"So SLI doesn’t benefit FSX much except at extreme resolutions with high AA. This is borne out by the review “Real-World Gaming CPU Comparison with 8800 GTX SLI”"

I should have explain myself better, my statement was not accurate....here is the explanation http://blogs.msdn.co...multi-core.aspx

"FSX can use SLI and Dual core today, just not as well as we and the community would like. " Now that I totally agree with. :(

A game does not need to be written specifically to support SLI. Here is a qoute from your own link. "NVIDIA^® SLI^™ technology can be enabled for every gaming application." This means you enable SLI yourself.Further qoute "... In addition, to provide the optimal 'out-of-box' experience, NVIDIA has created an extensive set of over 500 custom application profiles which enable SLI technology automatically..." which means you don't have to enable SLI yourself, Nvidia will enable SLI automaticaly when it detects a gavme in its profile."...and optimize scaling performance." which means Nvidia will configure itself to give best results for a particular game using tested settings. This does not mean a game will not run if it does not have a profile."These optimized applications, shown below, are enabled automatically with no control panel changes required. " Again, all this means is you don't have to enable SLI yourself, if the game is on the list. If it is not on the list there is nothing stopping you from enabling SLI yourself. An application does not care how many video cards are being used to handle the graphics it is sending.

To expound upon and clarify this point:A game doesn't *need* to support SLI inherently in order for it to work (though there are some exceptions to this, many games that use deferred rendering engines don't work well with AFR, the default SLI rendering mode). However, in order for a game to receive the optimal benefit from SLI it does need to have support, preferably both from the game developer and the graphics vendor. For instance, a game which simply has an SLI profile with basic support may see little to no performance boost by enabling the use of SLI (e.g. FSX) whereas a game which was designed for multi-GPU technology like say, Metro 2033, may see up to a nearly perfect linear scaling of 100%. So it is important that a game be designed for SLI (or Crossfire) in order to get the most out of it. Even other games with modern 3d engines (i.e. not FSX) that were not developed with multi-GPU support receive sub-optimal performance gains from vendor-enabled multi-GPU profiles, say on the order of perhaps 20-40% rather than 70-100%.

To expound upon and clarify this point:A game doesn't *need* to support SLI inherently in order for it to work (though there are some exceptions to this, many games that use deferred rendering engines don't work well with AFR, the default SLI rendering mode). However, in order for a game to receive the optimal benefit from SLI it does need to have support, preferably both from the game developer and the graphics vendor. For instance, a game which simply has an SLI profile with basic support may see little to no performance boost by enabling the use of SLI (e.g. FSX) whereas a game which was designed for multi-GPU technology like say, Metro 2033, may see up to a nearly perfect linear scaling of 100%. So it is important that a game be designed for SLI (or Crossfire) in order to get the most out of it. Even other games with modern 3d engines (i.e. not FSX) that were not developed with multi-GPU support receive sub-optimal performance gains from vendor-enabled multi-GPU profiles, say on the order of perhaps 20-40% rather than 70-100%.

+1.... I couldn't have said it better myself. Apparently Flight utilizes DirectX11 and not DirectX10, I think that is the case because in the screen-shots, the terrain looks "lush" and not "flat" like FSX because of tessellation, this is also used in the water which gives a more realistic look.

I'm just showing what is in Nvidia Inspector, I'm sure it's there for a reason, I mean why will they show FSX SLI in Nvidia Inspector if they have no intention of implementing it?

They were planning to implement it, but the ACES team was given their walking papers before the next service pack could be released.

With SP2 ACES also announced that programming for FSX was done, finished, completed, no more fixes, no more patches, no more SPs.Some of you would be great tabloid writers.

With SP2 ACES also announced that programming for FSX was done, finished, completed, no more fixes, no more patches, no more SPs.

Things change. I recall shortly after the shutdown several ACES folks saying that they were especially frustrated by the timing because they were only a few weeks away from releasing the next patch. The fact that service pack 2 only had a DX10 "preview" is a pretty good indication that there was at least one more service pack planned.

OK, I will believe that when you can post ONE single thread that says this. I'll give you as much time as you need because I know you'll need it.And don't read anything into the word "Preview" because full DX10 implementation was planned for the next full version of FS, not for any further patch of FSX.

With SP2 ACES also announced that programming for FSX was done, finished, completed, no more fixes, no more patches, no more SPs.

Do you have evidence of this?Bryan.

OK, I will believe that when you can post ONE single thread that says this. I'll give you as much time as you need because I know you'll need it.

Fine, don't believe me. :rolleyes:And you're right I would need time to find your requested quote because that was over two-years ago, it wasn't widely publicized (just some offhand comments here and there), and any posts or blogs that said so are almost certainly long gone by now.

Do you have evidence of this?Bryan.

Ever hear of Google?

Ever hear of Google?

That's rather blatantly hypocritical coming from the guy who said, "OK, I will believe that when you can post ONE single thread that says this. I'll give you as much time as you need because I know you'll need it."

And how much would SLI help anyway in a sim like FSX that is so CPU bound?

That's rather blatantly hypocritical coming from the guy who said, "OK, I will believe that when you can post ONE single thread that says this. I'll give you as much time as you need because I know you'll need it."

:( :( :( Bryan.

That's rather blatantly hypocritical coming from the guy who said, "OK, I will believe that when you can post ONE single thread that says this. I'll give you as much time as you need because I know you'll need it."

Did you understand that was his answer to another post not too long ago? So if it good enough for him, it's good enough for me!Some of you take this way to seriously. :(