FSX Designed For Future Hardware??

[brucets 94]

I have read here, over and over, that FSX:1.) Is mainly CPU dependant.2.) Is single threaded and can not utilize multi core processors3.) Can not utilize multiple video cards in SLI mode.4.) Is designed for future hardware!???It seems to me, as a sideline observer, that the future direction of hardware design IS, in fact, multi core processing and multiple video cards in SLI configuration, etc; and, correspondingly, that multi threaded applications seem to be the future of software design.So, just what *future* hardware IS FSX designed for? I was all set to buy a new super computer for FSX, but there doesn't seem to be one----even on the horizon! What have I missed?Scott

[Guest allcott]

It's not what you missed Scott, it's what ACES missed:The boat. Completely.Now it's time to see whether the creek they're up is in need of just a new paddle, or a whole new canoe.We wait. Allcott

[ryanbatc 12,820]

I'm mostly in agreement with youhowever, 1) true2) it CAN use dual core (it just doesn't use the 2nd core as much as say Battlefield 2)...also it really won't use it that much, maybe 5-10%3) true as much as I've read at least4) trying to figure out that one too

[Mace 1,902]

This has been discussed, what, 1000 times in the last 6 months? :) That's ok, it's an interesting topic always.I think a COMMON misconception people have, is that since clock speeds are not going to/have not increased too much in the near term, we are doomed.Their thinking is that cpu speed is directly related to clock speed. That is fundamentally false.We have seen 2.4 ghz cpu's that push more instructions per clock cycle than 3.8 ghz cpu's have in the past.I think at the end of the day, we'll be all right.It's going to be a tough creek to paddle though as allcott said, for a while here.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

[Guest Ron Freimuth]

>I think a COMMON misconception people have, is that since>clock speeds are not going to/have not increased too much in>the near term, we are doomed.>>Their thinking is that cpu speed is directly related to clock>speed. That is fundamentally false.>>We have seen 2.4 ghz cpu's that push more instructions per>clock cycle than 3.8 ghz cpu's have in the past.>>I think at the end of the day, we'll be all right.>Rhett There is a limit to how many instructions can be processed in one CPU cycle. However, I just saw that Intel and AMD are planning to go to 'high-k' dielectrics for the MOS gates. SiO2 was used in the past, with the 0.45 micron geometries the gate might be only 10 molecules thick. Which resulted in excess leakage current -- thus high power consumption and chip temperature. But, with a high-k dielectric for the gate the thickness can increase by maybe ten times. Eliminating the leakage current problem for some time as smaller geometries are developed. The new gate processing is supposed to be compatible with current processes; no drastic change should be required. Based on a document I read, it appears Moor's Law might hold for another factor of ten (as far as the gate problem goes). So, assuming smaller geometries continue developed, core speeds might reach a new limit of ten times what we now have. Multicore is 'in' but it looks like higher CPU speeds aren't far in the future. ---------------- Another factor is that HD's are going to add volatile ram to allow faster access. It will operate as a large cache. Vista takes more power, reducing HD access reduces power consumption, so the first application for the new HD's will be in laptops. RAF

[brucets 94]

Rhett - As a technically challenged bystander I've read your posts and valued your opinions and inputs, along with allcott's, SoarPics, Cruchan's, baksteen's, and many others, for quite some time, but I must say -----No, it has NOT been discussed 1000 times! Actually, I don't recall anyone ever venturing an opinion, or statement of fact, on just what the specific *future* hardware IS that FSX WAS designed for. There's all kinds of speculation, and advice, on what current hardware can, or can't, do for FSX; but not a single definitive, or even speculative, explanation of this mysterious *future* hardware that will run FSX to it's potential!??? Not even a vague hint!! Surely, if FSX was designed for some sort of mystical *future* hardware it must have been identified, by now, by somebody!?? It seems a dead end at present! FSX is a huge technical and administrative blunder that must be, or should be, causing monumental heartburn up and down the hallways----well, at least on one floor anyway!!Scott

[Guest allcott]

Scott,If you search for posts by philtaylor, you will find one that describes the timeline of FSX development. And therein lies the justification that development was well underway before dual-core and SLI hit the market. So their development expectation was that CPU advances would continue to progress at the then-current levels. A basic error that anyone could have made, although whether it is excusable for a developer at the very heart of the computing world with the ability to open any hardware manufacturers doors to have done so is a question for another day. Personally, I think what's done is done: FSX is a POS as an OOB experience on the cutting-edge available today, whether that was expected to be todays hardware or not. Kicking and swearing at the corpse won't bring it back to life when what is needed is the kiss of life and a defibrilator.And of course knowing why the mistake was made is not the story. The story is what ACES actually DO about it. That's why the early supply of a first patch marks a fundamental change in policy for MS development. It is so bad that it HAS to be fixed, and even MS appreciate that - a company not noted for regarding customers as anything other than an inconvenience to be handled as cheaply as possible (hence taking Support to the Third World). The issue is really just how deep ACES will have to dig to get themselves out of this hole. I rather suspect that, even after patching for XP and Vista/DX10 the basic limitations of the code design will leave FSX as the FS2000 of its generation. It's much vaunted DX10 features will arrive too late for FSX to be a flagship title for Vista as was intended, Allcott

[brucets 94]

Ron -What you said sounds promising ---- I think! Allcott -Yes, thanks. I have read most, if not all, of Phil Taylor's posts/replies; and I admire his cool, professional approach under fire. I scan the posts several times a day for his input. I just had to inquire about the *future hardware* I keep reading about as I am rapidly approaching the age when buying green bananas is chancy and I want the latest iteration of FS running at it's best right now! Scott

[Guest allcott]

That's the choice, in a nutshell:Do you want the latest iteration of FS, or the BEST right now? If the former, FSX is your bag. If the latter, then press that FS9.exe button and keep right on simming!That is probably the greatest challenge facing FSX. The compatibility that held back the development of a comlpete new engine isn't there, and is not likely to be anytime soon as no aftermarket developer is going to develop complex products for a product that will change not once, But TWICE in the coming year. So what is the poin of FSX? Think of it as a paid-for demo of just how good FS11 might be, and then you can't be disappointed. Think of it as a whole sim, with vast scope for addons and individual changes, like earlier versions, and you will be.Allcott

[Mace 1,902]

>>No, it has NOT been discussed 1000 times! Well I was being sort of facetious, :) , which I often am.>Actually, I don't >recall anyone ever venturing an opinion, or >statement of fact, on just what the specific *future* hardware IS >that FSX WAS designed for. As far as venturing "statements of fact" about what hardware FSX was designed for, that is logically impossible to do. We or Microsoft can GUESS about what future hardware it might have been, but we certainly can't make statements of fact about the future.Oh, some opinions were ventured here at AVSIM. Essentially many opinions were that FSX was designed to run optimally on a 5.0 to 6.0 ghz cpu, as people were mesmerized by the mistaken belief that cpu power = clock speed. I think what they really meant was that FSX was designed to run on a cpu with the power equivalent to a late gen P4 at 5.0 to 6.0 ghz. We're just about there...However, these were all OPINIONS. Educated ones, sure, but still opinions. In fact not even Microsoft can "know" the future, as well proven by the small amount of multithreading built into FSX.>There's all kinds of speculation, and advice, on>what current hardware can, or can't, do for FSX; but not a>single definitive, or even speculative, explanation of this>mysterious *future* hardware that will run FSX to it's>potential!??? Not even a vague hint!! Surely, if FSX was>designed for some sort of mystical *future* hardware it must>have been identified, by now, by somebody!?? How can it be identified? It doesn't exist yet. Well, perhaps the beginnings of it do exist, perhaps it is in the new quad-core architectures (which will do more per clock cycle than any cpu in the past, therefore helping us in FS), the new ram-assisted hard drives (very helpful to us in FS), and the new DX10 cards.I am sure that Microsoft could only speculate on the future hardware. Really, that's all a person can do. >It seems a dead>end at present! FSX is a huge technical and administrative>blunder that must be, or should be, causing monumental>heartburn up and down the hallways----well, at least on one>floor anyway!!>I don't think it's as bad as a "dead end". It is safe to say that the next iteration of FS will probably be quite different in its underhood design. To some extent, in my opinion we are going to "hardware-away" many of the issues with the present FS, and that combined with slight improvements and updates to the existing sim, we will be ok. Problem is, that time is 1.5 to 2 years away, unless something major happens with SP1 and DX10.I don't think we're looking at FS2000 here. I wouldn't quite go that far.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

[aerdt 0]

Very good thread! The fundamental problem for me with FSX is performance.Not including any dual-core support is simply not acceptable, not for a CPU hungry simulation like FSX where every clock cycle counts. I know Phil Taylor tried to explain the situation in his blog that it was just too late in the game, but I am sure they were well aware that people wouldn't appreciate it. I know that dual core doesn't mean CPU x 2, but I am sure that it could've been better balanced.As for the future hardware support: I am sure that they're referring to DX10, but we simply don't know, if that's the holy fps grail or not. Somehow, I doubt it, because there weren't even any DX10 cards available until after FSX went gold, not even prototypes or development versions. That means that most of this future support has been merely outlined on paper. The performance issue will become more and more apparent as new complex add-ons arrive.Has the FS engine reached its limit and needs to be re-developed? We don't know. Is FSX fundamentally flawed? I am not sure. I'll reserve my judgement until SP1 is released.Pat

[Mace 1,902]

>Has the FS engine reached its limit and needs to be>re-developed? We don't know. Is FSX fundamentally flawed? I am>not sure. I'll reserve my judgement until SP1 is released.>>PatI am going to reserve my judgment until SP1 *and* DX10 update are out.Then I will see the full result of what all of this on paper stuff really turns out to be in reality.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

[Guest allcott]

Pat, I wouldn't expect too much from SP1. It's a needed - necessary - quick fix, but still not the in-depth revamp that is required. However, if it attends to most of the early issues and attempts to address the performance issues, then at least we can be using it now. But truthfully, its the DX10 patch that will be the big and final test. `Big` because they've got to do a lot of work from the ground-up, with correct anticipation of future hardware this time round (they simply cannot make any mistake on that, the excuses are over, DX10 is right at the heart of MS, all manufacturers must liaise through MS) and `final` becasue if they get it any less than absolutely right, FSX becomes an Ex-FS as far as most of us will be concerned, and they may as well get on with FS11. I noted last night that I have flown a grand total of 4 hours in FSX since Xmas, and haven't flown a single IFR flightplanned route where I start with engines off. In contrast, over the same period I've put 71hrs into FS9, most of which have included engine start to engines off. FSX is already becoming irrelevant to me, and ACES will have to work very, very hard to convince me otherwise. SP1 had better give me enough functionality to clearly differentiate FSX from FS9, or else I doubt I'll be around for the second patch, especially if Vista related issues have not been resolved by then.I just don't see why FS should be such a struggle? We tell the supplier what we want. They deliver it, and we buy it. Or they don't and we don't. Allcott

[aerdt 0]

I am trying to not expect too much from SP1/DX10. Add a PMDG or Level-D FSX add-on in the near future to the current state of FSX and it sure won't be pretty.Right now it seems that even the fastest processor cannot produce acceptable frame rates. And I am not talking about "all sliders maxed out", but about sliders "on a level that produces a visual improvement over an add-oned FS9 with similar frame rates". None of this is currently possible.I have to admit that I haven't flown much with FSX - maybe 10 hours since the holidays. I found myself going back more and more to FS9. When FS9 was released my copy of FS2002 got sockdrawered. I never looked back at previous version before - ever. The fact that I am now going back to a version from 3 years ago speaks of itself.FSX can look great, no doubt about it and I think noone can dispute that.MS is very well aware that a performance fix is needed and they're working on it. Only the future will tell how that'll work out.Pat

[GHarrall 494]

Allcott,Very well said.I just don't have any enthusiasm for FSX. It looks nice when it's running well, but that isn't very often.I wish FS9 had the nice FSX visuals, but bottom line is it's performance that counts and FS9 wins easily on this score.There also seems to be a myriad of bugs in FSX which just smack of a rushed release.FS9 while far from perfect, did not seem to ship with so many obvious bugs and glitches.This is a very strange time for the FS franchise and for us simmers.Some payware vendors are finally admitting that FSX has issues, while some others are gleefully telling us how great FSX is and that there is something wrong with our PC's if FSX does not run well. All in a vain attempt to make sure they keep selling product that will run at no more than ~10FPS. I think it's a very brave developer that takes the stance of 'FSX Only' in this current climate. I praise flytampa and the other developers who have taken a stand against FSX from day 1 and some others (including Peter Wilding) who have recently come to realise that FSX is far from being 'addon freindly'.All in all, it's very confusing for simmer and developer alike and I wouldn't be surprised if more and more devs and simmers just say 'to #### with this' and revert to FS9 for the forseeable future. (at least until SP1, DX10 patch and/or FS11 gets released!!)