I recently stumbled upon some evidence that seems to contradict the long-standing belief that FS2002 does not take advantage of dual processor systems. It is quite possible I am misinterpreting the data, but here are screenshots of the Windows Task Manager that I brought up while Flight Simulator was running. It should be noted that I set FS to NOT pause upon minimizing, so that it would still be operating behind the scenes. I also closed down all unnecessary programs that were running in the task bar. Notice that the performance analysis shows that while the second processor is performing the most work, the first processor is also showing noticeable activity. And this does not just apply to FS2002 either--I performed the same experiment with X-Wing Alliance (released in 1999) and Jedi Outcast (released recently), and they both made use of the two processors (although they consumed considerably more CPU resources). Whenever I quit the program, CPU usage on both CPUs drops to almost zero, so it cannot be assumed that other background programs are causing the spikes. I should also point out that I am running the professional version of Windows XP.What do you think?

From what I have seen previously, it's the professional edition of XP that's allowing the utilization of the dual processors. Appaernetly the home edition of XP does not have that sort of support according to numerous others. My MSI 694-D Pro2 will take a second processors which I suppose that I have to try because I can't possibly leave well enough alone.....if it make a difference, I'll post it.Best Regards,Ed Green, [email protected]

bumping back up

the second processor is doing other tasks related to operating systems, file management, cache management, servicing the services that are running on your machine, running task manager. one processor is doing fs2002, the other one, everything else

The question should be posed not whether multiple CPUs could be used for FS2002 but what exact benefit could you expect. From what I have seen and read by others who performed rigid testing (including the report on the subject at simhq.com) the benefit is so tiny it can't possibly justify additional expense of having special Mobos, dual CPUs, OS, etc.As long as FS2002 is not specifically designed for multi-CPU-thread use the cost-benefit is self evident.Michael J.

XP is an MP aware and optimized OS. Its true preemptive multitasking core is fully capable of managing multiple threads over two or more CPUs (depending on version). This is all well and good. But unless a specific application is optimized and designed to run with MP in mind, the benefits are relatively small. Programs designed and optimized for MP (such as LAME, etc) can take great advantage, otherwise its simply the OS splitting multithreaded apps across CPU's. Thats not a bad thing of course, but its improvement over SP performance is relatively low for the price difference.If you already have an MP setup, its great news. But for the average gamer who doesn't do a lot of design, video or audio work, the performance increase isn't worth the price increase. As is usual with computers, it all depends upon your use.Take care,http://members.rogers.com/eelvish/elrondlogo.gifhttp://members.rogers.com/eelvish/flyurl.gif

jerrycwo4I have a 2CPU - 1800 + AMD computer and have not found that it helps in FS2002 ( comparing to other top end machine's frame rates.) Where it SHINES is in Photo Shop !!! It will rotae a 40 MB TIFF file, 180 degrees in 0.8 SECONDS. In my other , single machine ( 933 MHz) it takes 19 seconds. Jerry