Intel Core i7/X58 gaming performance

[teropa 4]

Hi Konrad,Sorry to burst the bubble, but don't expect anymore updates for FSX (from MS/ACES). They have indicated that beyond SP2 no more fixes are in the pipeline.rgds,Tero

[Sharrow 0]

I had read this somewhere before and hearing it again kinda sucks. Having said that I just do not see FSNext being with us in anything less than 24 months which leaves a lot of time for Aces to make a plan. I was also under the impression that Aces would in fact add full DX10 support in FSX at some stage or do you reckon that they're rather going to bypass it altogether and head straight for DX11 with FSNext?One would think that MS would do everything in their power to increase the uptake of Vista/DX10, seems to me like FSX is one of the few areas they have left which could serve this purpose pretty well.In all honesty if (a hypothetical) FSX SP3 had to bring with it full DX10 support (and the associated 10-20% increase in FPS Aces seem to suggest is possible) then I would VERY seriously consider a move from XP to Vista64bit. But that is just me... or is it?Konrad

[Shmiffy 0]

Hi KonradI agree with you about the need for MS/ACES to create another interim SP for FSX, if the majority of 'mainline users' (for want of a better term) are to be able to just install the sim, throw the sliders up to an acceptable level and then fly. Sadly, as intimated in the post above mine (sorry sir, the nature of the Forums respond function precludes me from seeing your name :) )ACES have stated that the focus is now firmly on FS V.Next. I believe it was one of Phil Taylors blog posts that stated this most clearly, but the old memory is on the way out already so dont quote me. ;)From my own perspective, i have a sim that runs, and now with the addition of the MD11, i have a sim that runs with a complex add-on with acceptable FPS, that justifies the huge expense that FSX has meant to me. (New PC, LOTS of new software etc [mesh,landclass,aircraft,environment and so on] with a total expense of around $3,000.00ish)As we all know, the next generation of hardware is rapidly appearing to not be quite as much of a leap as expected, and what that means for FSX is that its likely to be a couple of years before the hardware 'catches up' for the software, as opposed to the original predictions of, well, about now...Whether this spells future problems for the release of FSNext, who knows, perhaps ACES are fortunate in that the amount of people who have held off on the upgrade to FSX will be willing to upgrade to FSNext. Perhaps there are those like me, that may be a little wary upgrading to FSXI after having shelled out so much money to make FSX work well. As a result of that though, and the less than stunning improvement in hardware (compared to predictions), maybe FSX has received a natural extension in its life...For my money (FWIW) ACES should be going away and planning a complete rebuild of FSNext from the ground up. They need to fix the weather engine. That's priority one, and get the flight dynamics and the global mesh and landclass situation fixed. If this impacts their release date, then fine, if they need to push back a year, two years, even three years, then fine. Lets get a sim that WORKS as its published. A tailwind west/east across the Atlantic is NOT 'As Real As It Gets' and while elephants and flocks of geese and speed boats and ferrys may be nice. Surely the priority is making the flyability aspect as good as it can be? A key part of that, wether a 'Gamer' or a 'Simmer' is surely the wx?The danger of a complete rebuild is that the legacy products, and i include the MD11 in that bracket, will not be portable to a new sim version. Would allowing that portability cause a whole world of other issues for any new version of FS? More than likely.To my knowledge, ACES/MS Have promised that Add-ons built specifically for FSX will be portable to future versions, so the chances are that that indicates that FSVN will not be a complete rebuild. Hopefully though, the list includes reparation of all of the balls-ups that were made with FSX. Although it is important to note that there really weren't many, but the screw ups that were made were HUGE...Just my $0.02 to hopefully keep the conversation flowing. Food for thought perhaps?CheersPaul

[tfm 204]

I think we're up against hard commercial realities here. The bigger picture for MS is that Vista didn't work out quite as they'd hoped, so they're now pinning their hopes on a sooner-than-expected release of Windows 7. This - as I understand it from an interview I heard with an MS manager - will include DX11.It isn't difficult to see how FSX and FSNext fit into that picture. There have been occasional whinges and rants from miserable old sods like me about the mis-match between what FSX promised and what it delivered, particularly for Vista users (no proper delivery of DX10). But nobody has kicked up a big fuss with MS (for example, referred them to the trading standards people, or sued them). The acquiescence of its customers tells the business-men at MS that they've got away with it this time. That acquiescence, combined with new priorities and emerging technologies, as well as the obvious advantages of getting us to pay for "new" features in FSNext, leave MS with absolutely no incentive to spend more effort on FSX or DX10. The game has moved on.Tim

[Sharrow 0]

Windows 7 (W7) is 12 months away and as far as I know DX11 is to be launched together with W7. However, whether DX11 will actually launch with W7 remains to be seen. W7 will be DX10 compatible, that is for sure. Whether it will be native DX10 or DX11 also remains to be seen. Vista will also have DX11 support I am sure.Just like with DX10 there is no reason to believe that DX11 will see a particularly speedy uptake. It all takes time for hardware to catch up, for software to actually start using the new features of DX11, for the green and red teams to get their drivers sorted out, for skeptical consumers to make the upgrade etc etcThe same argument applies to W7, also no reason to believe the rate of uptake will be particularly quick.My point is that I do not agree that MS have little to no incentive to invest further in DX10, and by extension on making FSX fully DX10 compatible. The fact that DX10 is currently tied only to Vista is an issue for sure, but these are Vista's issues and not DX10's which in my opinion is going to be with us for longer than we may think. We also have Vista SP2 on its way in early 09 - who knows what further improvements this will bring over XP? W7 and DX11 (and FSNext) are all very well, but the cash from these apps is only going to really start flowing for MS in what? 16 to 24 months? Even more for FSNext. That is a long, long time for MS investors to wait...Konrad

[Shmiffy 0]

Hello Tim:I agree with you for the most part. Vista was not, in my humble opinion at least, quite what Microsoft, and most certainly its users were expecting. I'm one of them, the laptop i am using here is Vista and i am sorely tempted to go 'back' to XP/SP3. The only thing stopping me quite frankly is the 8,000 days a reinstall of all the effing software takes these days lol. My FS Installations (9 and X) on the other hand, run far better on the PC under XP than they ever did on Vista.In so far as the grim commercial realities are concerned, i think that the intentions of ACES were/are good. There is no company in its right mind that would purposefully issue inferior products, and i think that the DX10 issue was more one of bad timing and misplaced, somewhat over zealous, expectations as to what the next generation of hardware would deliver.As far as suing MS is concerned. The EU tried and failed, i hold out little hope that any individual (or even a conglomerate for that matter) would ever be successful against the corporate, political and financial might that an organisation such as MS are able to wield. While our 'acquiescence' as users of FS/X has perhaps indicated to the suits at MS that we are willing to let them walk all over us, the choice is ultimately ours, and we are able to vote with our feet and stay away. Regardles however of my opinion, your opinion, or anyones opinion. The FS Franchise is a business, and as such will always be driven by cold hard cash. Hence MS' Decision to focus a little more on the gaming aspect with X. Perhaps that balance will be redressed with FSNext, perhaps not, it all depends on how the balance books looked with FSX. If the Gamers won out, then there is no real incentive to make too many real as it gets improvements. Conversely if us hardcore simmers gained some respect by staying away and sticking with the more mature FS9, or by bombarding tech support with emails about the weather engine, then hopefully the real world, and with it key factors like the weather engine, will be receiving a dammn good seeing to in the next release.Where the next, next gen of hardware takes that franchise is anybodies guess. Hopefully with the likes of Phil Taylor moving on to new developments in graphics processing, lines of communication will be opened up with ACES and they will be getting the right information about where to take their software, and how to implement it and its capabilities. I do think that half of the problem, specifically with the current state of the newer hardware is a lack of communication between aces, intel and nvidia. If they all got locked into a room together and had a chance to openly communicate with each other, then we would most certainly see great things. Until that happens though, all of these companies are going to be working in isolation from each other and producing products that deliver what they deliver based on markedly different expectations.The sad reality is that all of these companies are going to be playing their cards close to their chests forever more. The IT Industry is notoriously cutthroat, and regardless of the benefit to us users of these guys all talking to each other, it remains commercial suicide for them to do so.CheersPaul

[Sharrow 0]

Making some good points there Paul! My thinking mirrors yours for the most part.Konrad

[JC75 22]

It seems to me that the best way to go is to do what they did around fs9, build a sim that works with present hardware just, but will improve as the hardware improves. When I brought FS9 it worked, was a bit sluggish and slowed down lots when everything turned up, but putting in a new graphics card, a new processor more memory soon made it better, although they cant completly predict the future for hardware, it obvious as has happened now, is that more cores, and faster versions will come, GPU's will also increase in speed etc, So designing something that is multicore support, and uses the technology in the GPU will mean a FS version that works now, and will only get better with time.In sense of backwards compatibility, dump it, as pointed out above they tried to keep this with fsx and basically failed anyway, nearly everthing from Aircraft addons to scenery all had to be re done not to look better, but simply to just work. And when you look at what as happened when these developers have re created their software they have had problems making it work, due to features that in FSX actually mean it wasnt as good as it was in FS9, if you look at people like Gary summons, creater of the excellent UK2000 scenery, features he wowed us with in FS9 versions he has had to remove in FSX because it simply can not be created. things like service fleets, moving airbridges, 35 approach lights, all were uneditable in FSX.The next version of FS needs a total rewrite, but one that allows developers to easily recreate there software for it, if they want to add new features like they have in FSX, then make them new, but make them so that developers can easily tweak them. it seems in a way FSX was more closed to developers making things for it, in FS9 developers made their own things that were not stock FS9, we saw people doing things like 3d marshallers, moving service fleets that represented the airport you were at. It might be cool to park at a FSX airport and see a tug attach to your plane, see the airbridge move to your aircraft, but not very realistic when it looks nothing likethe tugs/airbridges you see at that airport. All this backward compatibilty they have tried to achieve has done is mean it taken longer for developers to get new or updated products out for FSX, we have seen less inovative designs and features during the FSX era than we did with the FS9 era. When FS9 was the main sim nearly a week wasnt going by without some new release of aircraft, scenery etc, and each time it had new features new ideas, not in FSX.FSX looks nicer in some ways, bloom and lighting etc all better than FS9, being able to use a higher resolution photo scenery etc, all great, but the backwards compatibility killed it, FS9 we had 747.767,a330,a340,a320,dh8D,concorde,b737 and in many cases multiple versions of them drom different developers, we are talking about the next FS version now, and we have what 3 main aicraft addons? 767 747 MD11? IF fsx is so backwards compatible where are all these other add ons? Do any of the FSX addons really do anything new that couldnt or hasnt now been replicated in FS9 other than look a bit prettier because of lighing? wing flex a bit better thats about it.Dump the compatability, just make a sim that is like linux, give the devlopers something open and easy to tweak so they yes have to code again, but can do it a lot easier and quicker.I'd rather have to start from scratch with re populating my hanger and scenery, but know that money permitting I'll be able to do it in months, with new features than having to wait years to get a new aircraft that we having to do now with this great backwards compatible FSXRegardsJames

[tfm 204]

Paul - Actually I rather agree with you. I think there is a bit of a difference between Aces the studio on the one hand and MS the hard-headed business on the other. Anyone reading Phil Taylor's posts, for example, could tell at once which bit of the MS empire he belonged to. I recall one example of this from the time when SP2 was approaching release. We were suddenly told that Acceleration would come out first. This move made obvious commercial sense, but it was a bit of a slick one to pull: I wonder how many of us only bought Accel to get our hands on SP2 early? Maybe it was only me, but my sense was that Phil Taylor actually felt a teeny-weeny bit embarrassed by this, possibly even taken by surprise - although like any loyal employee he did his utmost to defend MS's corner.So I'm not really being critical of MS for being money-oriented and I'm certainly not critical of individuals within the Aces studio given the commercial constraints they work within. What I am a bit critical of, is MS's use of FSX to cross-sell Vista on - IMHO - unsubstantial grounds; the over-hyping that went with that; and the subsequent failure to square the circle by giving us DX10 properly: a great product in so many ways, but still not what we were given to expect.Tim