ComradeLucifer

actually a 690 is pratically two 680s in SLI, look up some benchmarks dude. I don't know what hours of research is supposed to net people, when they could just talk to you guys, who seem to know everything about everything. I guess all that research, all those sites, benchmarkings, they are all crap right, because 2 670s is superior to one 690. I think this is crap, obviously. The 680s are essetially dead tech and offer almost no room for future proofing, the same for the 670s. This is the only site I've seen that councils users to invest in old tech in favor of state of the art. If you have the money, I recommend the 690 as it is MUCH better than 2 670s- this is ludcrious and honestly pretty funny. And, if you look up the WEALTH of info on the net, you'll see how close the 690 performs against the 680. Yeah, I guess the 880 will be better, but it isn't out yet. The 690 is currently the best card you can get, and if you have the money ahd the cooling ability, I highly recommend it (as do most review sites and users). But, you guys can delude yourselves and have fun playing with your old cards and dead end socket systems. I'm outta here.

True, I think the 690 is worth if you were planning on SLI'ing two or more 680s as one 690 is practically, with a small, small performance drop, the same as 2 680s. Having that power in one card means down the road you could get another 690 or 880 and have at least the equivalent of 4 680s (with the 2 690s in SlI) or greater with the coming 880 in a couple years.

i would say future proof for 4-5 years- maybe not the best settings, but still runnable and reasonable :)

get a 690, fantasticc card and future-proof

wasn't aware of a finite amount of help...I'm not trying to bother you Peter- I always feel like I'm bothering you or putting you out..I'm not trying to be rude or inconsiderate, and I feel like you are bothered by me...I'm sorry if there is some personal dislike or something, but thanks anyway for all the help.

okay, one last question if you don't mind. I notice on takeoff (i tried the takeoff training mission for this stuff) that it is a little less smooth in terms of framerate. I have a gtx 690 and 3930k @4.6 ghz, so I don't think it's that. Is there a way to turn off the mfcds in the game and have them only display on the minimonitors to save on resources and possibly lift the fps count?

what isn't right Peter, I used a ruler to measure the cm value, went with option A, copy and pasted the link you gave me- What could I have done wrong?

making progress here, the Tad is just a silver off at x=270 y=1600 but CDU repeater is now way off at x=900; gonna change this one.

hmmm I'm working with the x and y coords, what I mean by "too low" is that the square display for the tad and the cdu are just a little cut off. One can't see the buttons on the bottom of the respective pages, such as the mav button, nav button, and some of the lower TAD buttons. Playing with just the x coords on both I've gotten it closer to the square frame, just need to keep refining the coords. Once I get those, I think I need to do the same thing wit the y coords for the respective screens. I also changed the width and height from 600x600 to 580x580 and it fits better, still not perfect, but definitely getting there EDIT Scratch that, i didn't change the 600x600. I changed the x value on the left mfcd from 343 to 300 and the right from 1343 to 1100, and it loos better, still going to play with the x coords, once I get those I can fiddle with the Y- the y are just showing a little blank space on both top and botom

EXTREMELY close. The TAD page is displaying almost perfectly it's just a lttle to far over to the right and a little to far down. Same exact situation with the CDU repeater page. Should I just play with x and y coords? or any other advice? It is really, really close!

Oh, I see, got ya. They are connected through a hub, probably should be directly through the pc?

oh and cichlid, cheap charlie tried to make a lua for me and it was the closest that I could get- got it all in the frame (almost with 600x600px) so I didn't just "go off" and change, I was just trying options. It would have been cool if you coud have told me yesterday that had I said yes (I could easily revert back to the old profile) I would be finished. I don't know why you tell me this now...i realize this is an easy process for you guys and I look like an idiot. I'm just trying all possible options. Thank you Peter for the .lua, I will try it as soon as I reboot and have all monitors able to identify correctly. Like I said, sometimes 2 goes into negative space and the displaylink identifies both 1 an 2 displays as the U3011 instead of 2 being the left mini-monitor.

I will try it! I have to reboot, I'm having a problem, every once in a while the 2nd monitor (left mfcd) displays as negative space (-800 for x) and I lost the ability to identify it or use it. I then have to restart my computer. Any idea what's causing this?

EDIT Just for the sake of absolute clarity I wrote both sets of instructions out, the two copy and pasted codes are the same. END EDIT 1. I believe I would like Option A. but for Clarity's sake, I'm trying to get the image in the cougar mfd frame, which is attached to each monitor such that the "blank space" should be on the right side of each monitor. I believe Option A covers this, but if I am wrong please correct me. 2. All monitors are on and working in windows 3. check 4. check 5. [main] renderResolution=2560x2200 nonlocalFormat=RGB32 keepComposition=0 smoothing=1 debugD3D=0 zClear=0 vsync=0 tripleBuffer=0 screenshotFormat=jpg dllPathD3D9=auto dllPathDXGI=auto dllPathD3D11=auto [overrides] forceResolution=0 antialiasing=0 processAffinity=0 FOVForceHorizontal=0 FOVForceVertical=0 [head_primary] sourceRect=0,0,2560,1600 screenMode=2560x1600 [head_1] devID=1 sourceRect=1143,1600,800,600 transportResolution=800x600 transportMethod=nonlocal noSync=0 fpsLimit=0 [head_2] devID=2 sourceRect=343,1600,800,600 transportResolution=800x600 transportMethod=nonlocal noSync=0 fpsLimit=0 I want the MFCD aligned like A, but please reference above concern on this point the visible height of my small monitors is 10.5 cm This is the Code that is generated by the website I visited: [main] renderResolution=2560x2200 nonlocalFormat=RGB32 keepComposition=0 smoothing=1 debugD3D=0 zClear=0 vsync=0 tripleBuffer=0 screenshotFormat=jpg dllPathD3D9=auto dllPathDXGI=auto dllPathD3D11=auto [overrides] forceResolution=0 antialiasing=0 processAffinity=0 FOVForceHorizontal=0 FOVForceVertical=0 [head_primary] sourceRect=0,0,2560,1600 screenMode=2560x1600 [head_1] devID=1 sourceRect=1143,1600,800,600 transportResolution=800x600 transportMethod=nonlocal noSync=0 fpsLimit=0 [head_2] devID=2 sourceRect=343,1600,800,600 transportResolution=800x600 transportMethod=nonlocal noSync=0 fpsLimit=0

Ok Peter, I am on the desktop and starting the process in your above post.