will the upcomings 777X and 747-400V2 designed specially for the 64-bit operating systems and i5-i7 cpu's? like the NGX

The NGX was not designed for 64bit OS or the i5 processer. It was designed for FSX which is a 32 bit program with limited multi tasking capabilities that just happens to benifit from 64 bit OS giving it access to almost 4G of Ram and the i5 chip which gives it the processing grunt to make up for its poor processing.

 

You could use an i7-980x (6 core with hyperthreading giving some programs effectivly 12 cores) and if it is at the same speed, it will give FSX pretty much the same performance as an i5. Why don't you get extra gain from the extra cores? Because FSX can't use them. The way it is programmed means it gets very little benifit from having more then 3 cores. Having a 4 core like the i5 means the OS can use a core to itself and FSX does not have to share.

 

The same goes for memory. FSX will work fine on 32 bit XP, Vista or Win 7, but a 32 bit OS can only address a total of 4G ram, and it needs some of that for itself. A 64 bit OS like WIn7 can access 192G of RAM (unless you have home premium which can only use 16G). While that sounds impressive, it does not change the fact that FSX is only 32 bit so can only use a total of 4G. The clever bit about using a 64bit OS is that the OS does not need to use the same 4G so FSX gets more to play with.

There have been some multithreaded elements in our code going all the way back to the 400X - it's very very difficult to run inherently serial code in parallel though. There isn't all that much opportunity for it when you have one calculation that depends on the result of a previous calculation, that sort of thing is hard to do in parallel logic-wise. Multi-core stuff isn't a panacea, it only works with really specialized types of code routines.

 

We can't make it 64-bit because it has to run inside FSX's core process, which is forever 32-bit. This wouldn't magically solve any problems anyway - 64-bit just means more memory registers are addressable, it doesn't improve FPS or anything like that. The planes themselves aren't the bulk of the memory load on the sim anyway, it's the scenery, weather, etc.

The planes themselves aren't the bulk of the memory load on the sim anyway, it's the scenery, weather, etc.

 

I would disagree, only because when I test new scenery I always test the default Kingair 350 and the NGX in the exact same conditions.

I always see a sizable performance hit when loading the NGX over the default B350.

Ryan didn't say the planes had no effect, he said they were not the bulk of the memroy load... Big difference there.

I always see a sizable performance hit when loading the NGX over the default B350.

Well, yes...

But the point was what is the FPS hit you take for using addon weather and scenery over default weather and scenery, with the same aircraft.

...

We can't make it 64-bit because it has to run inside FSX's core process, which is forever 32-bit. This wouldn't magically solve any problems anyway - 64-bit just means more memory registers are addressable, it doesn't improve FPS or anything like that. The planes themselves aren't the bulk of the memory load on the sim anyway, it's the scenery, weather, etc.

Actually, the majority of programs runs better when they have been compiled for 64 bit compared to 32 bit. Its not unusual to see a 5-15% performance increase when going from 32 bit to 64 bit

So Johan, you fancy recompiling FSX to 64bit? :)

 

A