FSX depends more on a fast CPU than GPU. According to this list

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_look...50+%40+2.67GHz

your i7 quad core 2.3 Ghz 3610QM scores 7533 points, while my i5 2500@3.3GHz scores 6418.

So, when I can run FSX with all these addons, the complex aircrafts I use, airport scenery and REX and Active Sky, then I think the outlook is good for ya. With the default planes you probably can run REX with frames at 30 (if you cap them externally as recommended). I would be very surprised if you get problems. - But i must make a disclaimer, of course: I cannot guarantee that you will be fine. Systems are specific, and what works for me maybe will not for you due to some minor specif difference that causes problems. But I think the chance is very small only.

BTW, what resolution do you run at? Just curious, some addons are optimised for certain higher resolutions that may be not present on notebook-size screens. REX not one of them, however.

One thing, however: FSX is not optimised for making use of multiple cores, it is programmed for using once CPU only. I see on my system that I have two cores maxed out, with the other two cores being ignored. The list I posted probably takes into account full quad-core usage. The two cores used on my system are probably one for FSX, and the other doing all the background tasks of Windows, online weather data exchange and such. If that is true, my system maybe runs FSX faster than yours, since my single core GHz is higher than yours and the performance of your in principle superior quad core does not fully weigh in, since only one core is used on the sim. - I do not seriously think this to be an issue, but I just wanted to mention it.

http://www.realenvironmentxtreme.com/essential.html

There is a link to the downloadable manual.

Hmm this is true. FSX doesn't have multithreading/multicore support yet does it? I really wish ALL games these days would come out with multithread/multi core functionality :down:

Either way, I am going to be waiting.. say 8 months until I am home again. Internet is horrible here in Japan. Until then, it is time to practiccceeee!

Ask about your rig in the forums of Avsim. For FS9 and FSX, this forum here is pretty much a dead space. Me, I am just one possible view on things. Avsim is where the music plays, regarding FS9/FSX.

I still do not really expect troubles for you when using REX. In the past, after you hjad deactivated that energy-saving mode of your notebook, you reported too good about your frames as if REX could suddenly cripple them that dramatically, I think.

Okay. Thank you!

:salute:

OH and I run 1920x1080.

That is green lights then. Some aircraft addons have their cockpits designed for recommended resolutions not smaller than 1650, that's why I asked (textures could become unreadable below that, and so on).

Ahh okay!! :arrgh!:

Question, what is your most difficult landing.

Innsbruck (LOWI) if flown by regular procedures. In reality pilots must hold a special license for Innsbruck in order to start and land there. Certain aircraft types also are banned from operating there. The localisers have an offset, due to mountain peaks being in the way of the glideslopes.

A tutorial flight Amsterdam-Innsbruck (EHAM-LOWI) with descriptions and charts at the end.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qxo5lryi8w...Tutorial-2.pdf

More stuff especially for online sim-flyers:
http://wiki.vacc-austria.org/index.p...OWI_for_pilots

When taking off there and needing to u-turn and doing it too early, terrain radar usually makes itself heard.

Default scenery in FSX depicts the mesh too forgivingly. I use a special scenery covering not only the airport, but the city and the whole valley as well in more precision and detail.

I think big airliners only come from and launch towards the East. However, if following regular charts and procedures, even an approach(from the West) in a small airplane like a Cheyenne or a local commuter like a Jetstream 4100 can be a challenge - if doing it like demanded.

Another difficult - and indeed high-risk - landing, is Lukla, Nepal.

Samedan, Switzerland, also is not the easiest, if following the realistic approach procedures. I think they also demand special license there, but I am not certain.

Finally, as mentioned earlier, Kai Tak, Hong Kong, now dead however.

Shame that Kai Tak shut but I dare say the residents underneath the landing path are not missing it. I remember the first time I saw pictures from Kai Tak I honestly thought they were fake until my Nan told me that you could look in peoples windows as you're landing, and how the pilot has to do a tight turn to starboard to come in to approach IIRC.
Kai Tak, one of the few places where you could look down on an aircraft coming in to land... :doh:

The Kai Tak scenery is still available. Via the simulation you can revive the old days anytime you want, Oberon. ;) :woot:

I mean I was talking descirbe the most dangerous landing youve had to make (Ie almost out of fuel, 0 visibillity etc.) lol