If FSX needs this to run WELL:A Core 2 Quad at 3 GHz+2 GB of fast RAM or morea GeForce 8800 card with 512 MB of RAM or moreWhat type of system do you all think will FS11 need to run WELL? Will my system still take it well?

That system will run FS11 BeTTeR than it can FSX. The next - major - boost we will see in Any software performance will be software based. Your quad is relatively useless right now. FS11 will change that. Although I'm betting a gig of Vram will cat's whiskers with -11. It may have a superchaged GE/FE built-in and that's gonna be Vram thirsty.

I hope you're right Sam, otherwise I'll be getting another couple of years out of FS9 + addons.Gary

So will everyone else. I'm back to FS9 too. Something's gotta give.

>major - boost we will see in Any software performance will be>software based. Your quad is relatively useless right now. ^*************What do you base that assumption on?>FS11 will change that. Although I'm betting a gig of Vram will>cat's whiskers with -11. It may have a superchaged GE/FE>built-in and that's gonna be Vram thirsty. But I have heard that FSX do indeed benefit from four cores.

>If FSX needs this to run WELL:>>A Core 2 Quad at 3 GHz+>2 GB of fast RAM or more>a GeForce 8800 card with 512 MB of RAM or more>>What type of system do you all think will FS11 need to run>WELL? Will my system still take it well?I would like to add these questions,1) Is FS11 going to be a 64 bit program?2) Will FS11 run under Win XP?

>>major - boost we will see in Any software performance will>be>>software based. Your quad is relatively useless right now.> ^*************>>What do you base that assumption on?>He makes a reasonable assumption.The assumption is based on an industry-wide trend (that industry being the game programming industry). Unlike 10 years ago, CPU's are not getting dramatically faster--just incrementally faster; the chip makers have reached the upper end of the raw clock speed that can be pushed through traditional silicon. In fact this barrier was known to Intel several years ago. Clock speed peaked with the P4 at 3.8-4.0 ghz a couple of years ago. Then it went DOWN when the Core architecture was released in 2006. The chip makers are doing more with less. This is good.That's why we see processors coming out with more than 1 core, and other features like AMD's hypertransport, Intel's "hyperthreading" and virtualization and QuickPath. You can't run 10 ghz through the chips, the way they are manufactured today.>>But I have heard that FSX do indeed benefit from four cores.>You heard correctly. However, FSX only uses multiple cores in a limited fashion. The extra cores help with the texture loader, which is important...and also if you run background programs like ActiveSky, moving maps, etc. But it would sure be nice if the extra cores helped the framerate. To that end I think it's reasonable to assume that ACES will try to thread out FS11 a little more. That's the trend in programming today.RhettFS box: E8500 (@ 3.16 ghz), AC Freezer 7 Pro, ASUS P5E3 Premium, BFG 8800GTX 756 (nVidia 169 WHQL), 4gb DDR3 1600 Patriot Cas7 7-7-7-20 (2T), PC Power 750, WD 150gb 10000rpm Raptor, Seagate 500gb, Silverstone TJ09 case, Vista Ultimate 64ASX Client: AMD 3700+ (@ 2.6 ghz), 7800GT

Will it be a 64 bit program? Don't know, but the question's premise suggests that: "A native 64 bit program will run better than a 32 bit program." Don't know about that neither. I have a sneaking suspicion that native 64bit programs won't matter a bit. Sure like to be wrong about that, but optimism is not obviously warranted.Will it run on XP? Sure. Vista32 really is just a tweaked XP. They sure are not going to eliminate their Vista 32 base, so XP is a shoe-in.

>What type of system do you all think will FS11 need to run>WELL? Will my system still take it well?Hi,My guess is that, as usual, the next FS version will run well on the very high end hardware available at the release.Ulf BCore2Duo X6800 3.3GHz4GB RAM Corsair XMS2-8500C5BFG 8800GTX, Creative SB X-FiFSX Acc/SP2, Vista 32

>>What type of system do you all think will FS11 need to run>>WELL? Will my system still take it well?>>Hi,>>My guess is that, as usual, the next FS version will run well>on the very high end hardware available at the release.>>Ulf B>>Core2Duo X6800 3.3GHz>4GB RAM Corsair XMS2-8500C5>BFG 8800GTX, Creative SB X-Fi>FSX Acc/SP2, Vista 32Oh Ulf, if that were only true! :-)Here's what I bought on release month (notice how similar to yours):Core2Duo X68004GB of Corsair RAMATI 1950 XTX (since changed to 3870)Creative SB X-FiI can run the stock sim okay, but no so with my airliner add-ons.I feel I need twice this, but I can't justify the expense.

>Will it be a 64 bit program? Don't know, but the question's>premise suggests that: "A native 64 bit program will run>better than a 32 bit program." Don't know about that neither.>I have a sneaking suspicion that native 64bit programs won't>matter a bit. Sure like to be wrong about that, but optimism>is not obviously warranted.>>Will it run on XP? Sure. Vista32 really is just a tweaked XP.>They sure are not going to eliminate their Vista 32 base, so>XP is a shoe-in. Maybe it will be like Vista. Two versions , one 32 bit and one 64 bit. I really hope they release a 64 bit version. And I find it strange if a 64 bit FS on a 64 bit OS should not be able to run better compared to a limited 32 bit platform.

I'm hopeful too.

>Oh Ulf, if that were only true! :-)>>Here's what I bought on release month (notice how similar to>yours):>>Core2Duo X6800>4GB of Corsair RAM>ATI 1950 XTX (since changed to 3870)>Creative SB X-Fi>>I can run the stock sim okay, but no so with my airliner>add-ons.>>I feel I need twice this, but I can't justify the expense.Hi Jeff,If you would have added the best nVIDIA card at the time of the FSX release, that is the 8800GTX, you would have been able to run FSX with descent fps. So IMO the very high end hardware did really make FSX enjoyable, but the cost was very high.UlfCore2Duo X6800 3.3GHz4GB RAM Corsair XMS2-8500C5BFG 8800GTX, Creative SB X-FiFSX Acc/SP2, Vista 32

The best video card, even today, does little to nothing to improve low-end FPS scenarios with the FS engine. Even your system, which was very impressive at FS release, would have easily pulled sub-10 FPS in the NY area at default high settings. Addons have only lowered this figure, even with SP 1 and 2 heartstarts for the product. I hope FSXI runs much better out the box for high end hardware of the day. Gary

Knowing nothing about programming, I can happily imagine 100s of FPS under a simulation that devotes multiple threads, in a scalable fashion, to dozens of different tasks. But knowing a little about human nature and the cynical way in which modern businesses work, I must admit to some doubt about what will actually be delivered in FS11. From MS's business perspective, the task is to do the absolute minimum at the lowest possible cost to guarantee the desired level of sales. That does not mean giving us everything at once: on the contrary, in a market with no real competition, it means drip feeding us with tiny incremental improvements. This model also has the advantage of making life easier for MS's employess, because programming applications in multiple threads is (I have read) exceptionally difficult. It makes no commercial sense to give us four extra threads, even if this would significantly improve performance, if the same sales can be achieved by adding just one.So I suspect we are likely to see MS adding perhaps one or two extra threads in FS11, probably not in the hardest areas which would make the biggest difference, so that the marketing people can claim that the programme "takes advantage of the latest multicore CPUs" and that "it is the most significant update EVER". They might add another couple of threads three years later with FS12. The main changes in FS11 will be in relatively low-investment, high-yield "headline" points: more aircraft, higher resolutions, fancier missions, "user-friendliness" and so on. When released, FS11 may well seem to perform better than FSX: but that will largely be because the increased CPU power now being unlocked by 45nm and 32nm manufacturing processes will help to "cover the cracks".PLEASE let me my suspicions be unworthy. I would love to be wrong. But to my mind it is pretty clear that the marketing people have completely taken control of this industry (and others), to the point at which it is impossible - irresponsible, I would say - to take anything on trust any more (with some laudable exceptions). For example, the whole consumer multicore thing was a transparent ploy to maintain CPU sales while Intel and AMD figured out how to overcome the clockspeed barrier they had run into. They seem to have worked it out now: the stock speed of a Xeon 5272 is already 3.4Ghz, with far better performance per cycle than the old Pentiums. The absence of competition from AMD at the high end is having a distorting effect on the market: with effective competition, we would now be seeing CPUs with stock speeds significantly faster than that. But even without real competition, I would surprised if Nehalem does not reach 4Ghz soon after launch. Then the marketing message will shift again: multiple cores will still be great, but there will be renewed emphasis on clockspeeds. The whole energy consumption thing is also pretty distressing. The CPUs could only get faster if they could get cooler. This forced the manufacturers to reduce their energy requirements. Don't get me wrong: lower energy costs are obviously good. But the marketers seized on this to tap into the new public angst about the environment. Now, apparently, buying new CPUs is actually good for the environment, because they are so energy friendly. It is like telling someone to scrap his old gas-guzzling car and buy a new efficient one, even though he could drive to the moon in the old one without emitting as much carbon dioxide as is produced by manufacturing the new one.When you pause to think for a moment what mugs they take us for, it is difficult to be a trusting consumer in the 21st century, or a hopeful one, or even a very calm one.Tim