I'm liking it so far... a couple interesting notes to rant about...

> spent 2 days looking for WOW64, thinking it was a program. finally i get an answer that it's just a DLL for 32 bit programs. man did i feel dumb...

>since x64 does not have Service Pack 2, i had to find a driver for my wireless nic. I have a D-Link card, and found a netgear driver. as you can see, im online.
   the only way for me to get online to get the driver was to plug in my computer into my TV, becuase i have a LAN cable going there for my PS2. so it was another blazing 40" of HDTV pixelated Computer .

>Firefox is a little bit more unstable on X64, and i don't know why, cause everything else is just fine.

>I had FS9 on my D Drive, didn't uninstall it or anything. i booted it through x64, and it worked just fine. i thought i would have to re-install. i was a happy camper

>i cant get Office 2003 for my computer... so i downloaded openoffice.org suite. all the same stuff, more stable, and free. what beats that?

>but this is only a 120 day trial, and im 9 days into it, so 111 to go. thats 111 days to fork over $150... seesh, i think i could switch to Linux ubuntu untill vista is out.

>i've yet to revert my "my documents" from the orginal computer switch, and the 32-64 bit switch, i only have 300mb space on my D drive left... ouch.

so thats about it, otherwsie, x64 was worth it. i found out my chipset gave me a free Firewall (nvidia). also grabbed Avast virsscanner and Ad-aware.

x64 worth it? 2 big toes up!

Ramos

XP64 Pro OWNERS!!! will recieve a $100 rebate from microsoft when they switch to vista. You will have to produce your code to them, and thy will send you Vista Home Professional for $100 less than the shelve price. Persoanlly though, depending on how much I dislike Vista (the OS itself, not the look. I happen to like the look of apple, just not the function) I may stay with XP64

Cheers
Cameron

Quote:



I just tried a *cough*ripped*cough* copy of vista Ultimate edition (one of the 6 editions available). it wasn't that bad. it was stable, sleek. yet it retained the look of Windows XP with some neat features.

but if you do't like the new layout, they still have the windows 98 scheme for y'all. I liked it, i might switch again to vista.

Ramos - can't keep an OS for 2 weeks:P

Well you two welcome to the vista community, my 10 gig is running 5308 and before that was 5270. I've been running Longhorn/Vista since 4075 on a 2nd drive. I do suggest if you have questions refer to http://winvistasecrets.com

Look for me there as shellofinsanity

what a waste there, a 1900XTX you should wait till around October this year, the 8800 and X2800 should be comming out with guess what, DX10/9L support and Shader Model 4.

I have been dual booting x32 pro and x64 pro for several months now... I fly FS9 from both x32 and x64. FS9 is installed on a RAID0 drive on the x64 OS however it flys fine when booted from x32 by simply using the FS9 tool to add the reg key to the x32 OS registry.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both operating systems. X64 handles high loads much better than x32. I find texture loads on x64 are instantaneous compared x32.

Frame rates are not important.. What is important is smooth frame transitions and high load performance. I find 25FPS in x64 is just as if not smoother than 32FPS in x32 due to the full motherboard bandwidth being provided by the x64 OS. For that same reason more ground FX files play in x64 and AI traffic tends to be heavier with the same traffic settings because the system can handle more CPU intense processes. FS9 is CPU intense and allot of people do not get to see all the action in the sim even using equal graphics settings someone else uses simply because their systems are not perfomance tuned or their CPU/Memory motherboard bandwidth is limited by hardware or lack of tuning. FS9 automatically adds more detail to the sim if the resources are available to it. That is one of the reasons why two people can have equal graphics cards and run equal graphic settings but achieve different visuals, clarity and frame smoothness results.

I run an AGP ATI AIW x800xt (500-500) overclocked to 540-580 using a Zalman HSF. The motherboard is an A8V Deluxe running an A64 3700+ (2.2gig) San Diego overclocked to 2.75 @ 250MHz, memory running 5:3 divider on 2 1 gig sticks of OCZ memory product and a Page file set to 2048-4096.

My tower is virtually silent since I run speedfan and ATI tool to control all fans based on temps.

My FS install consists of Ultimate Traffic running 92% including ALL GA traffic, Ultimate terrain USA and Canada, Birds Eye View complete 1024x texture set (waiting for spring). A special mixture of Chris Willis clouds from the past and my own along with my own water package I am on hold in working on. Also use the full versions of FLY TAMPA Seattle, San Francisco, Miami, San Diego along with an entire list of add-on scenery designed to enhance Ultimate terrain USA/Canada.

All FS scenery sliders are @ 100% (water high) and all boxes checked including add on dynamic scenery... except shadows, which are unchecked. Aircraft settings are ultra high, weather settings are Sight Distance = 70 : Cloud Draw 40 ; 3D clouds @ 100% and Cloud Density on MAXIMUM when I fly x64 and HIGH when I fly x32. I run render to texture and AA DISABLED with Mip quality on 4 and the Global texture size set to MASSIVE. Hardware rendered lights @ 8 with the native resolution of 1280 x 1024 @32 on a SONY 17in high output SDM HS74P LCD monitor

I usually fly the PMDG-737 and 747 in the VC cockpits along with FS Passengers running (heavy load with that program running)

The difference between x32 and x64 is in the way loads are handled. each OS can stumble a bit here and there with the type of scenery/settings/aircraft I am running but I find x64 handles the heavy CPU/memory bus loads with better frame continuity (smooth).

Since I run the same FS install for both OS's it is possible to easily see the differences.

The biggest downfall to x64 is indeed driver support, however the ATI 6.1 cat drivers run excellent on both x64 and x32 (Stay away from the 6.2 cats's as there are problems with them and FS9)


Flight simulator can run like a dog on the fastest system if you do not know how to performance tune and load balance your settings... especially FPS. Do not listen to the 32-35-45FPS stories as them being smoother than 25FPS... Try running my settings:

[SOUND]
SOUND=1
SOUND_FADER1=0.500000
SOUND_FADER2=0.460000
SOUND_FADER3=0.620000
SOUND_FADER4=0.800000
SOUND_FADER5=0.810000
SOUND_FADER6=1.000000
SOUND_QUALITY=2
Channels=4
SamplesPerSec=44100
BitsPerSample=16
[DISPLAY.Device.RADEON X800 Series     .0]
Mode=1280x1024x32
TriLinear=1
RenderToTexture=0
[DISPLAY]
RUNWAY_LIGHTS_SURFACE_SCALAR=.7
RUNWAY_LIGHTS_VASI_SCALAR=.7
RUNWAY_LIGHTS_APPROACH_SCALAR=.7
RUNWAY_LIGHTS_STROBE_SCALAR=.7
UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=25
TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=400
[TERRAIN]
TERRAIN_ERROR_FACTOR=100.000000
TERRAIN_MIN_DEM_AREA=10.000000
TERRAIN_MAX_DEM_AREA=100.000000
TERRAIN_MAX_VERTEX_LEVEL=21
TERRAIN_TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=8
TERRAIN_AUTOGEN_DENSITY=5
TERRAIN_USE_GRADIENT_MAP=1
TERRAIN_EXTENDED_TEXTURES=1
TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=9.500000
TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=9.500000
TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=4
[SCENERY]
IMAGE_COMPLEXITY=5
DYNAMIC_SCENERY=1
DYN_SCN_DENSITY=5
DAWN_DUSK_SMOOTHING=1
SUNGLARE=1
LENSFLARE=1


....at 35-45FPS or "unlimited" in x64 on an ATI x800xt or equivalent and you will see a stutter show compared to 25FPS, which is smooth as silk. That is how you can tell you have your system properly balanced for ULTRA high visual quality and smooth as silk performance.

I would prefer to see crystal clear scenery in the distance without frame drops. Watching the frame counter is only needed to load balance a system. I have found for both x64 and x32 the best method to find the sweet-spot frame lock is after all scenery has been installed and has been checked for errors using Flight Sim Manager, … and the computer has been properly tuned for its highest stable performance, set the frame counter to “unlimited” in order to find the average frame rate even with the stutters and scenery blurriness… fly several heavl load aircraft and scenery environments and record the average frame rate during those sessions. Once that number is discovered, reduce the frame lock by subtracting 5-6 frames from the average frame.. during thast process, tweaking clouds and traffic nets the best frame results. Every system is different so there is no such thing ars universal settings for every system, even identical hardware/drivers.

in my case setting the sim to “unlimited” frames and flying both KSEA and San Francisco International with PMDG aircraft and FSPassengers running and the setting I posted above netted an average of 31fps with high load stutters and poor long range scenery clarity. Reducing and locking that to 25fps nets awesome clarity and smooth as silk flights.










The 25FPS guarantees the scenery clarity, sharpness, and sim flight smooth frames no matter what plane I fly. Visually it always feels like I am floating on air even in a big hog like the PMDG products

Quote:



I can see for Miles and Miles

I can see for Miles and Miles

I can see for Miles and MILEs and mILes and MileS and miiiiiiles......