Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

BoeingGuy

An FS11 Curiosity

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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. >>GaryHi Gary,I'm not talking about running with maxed out sliders. I'm talking about being able to run FSX and enjoy it. Compared to FS9 FSX is much more enjoyable to me with my hardware. If I had a low end pc, FSX wouldn't be as enjoyable as FS9. I'm not a member of the part of this community that runs FSX with sliders maxed out and complain about how bad FSX performs. I enjoy it with sliders set in the way I wan't with a smooth flight without blurries.No time during my use of FS9 was I able to max out the sliders. The first time I could do that, was after building my present pc. But then I had started flying FSX ;-)Ulf BCore2Duo X6800 3.3GHz4GB RAM Corsair XMS2-8500C5BFG 8800GTX, Creative SB X-FiFSX Acc/SP2, Vista 32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...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).So very true! The marketing in the computer biz makes used car salesman look like saints....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".Given the fact that programming for true multi-threading is a daunting task I agree that we'll see the top-of-the-line BS from the marketing types anytime a "new" multi-threading app is released.The hardware guys (and us consumers) have been waiting patiently for more than 3 years for the software guys to truly take advantage of those multi-core products... and I suspect we all will be waiting a few more years. Of course, thru it all the marketing guys will be out there doing their thing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ulf,Global high is nowhere near max sliders. I've been running FS9 on max sliders since I first upgraded to an A64 rig, which was well before FSX came out. I can't run FSX anywhere close to max slider even with what I have now and I doubt there will be any magic hardware pills between now and FSXI, so this is about as good as it will get for me with this title. I hope that FSXI is a little less ambitious than FSX was in features department so that hardware does have a chance to catch up next time around.Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary,I'm sorry that you can't enjoy FSX with your hardware.Ulf BCore2Duo X6800 3.3GHz4GB RAM Corsair XMS2-8500C5BFG 8800GTX, Creative SB X-FiFSX Acc/SP2, Vista 32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ulf,I do enjoy FSX, but only for VFR flying in more remote areas and the missions. FS9 covers the rest for now.Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>So will everyone else. I'm back to FS9 too. Something's gotta>give. Ahh, the irony of it all, from my point of view. I was a very happy camper, even before memory overclocking commenced. Everything worked fine. FSX perf was, pleasantly, good 'nuf. Sam's recommendations, from memory, to HDD's, were good 'nuf. Then, I began following Guru Nick's arguments in favor of optimized memory & system. Dissatisfaction ensued. Not really knowing the potential consequences, we over did a good thing, apparently. ("apparently" is the closest anyone without electronic testing/measuring capability can possibly surmise when it comes to what went wrong when).I am now typing away on a cripped, refurbed P5E. I've got highest end parts OTW. I have some $$ to do this with, so it won't signficantly affect my financial picture, even if I decide to make a frisby out of the soon to arrive P5E3-Premium WiFi. I'm fortunate in this area. Plus I don't any other very pricey hobbies, so it's really chump change, tho I've always sought out good values in the past on PC stuff. In the past . . .Here's the amazing irony: I'm finding very recently . . . FSX to be not as engaging as I'd initially hoped. ASX and the low lying vis layer just looks . . . awful to me. I have to STOP ASX, then remove the lower vis layer. I asked HiFi about putting in a control in ASX to allow users to do this automatically, and got a luke warm response. Reminds me of, I think, of FS2002 if I recall correctly. There are odd things about the ATC window that bother me. Running complex addon aircraft like PMDG 737, will probably be a bummer, I'm guessing, as I haven't tried it, tho Nick swears it's great on his rig(s). He has inside connections with Corsair or something and runs unreleased rarified modules not available to us meer mortals. Plus, he has a nasty way of ALWAYS being one up, one better. If you're doing CALWI of 7.0ns, then "it's not 1T capable" (read: so, it's not good 'nuf). As soon as my 1800Mhz corsairs arrive, the 2000Mhz modules will debut, and you got it, mine won't be quite there. In fact, he just said it yesterday: "in a few months the parts available will be in the zone". I guess, no, I KNOW I'm just a sucker for that authoritative stance he often assumes. Duh!Anyway, for the first time in a while, I fired up FS9. Runs super, even on my crippled P5E. Hmmm, he says. Has it been a fun ride, all this experimentation? Decidedly, NOT! I'd take it all back in a heartbeat for the . . . heartache it has caused me, let alone the time and $$, and all for 8% closer to perfection. I feel, pretty much like a fool for responding to it all. I'm sure you can appreciate why.I do love the visuals with Light Bloom on. Bloom on was not a problem before my meltdown. Hopefully the next set of parts will allow me to go there again. If the next set of parts proves defective, not sure what I'll do. I may leave FSX forever. Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being you did not exceed the voltages (I assume) I firmly believe what went wrong was the AC unit blowing directly into the towerToday's technology rooms require precise, stable environments in order for sensitive electronics to operate optimally. Standard comfort air conditioning is ill suited for technology rooms, leading to system shutdowns and component failures. Because precision air conditioning maintains temperature and humidity within a very narrow range, it provides the environmental stability required by sensitive electronic equipment, allowing your business to avoid expensive downtime.http://www.apcmedia.com/salestools/VAVR-5UDSLG_R2_EN.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Often engaging the context is more productive than the content. I've never understood the content of the memory subsystem optimization drill. What this engagement Did accomplish was to make me Very aware that I did not understand the memory system at all! The first step in any 12 step program is to fully recognize that a problem exists. Boy, I'm there now.The top down approach is really not too helpful, long term. For instance, I use the FIM (Fault isolation manual) at work for troubleshooting. Most often this manual does not address the specific issue I have encountered. If I'm under a time constraint, I use the manual to provide myself a "shopping list" of related components. I then just start mindlessly swapping them in, one after another 'til the problem goes away. This is a top down approach. I have no idea of how the system really works. (To finally draw the analogy) I just keep adjusting Ras and Cas and tThis and tThat until something happens. After years, I can pretty well guess what will do what, still without any real system knowledge.As you might guess, I consider this a faith-based approach, where I Don't understand and leave "all that" to the Creator of this Boeing (or Intel) system. I've described that I'm (most certainly) Not above using this method, but Only as a Last resort! This is the method we've been provided and when system variances begin to occur that are beyond a faith-based practitioner's frame of "common sense," the wheels fall off. The system's behavior was never explainable, but now also becomes unsolvable.At work, that's generally where I come in. The faith-based approach can be cheaper and quicker. However when it hits it's limit, the airplane will just stop. And here we are. Let's start from the bottom and see if we can actually understand this thing. Read over my initial thesis about the FSB. This memory optimization issue will end up being All about coordinating the timing (or synchronization) between the memory's speed and the FSB's speed. Controlling RPM (or clock speed) will only be a method by which an operator can more closely match the timing between the FSB's RPM and the memory's RPM. Can you see why the holy-grain quest for memory speed completely misunderstands this pivotal concept?In the mean time, re-read (I mean get out your green visor and - focus - ) this Anandtech article's description of tRD. They'll blabber on about the attributes of the x48 chip set, Yea bla, bla. We've had plenty that. Try to focus on How the memory controller tries (with massive effort!) to enable tooth engagement from two gears spinning at potentially different RPMs. They call it the "Clock crossing procedure". I got it, I get it and I'll try to concrete an intelligible translation. tRD will be an excellent starting point ( - Please - note I said "starting point!")http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3208&p=5Until then, just relax back into simming with the best we mere mortals can achieve. FS9 is Only required for the PMDG airplane . . . and even then, ONLY at low altitudes. My big deal (right now) is to master a hand flown ILS at 1/8 vis and heavy gusts. FS9 is the only platform that allows the fluidity to fly that precisely in the ONLY airplane that provides that precision. So, this is a big deal, to me. Everything else is fine in FSX. Fly the FSX Sitka approach with DX10 and Ultra high settings. Any hi-end rig will do that (even my modest box). The view is Stunning. That's real too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read that and think I broke something in my head.Makes String theory seem simple.Some of us are doing good to find the landing gear lever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya, it hurt me too the first time through. The basic takeaway is simply this: In AC current, a cycle happens on a very specific time interval, For instance, with our 60 cycle (60Hz) wall power, each of those 60 cycles takes exactly 1/60th or a second to complete. Said another way, each cycle is 1/60th of a second long. Said another way each cycle has a latency of 1/60th of a second because you have to wait 1/60th of a second for the next cycle to come along. From here on out, all we're doing is dealing with this precise, simple concept, abit dealing with much faster AC cycling. We're really gonna wind it up! As the CPS ("Hz" or "Cycles per second") increases, each individual cycle's time length will get shorter and shorter. Once you get this basic idea, the rest is a breeze. Well maybe not a breeze, but at least we'll have a foothold on the cliff! In the computer world we use these AC cycles to move data. It's this "conveyor belt" analogy I've used previously. In the earliest days of computers (?), we had a computer that use a Front side buss running at 60Hz. We wanted to use every single one of these cycles to move data back and forth between the memory sticks and the CPU. However for equally easy to understand reasons (later!) the physics of electricity will not allow us to use every cycle. The memory controller springs into action. The memory controller's job (Northbridge now, Quickpath soon) is to use as many of these FSB cycles as possible . . . . but it - Cannot - use them all. For instance if the memory controller can only use every 12th cycle, this will Really slow things down. The memory controller has to wait through 12 cycles before it can slam a data bit aboard the FSB express. It had to wait through 12 cycles X 1/60th of a second per cycle, or .2 seconds between data loads. Or said in 'computerize,' our memory has a "latency" of .2 seconds (Note: this is only one of the factors that slows down this Memory < > FSB transfer process . . . but it's a BiGGiE).This mysterious "tRD" is the simply the number of FSB alternating current (AC) cycles the memory controller must skip before it can slam a data bit aboard the FSB express. (Geeze, How complicated did they want to make this?!) Now you do the math. How long is each AC cycle at 400Mhz? Got it? Now if I have a tRD of 12, what's my latency? (How long is an AC cycle at 400Mhz X 12). Now, if I could reduce my tRD to 6, might that not achieve a Bigger improvement than trying to smoke a CPU/FSB at a 500 FSB and running ram modules to 2000Mhz? But faster should be better? Not necessarily, At All! The better we can sync the memory and the FSB's RPM, the better chance we have to get those transfers done more often. Slowing those wild men down - might just - work better! One . . . or the other . . or both? Woah! Now we're into it. Little steps. We'll do that next.(edit: Why here? We're hiding out!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites