Sorin

SweetFX "does not work with 64bit game executables yet". http://www.guru3d.com/files_details/sweetfx_shader_suite_download.html Anyway, not sure if it would make a difference for DCS. The cockpit of A-10C is amazing IMHO, does not need any post processing. The scenery is so bad that I don't think any amount of postprocessing would make it look better. DCS is a military flight simulator, not designed for eye candy scenery.

ED please fix the map for multimonitors... I cannot see the right side buttons (Map, Alt, Sat, LL, MGRS). Ideally tell us where to change the map location and size.

Try it out and you will see that it is still using 1 core at 100% and the others very little. The FSX engine cannot be made multi-core capable so unless they re-write everything it will stay single core. Same thing for the DCS engine, cannot be made truly multi-core. So far DCS performs much better for me. RIP FSX...

I think I know: http://www.prepar3d.com/prepar3d-store/ Which one would you buy?

Yes, I know about it. Still I would never pay $199 for a slightly improved FSX. The FSX code/engine is just too buggy and resource hungry. I have done quite a lot of "flying" in FSX and enjoyed the stock F-18 and the VRS F-18. But switching to DCS A-10C was a huge step forward for me. I think that no amount of patching will fix FSX... If you want a military flight simulator it is very hard to beat DCS A-10C for the time being.

Have you fixed this problem? If not let me know, I may be able to help.

Yes, start button will be back, but it will not do what it used to do. Also still no option to get rid of Metro and boot directly to desktop. Microsoft arrogance is already costing them dearly... Trying to force clients to use a touch screen interface while not having a touch screen is just wrong. But forcing the same touch screen interface on servers is just plain idiotic... (Windows Server 2012). I think Windows 8 is the beginning of the end for Microsoft.

USB monitors are too expensive for what they offer. Also they use more CPU than a normal monitor. Why not buy a 22" 1920x1080 DVI/HDMI monitor? http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=7625121&CatId=2775

My CPU is very old, that is why performance is not amazing. But running 5 high resolution monitors (one 2560x1600 and 4 1920x1200) with any current hardware will not get you much more FPS. I think that there is a big misunderstanding here about settings. My settings are providing very good visuals. Anything more it is not justified in my opinion because it does not add much quality but it kills the FPS. I have done a lot of testing. To me 30 FPS constant is better than say 30-60 FPS variable.

Here are my settings: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1709154&postcount=28 I think that with all settings at max there is no hardware yet that will do 5 monitors at steady 30 FPS everywhere in the map. The good thing is that there is no reason to have all settings at max. Of course it is your decision. If you have the $$$ maybe you should wait for the new Nvidia 780 because it seems that it will be significantly faster.

If you use only one screen then 4G VRAM is not required and you can save about $100. I have a 2G 680 and it works with 5 screens at 30 FPS.

This is the so called "F10 map problem on multi-monitor"... long time but still not fixed.

That PDF is a great insight into what goes behind the scenes in DCS. Thanks for posting CptSmiley :) But despite all that math that has to be done in real time, it is not the main load in the sim engine. It is the graphics work that kill the FPS.

I have it locked at 30FPS and I like it. Steady FPS is more important than high FPS.

I have 2 monitors connected to a DisplayPort=>2 HDMI adapter. The card sees a big virtual monitor 3840x1200 instead of the 2 physical monitors I have.

That can be misleading because it is not easy to tell if when pedal is zero the brake axis is zero. It can be pedal 0 axis 100%. Try Control-Enter, you may be surprised...

I find the price too high for 680 with 4G VRAM. But if you have the budget go for it. I will stick with my 680 2G VRAM for now.

Test your brakes real action by doing Control-Enter to see the axis and then apply brake. This is also useful for testing your joystick and trim.

metalnwood I am glad that you provide your opinion; it is always good to hear from more sources. The more the merrier :) This post contains my settings at the time I was trying that benchmark: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1709154&postcount=28 Even with 5 high resolution monitors the VRAM is OK at 2G. But of course 3G should be better than 2G, with the same GPU. AMD and Nvidia have different memory hardware and so far it seems that Nvidia uses the memory more efficiently so they can save some cost and still be competitive. Based on my experience a 680 is faster than a 7970 for DCS. For other applications can be different. Of course this is just my opinion so just take it as a free advice.

Yes, 1GB was for my DCS+A10C installation. I will see the other one DCS+A10C+P51+CA today.

It is less than 1GB.

Over the years I have bought both AMD/ATI and Nvidia. Definitely the drivers are better at Nvidia. I don't know why AMD keeps making that Catalyst rubbish... If we talk only for DCS then 680 is the better card. It will give you slightly more FPS IMHO. I have one and I drive 5 high-res monitors with only 2G VRAM. Only 30FPS but constant. My recommendation is Nvidia 680.

Also please see this thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=102119

Do you want to use the projector for home theater (HD movies) as well or only for DCS?

Looking forward to the mission file (if you are so kind to post it here).