system for max settings???

[Groundbound1]

When I tried it, I couldn't get Windows 7 to recognize my printer, what chance does the Jaguar have!

[RaptorF22]

Might do it, 'cept it runs Linux.

Aww, I didn't think about that.
Well, there's got to be some way around it.

Create and load Cray version of Windows 7. See how easy that was?

[Speed of flight]

[quote][quote]To me, "max settings" mean EVERY slider maxxed out.

Imagine running the Leonardo Maddog, at Aerosoft Heathrow, with 4096 clouds, 9.5 LOD, 100% Airline,GA, Boat, and Car Traffic, Max Water and Waves, Radar Contact running, FS2Crew running, EZCA, Weather program, etc, etc, etc.

[Flight Ace]

[quote][quote][quote]To me, "max settings" mean EVERY slider maxxed out.

Imagine running the Leonardo Maddog, at Aerosoft Heathrow, with 4096 clouds, 9.5 LOD, 100% Airline,GA, Boat, and Car Traffic, Max Water and Waves, Radar Contact running, FS2Crew running, EZCA, Weather program, etc, etc, etc.

[Speed of flight]

Speed of Flight is right. Maxing out FSX is a no brainer. There is more than enough information on this forum to confirm this statement. Do the research.

Thank you! Sheesh!
It is possible. Very possible, in fact. I haven't adjusted my settings for over a year, now. CFG is edited for max texture size 4096 for Rex2, ALL traffic 100%, all scenery 100%, true that the 2d panel transparency is off, but who wants or needs to see through a panel? Water, all settings that go up to make FSX work harder and look better are 100%. P-factor, gyro-drift, everything. ALL settings.
How I did it, you ask? Easy. Whenever a new and expensive PC part comes out, buy it. Heavy duty PSU, Big Video card, highest-end CPU (either manufacturer will suffice for maxxing sliders), fast, low-latency DDR3 ram, and a very tune-able MB for O/C'ing the garbage out of that new, high-dollar CPU. Secrets revealed. It takes money, really. Can't compromise on the expense or the quality of good parts if you expect FSX to not compromise on your experience.
All the facts aside, time for some opinion. [glow=yellow,2,300]To the original poster:[/glow]
I use AMD processors because they're cheaper, but if you want great performance, I do recommend using intel stuff. All the Benchmarking programs are designed to fit them best, and if you start this project, the next thing you do will be trying to speed it up. Go with the i7-930. 920 rox, but you get a little more zoom out of the 930.
Get yourself the 5870 or 5970 ATi cards, only because they freakin ROCK. No better out there. If you want to use that card and a great CPU, you need power to spare during a heavy workload. I use an 850W Antec, but things are getting somewhat power hungry. Go with AT LEAST that much, or better. Ram is everywhere, choose the lowest latency DDR3, and you'll be fine. I really dig the ROG crosshair3 MB and the Intel equivalent Rampage2 or whatever that one is. Look for "Republic Of Gamers" stuff for that.

Most importantly, do your homework. Numbers matter with all this stuff, but if you get the best there is out there now, you should be fine. This year's hardware releases have really put FSX users ahead of the curve. Flying it has been a pure joy since I stepped up my hardware. It will be for you, as well.
Good luck, and look for the deals! But get shoppin, so we can all see someone NEW ROCK FSX, and put all the doubters in a tailspin!
See you up there.

[Slotback]

Get the i7 950 over the 930. It dropped in price not long ago.

[snippyfsxer]

Speed of Flight, Flight Ace:

[Flight Ace]

[quote]Speed of Flight, Flight Ace:

[snippyfsxer]

And as far as doing what your screenshot shows, my cockpit is not broken up into three slices only one and ...

I don't have 3 times the screen real estate and horizontal resolution, I merely have "3 slices".

[Flight Ace]

And as far as doing what your screenshot shows, my cockpit is not broken up into three slices only one and ...

I don't have 3 times the screen real estate and horizontal resolution, I merely have "3 slices".

[snippyfsxer]

I think we are on the same page now.  My only point was that it is very very easy to humble even a powerful processor with a fairly short list of "must have" addons.  The original poster, who might be about to spend upwards of 3000 dollars on a dedicated FSX machine should know that if he decides to take it to the next level, by spending a couple hundred more on mesh, landclass, scenery, and good payware planes, he will have to deal with that with realistic expectations.  I think we would all agree (or should anyway) that the goal of enjoyable flight simming is to achieve smoothness, fluidity, and consistency and not to aim for a momentary spike of 100fps at max settings just to show that it can be done.

[Speed of flight]

[quote]I think we are on the same page now.

[Flight Ace]

[quote]I think we are on the same page now.

[snippyfsxer]

Still not on the same page huh?

[Speed of flight]

[quote]Still not on the same page huh?