garrettm30

I think there are two models that had that clock speed. I have the one that was made in late 2008 as a factory upgrade option. It has the 24" screen and NVidia GeForce 8800 "GS." If that's the one you're talking about, I can tell you a thing or two about it. I bet, however, you are talking about the newer one with a different video card (which ought to give quite a bit different results) and, if I remember right, a 27" screen, which would also have an affect as it is more pixels to fill. Edit: I just noticed that this is the post that made me a full member! Celebration, I'm legit now!

It's hard to tell sometimes when a person is joking just by reading the text, but I think MatthewS is joking. I have never heard that rule, and this is the thread that I would expect to find it in.

I do agree, and lest I leave the wrong impression from my previous post, I should say that doing something wrong without being noticed doesn't make it right. I'm all for doing what is right even if no one notices. Let's have some integrity. As for g2xpl, I have no experience with it myself, although I did consider it until a poster made me aware of the legal issues. My post above was that I'm surprised it was noticed, not that our relatively small number makes it okay. Sorry to mislead.

Wow, that is a serious list! It must have taken hours just to compile the list. To actually implement those things seems unthinkable. I'm impressed.

I'm surprised that the Google giant would care about such a relatively small community. Could those people who do use it really have an impact on Google's resources? I mean, the percentage of X-Plane users who use g2xpl has to be rather small, and even all of X-Plane users is nearly nothing next to the masses world-wide who access Google Maps daily. I wonder how they even noticed.

I have to add that I very much appreciate Mr. Stoen's work. I did a lot of reading on his site and even purchased the CD to support him in all the help he gave me when I was a beginning virtual pilot. As for learning about IFR, the site that taught me the most was several lessons by Andrew Ayers in the free training section from the virtual airline Emerald Air. You don't have to be a member of the airline. Here is the link: http://www.emeraldair.net/navig.html These days, thanks to the lessons on the link above, I don't care to do much relying on the FMS, and I definitely don't want my flight plan done for me. Now that I know how to read the charts, that's half the fun.

This question basically come down to whether the increase in clock speed is better, or the two extra cores are better for X-Plane. Here are the posted specs on the two processors for the benefit of others answering this question: •3.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor with 6MB shared L2 cache •2.8GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processor with 8MB shared L3 cache; Turbo Boost dynamic performance up to 3.46GHz; Hyper-Threading for up to eight virtual cores The later is very easily the more powerful processor, but I don't know how much multiprocessing X-Plane does beyond two cores at the moment. I think there is some benefit to more than two processors as of the more recent updates, but I can't say due to lack of information whether it is enough to offset the lower speed. Even so, after watching the updates over the course of XPlane 9, it seems they are working on increased multiprocessor support. If it were me and money were no object, I would go for the 4-core. I also wonder what effect the extra 2 MB of cache would have in X-Plane and how well this new-fangled Turbo Boost can sustain the higher clock rates. Even more important is the video card. Unless you go for the quad core, you have the option of the ATI Radeon HD 4670 or 4850. The 4670 has only 256 MB of video memory, which we are already seeing in a few of the developer forums that 256 is just not enough. The 4-core only comes with the 4850. Can anyone give more precise information as to the multiprocessing in X-Plane?

I couldn't answer that myself, but how about I point you to a blog post on the subject written by the guy who programs X-Plane's graphics (and perhaps other things; sorry Ben for my ignorance!). I also recommend you read the comments on that post. My take is that you might not even have ANY benefit from the two cards. A more powerful card, on the other hand, will surely get you something. http://xplanescenery.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-isnt-slicrossfire-no-brainer.html

In case you don't know what Dan he is talking about, here is a handy link: http://www.youtube.com/user/danklaue

Wow, I didn't expect such a thorough explanation. Many thanks. The extra detail looks really good, and I'm sure it will look even better when we can see it in live 3D. All those details will really pop out. It also helps that the modeling and texturing already look SO good.

As they say, "A picture is worth a thousand words." You have clearly made your point!

Try lowering the yaw stability-augmentation, that is, move the slider to the left. See the picture below if you don't know what slider I'm talking about (assuming I have figured out how to put a picture in my post).

I think I have a good guess as to what the problem was, and it was bounding across your runway. By that, I mean deer. The second picture shows the first of presumably several deer just entering your screen's field of vision. I have on several occasions noticed frame rates tank when deer or birds are drawn onscreen. I just keep that option turned off.

My gamma is at 1.8, which is the default on my machine. I have never changed that setting. In fact, I just trashed all my preferences three days ago, and that is the number that was left by default. That's why I'm surprised you say the default is 2.5. Perhaps it is different according to system. I am running a Mac. Until recently, the default system gamma (not X-Plane specific) has been 1.8 on Macs, though in Snow Leopard they have finally changed default to 2.2. I have never messed with X-Plane's gamma (left at 1.8 ) because I never thought it looked dark. To sum up my situation: X-Plane setting: 1.8 System setting: 2.2 Edit: Forget that last bit. I got to thinking about this and realized I wasn't sure what my system gamma is set to, only what its default is. Default is now 2.2 on Mac, but my screen was last calibrated when the default was 1.8 and it may very well be that now.

I can't see that they have done anything yet to fix the way it flies, which is what I'm really looking forward to see fixed. I realize that creating a new 3D OBJ exterior was certainly a major amount of work, and it does look really good. It's just too bad that I spend less than 1% of my time in an external view. Well, I'm afraid I'm sounding like a grouch, so I should clarify that I love their plane. Their work is truly a labor of love, and I am grateful to them for that. In truth, the x737 is my favorite freeware plane of all, by a good margin. That's why I'm so eager to see the performance issues that were introduced by changes in XP 9.3 fixed. I understand that will take an airfoil redesign? My hat is off to EADT: I wouldn't know where to begin!

Just for fun, I would be interested to see this on a plane, or even a comparison of with/without the normal/specular map. Is that possible without much trouble?

Like FlyingJackal, I don't want to sound complaining, but just to let him know that he's not the only one who is seeing it this way. I noticed this with the Tennessee scenery as well. To me the screenshots look like a color photograph that has faded over the years with certain pigments faded more than others. In this case, it looks as if the magenta or maybe yellow pigments have faded--that is, if it were a print. I say that only by way of analogy to explain the look. When such a photograph fades, you can't add back the color that was lost with Photoshop. All you can do is boost certain colors uniformly, but that causes other color distortions. That's why Airbus couldn't get it to look any better than they already are. My guess is that Eric has done the best he possibly could with the photography available to him, but you can't restore details that were lost. A real artist could paint colors back in manually, but that would be a unrealistically large job for half a state! If I had to guess as to the cause, I suppose it would be that it must be due to the nature of the satellite photography...perhaps that the colors are distorted through the many many feet (miles?) of atmosphere that gives it a slightly washed-out, bluish-green look. EDIT: I forgot to add as I intended that the night textures look amazing!

That looks like a cracked LCD. If that's what it is, then many of the segments of the numbers would not work at all. It would read out gibberish. Unless you want to simulate one display not working, or at best only partially readable, then I would think you would want to get rid of it. That's probably something that would get replaced pretty quickly in a real plane unless a pilot just didn't care about that instrument. It could be an interesting failure, though. If you like the idea of a crack, I would suggest you put it in some other instrument where the crack does not affect its usage, such as any of the gauges with a glass cover.

Thanks for posting. I have watched 4 of the 5 episodes and will probably watch the 5th tonight. One of the interesting points was the scale of the 777. I knew it was pretty big, yet not quite as big as the 747. It is hard to get a sense of scale in X-Plane. They all appear to be about the same size in the virtual air. I often like to fly the x737, and I was interested when the program pointed out that the engine on the 777 is as wide as the fuselage of the 737. The tailplane of the 777 is almost the same span as the wingspan of the 737. I've always known the 737 wasn't as big as the others, but that put it into perspective!

I just stumbled on that article and was about to post the link. It's always good to hear from the fellow who should know. I thought the same thing about the Mac Mini test! Still, it should give better results than the previous model Macbooks with the Intel integrated graphics chip that some folks are using. To Ben who may have read this topic, thanks for shedding some light on this issue. I would still be curious to see 10.6.2 vs. 10.6.3 comparisons, but as that is in the realm of curiosity, it is not really worth losing time over.

Given that the new update was supposed to include improved compatibility with OpenGL, I was curious to see if there were any performance increase. I did some searching for tests comparing the update with the previous version. I found this page that shows there is actually a regression in performance: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=mac_osx_1063&num=1 In some cases the performance variation was significant. There was also a weird situation where under some circumstances, resolution at 1980x1200 performed a good bit better than 800x600, but still below what 10.6.2 did. They also tested X-Plane performance. I have linked their graph image in this post below: We might want to take this with a grain of salt, as they say. The test machine was MacMini with the integrated Nvidia GeForce 9400, admittedly not a machine for modern 3D gaming. Different systems might respond differently. You might just want to be aware of it before proceeding with the update. Do any of you have any feedback about the relative performance of the new update to the previous version?

I don't know what system he has, but I run a system from 2008 with that screen resolution, and that kind of thing is easily possibly. Objects are what really slows down a system. Textures, such as photoreal scenery, are largely a function of how much video memory you have.

There used to be a little page on the Laminar website that would answer your question. Austin was talking about his secret that enabled him to get things done so efficiently, but that he wasn't going to say what it is. Then as if it were a completely different matter, he posted a picture of he and a few of the others in a group photo all holding their MacBook Pros rather prominently. I spent at least half an hour trying to find that page on the new site, but perhaps it isn't up anymore. I thought you would have found that interesting since you were curious.

Cameron, you sure know how to liven up this forum with a question like that! I also am a fan of the heavies. I like tinkering with all the systems. I've always had a fascination for something so big with so many people gliding through the air. But I'm not the sort that likes to turn on the FMS and just let it go. I at least want to change radios as I navigate along the charts. I would love to see someone really do justice to the venerable DC-3. I mean a real top-notch model with accurate, antiquated systems. I'm actually surprised no one has suggested that yet. Don't you folks think we should honor that marvelous bird with a quality model? I saw Embraer pop up a few times reading the other posts. I would be happy to plunk down my money for the ERJ-180. It has sentimental value.

Now I want a donut! >