>>> your reviews, one liners that hint at possible frame rate problems
>>>>> should be more clear i.e. "you can't even fly this Aircraft unless you
>>>>> turn EVERYTHING off or down".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

I think we will have to wait for FS10 for it to be able to help you. I do
envy your system though but wonder why it runs so slow even at that
1600x1200 setting.

John


"Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:e$KnN8JiFHA.1044@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> P4 EE @ 3.73Mhz 2MB on die cache 1.5GB 500Mhz rated memory at CL2.5-3-3-7,
> ATI X800XT PE (570 GPU, 560 memory), two 74GB WD Raptor 10K rpm SATA
> drives (RAID 0). FSB is running at 220Mhz with TWO external Koolance
> water cooling units.
>
> My system consistantly produces some of the highest graphics scores I've
> seen on the net (exceptions are those dry ice and/or liquid gas based
> cooling systems) and has no problems with any other game/software.
> However, with FS2004 I can easily bring frame rates to <5 fps using PMDG
> 737 and weather (fluffy clouds at 80mi distance).
>
> I think the key to the poor performance in my system is that textures and
> polygons push the 256MB ATIX800XT PE over the edge when running at 1600 x
> 1200 32bit 4XAA and 8XAF. I haven't seen many folks that run FS2004 at
> these graphics settings. I run 1600 x 1200 because that is the native
> resolution of my monitor (21" LCD). If FS2004 didn't have serious
> problems with SLI, I'd be running two nVidia cards (which would give me a
> 512MB of video memory and cure my issues) -- but FS2004 is one of the few
> programs that does NOT work in SLI mode -- which is unfortunate cause it
> is perhaps the only program that REALLY needs to be able to.
>
> What I don't understand, what is FS2004 code doing such that it doesn't
> work with SLI setup? If anyone can answer that question, I'll buy them a
> meal & drinks.
>
> Rob.
>
>
> "John" <diajohn2@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:e2LMPAAiFHA.576@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Rob, I do not disagree with your post and was actually responding to jfb
>> who thought add-on a/c were inferior to stock a/c in FS. Most of your
>> comments seemed reasonable although, we tend to forget the small market
>> size which limits what a developer can (or will) do. It doesn't seem to
>> matter what computer and add-on's you have to suffer some framerate
>> erosion. The processor simply has a lot more to do as the instructions
>> get more complex. I believe many users have poor computer setups,
>> insufficient memory and the wrong sliders set to the right. I don't find
>> the default a/c operate a lot better than the LDS 763 or the PMDG737NG.
>>
>> Andy, I have less computer than your dad and run a host of add-on's
>> including Ultimate Traffic maxed out and usually run at 19FPS. He may
>> want to look at his settings to see what he can do. If he does not use
>> it he may want to take a look at www.Avsim.com where there is a large
>> community of heavy users who can give a lot of hints about maximizing
>> your system. 4-5 FPS should never happen with his machine
>>
>> John.
>>
>>
>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:eaFGvhlhFHA.3544@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>>I didn't meet the "profile" -- do you know how silly that sounds?
>>>
>>> Game vs. simulation debate -- it never ends. Regardless, how is going
>>> to an external view in a FS2004 to look at the pretty details of an
>>> aircraft distinguishing it from a "game" -- last I checked simulators
>>> typically don't let you take a birds eye view of your aircraft, and
>>> unless you develop wings neither can a pilot in the real world -- so ask
>>> yourself which is more "game" like?
>>>
>>> So do you have anything technically inaccurate with my concerns over 3rd
>>> party AC payware? You have not posted any real contradictions to
>>> suggest my observations are inaccurate or false? Just pathetic comments
>>> with no substance.
>>>
>>> Rob.
>>>
>>>
>>> "John" <diajohn2@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:%23yG4KMYhFHA.2372@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>>>I don't think you meet the profile for those who like the payware
>>>>aircraft such as the Dreamfleet 727, The LDS767 and the PMDG737NG. You
>>>>don't want to fly an aircraft but to play a game. Play away.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:u$jKRd0gFHA.1948@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Too All those folks (and you know who you are) that are cashing in on
>>>>> the add-on aircraft market:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. stop with the ridiculously low frame rates as compared to MS
>>>>> default Aircraft
>>>>> 2. learn how to optimize GMax
>>>>> 3. Provide a simplified version of the Aircraft (frame rate
>>>>> friendly -- no that doesn't mean just add 2D panels)
>>>>> 4. Panels that NEVER match up to MS's standard control configurations
>>>>> key set so I'm forced to re-program my GoFlight system for every
>>>>> add-on aircraft
>>>>> 5. Panels with NO obvious method of closing
>>>>> 6. Overwriting the default MS GPS key
>>>>> 7. Stop adding endless DLL's to the Modules dir to the point FS just
>>>>> can't handle it any more
>>>>> 8. Provide accurate step by step startup procedures for these
>>>>> aircraft -- documentation is horrible and incomplete
>>>>> 9. Check DLL conflicts BEFORE installing, don't just overwrite
>>>>>
>>>>> Until you folks GET A CLUE, I'm not wasting any more money on your
>>>>> products and will happily fly the free-ware products that: work
>>>>> reliably, look great, fly great, sound great, and most importantly
>>>>> don't turn my Intel P4 3.7 Ghz Extreme Edition 880Mhz FSB 1.5GB 500Mhz
>>>>> Corsair Extreme RAM, ATI X800XT PE, WD Raptor 10K rpm RAID system into
>>>>> a 5 fps crash to desktop nightmare!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone else thinking of getting retail 3rd party Aircraft, you have
>>>>> been warned!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob.
>>>>>
>>>>> P.S. Computer Pilot Magazine -- you need to be more responsible in
>>>>> your reviews, one liners that hint at possible frame rate problems
>>>>> should be more clear i.e. "you can't even fly this Aircraft unless you
>>>>> turn EVERYTHING off or down".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Rob most users do not report any performance changes from 128 to 256 on the
video card. It would seem to follow that 512 would not help with FS9
either. You may want to check a couple of your FS9 settings as 5FPS seems
quite low for your system. Mine runs 3-4 times faster using 1 meg of 400
Mhz memory on a 333 Motherboard with an AMD 2500 Barton and an ATI 9600 XT
card. Sounds like you may have a bottleneck.

I run Ultimate Traffic set high, real weather using 3D cloulds set at 80
miles and other stuff operating in the background. My PMDG operates nicely
this way.

The first two places I would check are my AGP Aperature (actually smaller is
better than larger 64K works for most users), check to see that the latency
of the Video Card is set low also for best performance. Lastly, I would
make certain I had the latest Motherboard drivers and BIO's as sometimes the
originals have a bug or two.

Since you get good 3D mark scores, I would guess the difficulty may be in
the FS settings. Try deleting your FS9 config file and let it rebuild. You
won't lose anything and may gain a lot.

John


"Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:OdCTX$MiFHA.3568@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> That was back in Feb, so where is this mystery ATI 512MB card?? Will it
> be released at all?
>
> I hope so, cause it is painfully slow watching the textures swap in/out on
> my X800XT PE 256MB card at 1600 x 1200.
>
> "jkb" <nospam@none> wrote in message
> news:%23kjgUzMiFHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>> I've been searching for a 512MB ATI card -- no luck. 3DLabs is the only
>>> card I see in the 512MB or higher range. ATI card certainly has enough
>>> bandwidth and processing power, just not enough onboard memory for 1600
>>> x
>>> 1200.
>>
>> I think that Crossfire enabled two 256MB ATi graphics cards to become a
>> single 512MB with dual-VPU, etc. However - You should try 3DLabs :-)).
>> 512MB, dual-VPU, VSU, etc. Funny that you mentioned 3DLabs. I was
>> intending
>> to if you replied to me! I don't know them first-hand(for obvious
>> reasons)
>> but they seem quality and Big Huge Gigantic Performance. Info on ATi's
>> 512MB
>> X850: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/d...223104659.html
>>
>> Glad it's ATi
>>
>> jkb
>>
>>
>
>

> Rob most users do not report any performance changes from 128 to 256 on
the
> video card. It would seem to follow that 512 would not help with FS9
> either. You may want to check a couple of your FS9 settings as 5FPS seems
> quite low for your system. Mine runs 3-4 times faster using 1 meg of 400
> Mhz memory on a 333 Motherboard with an AMD 2500 Barton and an ATI 9600 XT
> card. Sounds like you may have a bottleneck.

For small texture programs - big VRAM will mean little or nothing. For a Big
Texture program like FS2004 - big VRAM will mean a lot. VRAM is used to
store textures. The more textures near(and therefore easily accesible to the
VPU) - the more performance. FS2004 will like a lot of VRAM especially when
set to use big textures.

jkb

John, I have NOT seen many users run FS2004 at 1600 x 1200 and without you
listing ALL (not just a few) the exact details of graphics card driver
settings AND your FS 2004 graphics options, making fps comparisons has ZERO
usefulness to you, me, or anyone reading. I see it all the time, people
saying they get great fps and list a couple of details about their settings
and when pushed for a complete list of details they disappear into the
ether.

I have a spreadsheet with fps comparisons on my system, I have over 60
columns to hold the specific options available to the graphics card and FS
2004 graphics options. Each option can have serious fps impact and
sometimes not and sometimes it is a combination of options that pushes the
graphics card over the top. But for the details I enjoy, I can assure you
that video memory is the KEY in my situation (level of detail) as I can see
the textures being swapped out and pulled into memory. But I'm not
surprise, 1600 x 1200 requires A LOT bandwidth and video memory.

I've deleted the FS9.CFG many times. I've also gone thru many of the
optimzation settings I've discovered at AVSIM.

I can make the PMDG 737 work well, but it requires some serious detuning of
my graphics settings & FS 2004 settings. So much so, that it is
unacceptable (especially when compared to the FS2004 default AC).


"John" <diajohn2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:O8aoohNiFHA.1480@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Rob most users do not report any performance changes from 128 to 256 on
> the video card. It would seem to follow that 512 would not help with FS9
> either. You may want to check a couple of your FS9 settings as 5FPS seems
> quite low for your system. Mine runs 3-4 times faster using 1 meg of 400
> Mhz memory on a 333 Motherboard with an AMD 2500 Barton and an ATI 9600 XT
> card. Sounds like you may have a bottleneck.
>
> I run Ultimate Traffic set high, real weather using 3D cloulds set at 80
> miles and other stuff operating in the background. My PMDG operates
> nicely this way.
>
> The first two places I would check are my AGP Aperature (actually smaller
> is better than larger 64K works for most users), check to see that the
> latency of the Video Card is set low also for best performance. Lastly, I
> would make certain I had the latest Motherboard drivers and BIO's as
> sometimes the originals have a bug or two.
>
> Since you get good 3D mark scores, I would guess the difficulty may be in
> the FS settings. Try deleting your FS9 config file and let it rebuild.
> You won't lose anything and may gain a lot.
>
> John
>
>
> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:OdCTX$MiFHA.3568@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> That was back in Feb, so where is this mystery ATI 512MB card?? Will it
>> be released at all?
>>
>> I hope so, cause it is painfully slow watching the textures swap in/out
>> on my X800XT PE 256MB card at 1600 x 1200.
>>
>> "jkb" <nospam@none> wrote in message
>> news:%23kjgUzMiFHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>> I've been searching for a 512MB ATI card -- no luck. 3DLabs is the
>>>> only
>>>> card I see in the 512MB or higher range. ATI card certainly has enough
>>>> bandwidth and processing power, just not enough onboard memory for 1600
>>>> x
>>>> 1200.
>>>
>>> I think that Crossfire enabled two 256MB ATi graphics cards to become a
>>> single 512MB with dual-VPU, etc. However - You should try 3DLabs :-)).
>>> 512MB, dual-VPU, VSU, etc. Funny that you mentioned 3DLabs. I was
>>> intending
>>> to if you replied to me! I don't know them first-hand(for obvious
>>> reasons)
>>> but they seem quality and Big Huge Gigantic Performance. Info on ATi's
>>> 512MB
>>> X850: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/d...223104659.html
>>>
>>> Glad it's ATi
>>>
>>> jkb
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Don't think FS10 will solve anything -- newer versions of FS in the past
have never helped decrease my fps. Even if they code true threaded
multi-CPU specific code, the issue isn't my Processor, it's the graphics
card memory limitations.

I'll hope the X850XT PE 512MB does find the retail market -- but it has been
5 months since it was shown to the world, so I assume it may just be
vaporware. In the future I plan to run 1990 x 1200, but not until I can
make 1600 x 1200 smooth -- it really is a shame nVidia can't get their SLI
setup to work with FS2004 -- two 6800 Ultra OC 512MB cards would be nice
providing 1GB of video memory. I have thought about switching to a single
6800 Ultra OC 512MB as those are currently available.

Rob.

"John" <diajohn2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:%23M468aNiFHA.2664@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>I think we will have to wait for FS10 for it to be able to help you. I do
>envy your system though but wonder why it runs so slow even at that
>1600x1200 setting.
>
> John
>
>
> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:e$KnN8JiFHA.1044@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> P4 EE @ 3.73Mhz 2MB on die cache 1.5GB 500Mhz rated memory at
>> CL2.5-3-3-7, ATI X800XT PE (570 GPU, 560 memory), two 74GB WD Raptor 10K
>> rpm SATA drives (RAID 0). FSB is running at 220Mhz with TWO external
>> Koolance water cooling units.
>>
>> My system consistantly produces some of the highest graphics scores I've
>> seen on the net (exceptions are those dry ice and/or liquid gas based
>> cooling systems) and has no problems with any other game/software.
>> However, with FS2004 I can easily bring frame rates to <5 fps using PMDG
>> 737 and weather (fluffy clouds at 80mi distance).
>>
>> I think the key to the poor performance in my system is that textures and
>> polygons push the 256MB ATIX800XT PE over the edge when running at 1600 x
>> 1200 32bit 4XAA and 8XAF. I haven't seen many folks that run FS2004 at
>> these graphics settings. I run 1600 x 1200 because that is the native
>> resolution of my monitor (21" LCD). If FS2004 didn't have serious
>> problems with SLI, I'd be running two nVidia cards (which would give me a
>> 512MB of video memory and cure my issues) -- but FS2004 is one of the few
>> programs that does NOT work in SLI mode -- which is unfortunate cause it
>> is perhaps the only program that REALLY needs to be able to.
>>
>> What I don't understand, what is FS2004 code doing such that it doesn't
>> work with SLI setup? If anyone can answer that question, I'll buy them a
>> meal & drinks.
>>
>> Rob.
>>
>>
>> "John" <diajohn2@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:e2LMPAAiFHA.576@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>> Rob, I do not disagree with your post and was actually responding to jfb
>>> who thought add-on a/c were inferior to stock a/c in FS. Most of your
>>> comments seemed reasonable although, we tend to forget the small market
>>> size which limits what a developer can (or will) do. It doesn't seem to
>>> matter what computer and add-on's you have to suffer some framerate
>>> erosion. The processor simply has a lot more to do as the instructions
>>> get more complex. I believe many users have poor computer setups,
>>> insufficient memory and the wrong sliders set to the right. I don't
>>> find the default a/c operate a lot better than the LDS 763 or the
>>> PMDG737NG.
>>>
>>> Andy, I have less computer than your dad and run a host of add-on's
>>> including Ultimate Traffic maxed out and usually run at 19FPS. He may
>>> want to look at his settings to see what he can do. If he does not use
>>> it he may want to take a look at www.Avsim.com where there is a large
>>> community of heavy users who can give a lot of hints about maximizing
>>> your system. 4-5 FPS should never happen with his machine
>>>
>>> John.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>> news:eaFGvhlhFHA.3544@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>>>I didn't meet the "profile" -- do you know how silly that sounds?
>>>>
>>>> Game vs. simulation debate -- it never ends. Regardless, how is going
>>>> to an external view in a FS2004 to look at the pretty details of an
>>>> aircraft distinguishing it from a "game" -- last I checked simulators
>>>> typically don't let you take a birds eye view of your aircraft, and
>>>> unless you develop wings neither can a pilot in the real world -- so
>>>> ask yourself which is more "game" like?
>>>>
>>>> So do you have anything technically inaccurate with my concerns over
>>>> 3rd party AC payware? You have not posted any real contradictions to
>>>> suggest my observations are inaccurate or false? Just pathetic
>>>> comments with no substance.
>>>>
>>>> Rob.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "John" <diajohn2@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:%23yG4KMYhFHA.2372@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>>>>I don't think you meet the profile for those who like the payware
>>>>>aircraft such as the Dreamfleet 727, The LDS767 and the PMDG737NG. You
>>>>>don't want to fly an aircraft but to play a game. Play away.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:u$jKRd0gFHA.1948@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Too All those folks (and you know who you are) that are cashing in on
>>>>>> the add-on aircraft market:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. stop with the ridiculously low frame rates as compared to MS
>>>>>> default Aircraft
>>>>>> 2. learn how to optimize GMax
>>>>>> 3. Provide a simplified version of the Aircraft (frame rate
>>>>>> friendly -- no that doesn't mean just add 2D panels)
>>>>>> 4. Panels that NEVER match up to MS's standard control
>>>>>> configurations key set so I'm forced to re-program my GoFlight system
>>>>>> for every add-on aircraft
>>>>>> 5. Panels with NO obvious method of closing
>>>>>> 6. Overwriting the default MS GPS key
>>>>>> 7. Stop adding endless DLL's to the Modules dir to the point FS just
>>>>>> can't handle it any more
>>>>>> 8. Provide accurate step by step startup procedures for these
>>>>>> aircraft -- documentation is horrible and incomplete
>>>>>> 9. Check DLL conflicts BEFORE installing, don't just overwrite
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Until you folks GET A CLUE, I'm not wasting any more money on your
>>>>>> products and will happily fly the free-ware products that: work
>>>>>> reliably, look great, fly great, sound great, and most importantly
>>>>>> don't turn my Intel P4 3.7 Ghz Extreme Edition 880Mhz FSB 1.5GB
>>>>>> 500Mhz Corsair Extreme RAM, ATI X800XT PE, WD Raptor 10K rpm RAID
>>>>>> system into a 5 fps crash to desktop nightmare!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone else thinking of getting retail 3rd party Aircraft, you have
>>>>>> been warned!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rob.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.S. Computer Pilot Magazine -- you need to be more responsible in
>>>>>> your reviews, one liners that hint at possible frame rate problems
>>>>>> should be more clear i.e. "you can't even fly this Aircraft unless
>>>>>> you turn EVERYTHING off or down".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

> I'll hope the X850XT PE 512MB does find the retail market -- but it has
been
> 5 months since it was shown to the world, so I assume it may just be
> vaporware. In the future I plan to run 1990 x 1200, but not until I can
> make 1600 x 1200 smooth -- it really is a shame nVidia can't get their SLI
> setup to work with FS2004 -- two 6800 Ultra OC 512MB cards would be nice
> providing 1GB of video memory. I have thought about switching to a single
> 6800 Ultra OC 512MB as those are currently available.

You could try the 3DLabs Realizm 800. It has 640MB of 512-bit memory.
Dual-VPU. AFAIK, standard VC's only have 256-bit VRAM - double bandwidth. A
separate geometry processor. Texture sizes up to 4000x4000. However - it
seems to cost a lot and probably takes up a lot of case-space. Go here for
more info: http://content.3dlabs.com/Datasheets/realizm800.pdf. It's pretty
impressive.

jkb

The nVidia 7800GTX is out, but again no 512MB version -- Single 7800 shows
about 25% increase in fps, without that 512MB I bet as soon as textures
overload it the same issues will happen as do with my ATI X800XT PE.

The 3DLabs units are nice, but will they work well with FS2004? They are
optimized for CAD/3D rendering so I don't know how well they'll perform for
games/sim like FS2004.

"jkb" <nospam@none> wrote in message
news:Ov9MB2WiFHA.1244@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> I'll hope the X850XT PE 512MB does find the retail market -- but it has
> been
>> 5 months since it was shown to the world, so I assume it may just be
>> vaporware. In the future I plan to run 1990 x 1200, but not until I can
>> make 1600 x 1200 smooth -- it really is a shame nVidia can't get their
>> SLI
>> setup to work with FS2004 -- two 6800 Ultra OC 512MB cards would be nice
>> providing 1GB of video memory. I have thought about switching to a
>> single
>> 6800 Ultra OC 512MB as those are currently available.
>
> You could try the 3DLabs Realizm 800. It has 640MB of 512-bit memory.
> Dual-VPU. AFAIK, standard VC's only have 256-bit VRAM - double bandwidth.
> A
> separate geometry processor. Texture sizes up to 4000x4000. However - it
> seems to cost a lot and probably takes up a lot of case-space. Go here for
> more info: http://content.3dlabs.com/Datasheets/realizm800.pdf. It's
> pretty
> impressive.
>
> jkb
>
>

> The 3DLabs units are nice, but will they work well with FS2004? They are
> optimized for CAD/3D rendering so I don't know how well they'll perform
for
> games/sim like FS2004.

They do full-hardware support for DX9, and I reckon that's what counts.
FS2004 uses DX9. CAD people will use them because of there high-performance.
If I had the money and wanted ultra game performance - 3DLabs Wildcat
Realizm would be my choice.

jkb