Thanks for the links, Jim. Interesting. On the other hand, who knows if everything said there is true - they are people posting their opinions (though I am not saying they are wrong). It's never straight forward to get to the truth on the internet of course!

However, the basic point seems to be this:

"A single threaded application can only run on one core and will never be able to use more resources than that single core can provide."

Which begs the question, is FS9 a multi-threaded application? (Maybe that's been addressed already here, but I don't have time right now to read back over all the posts). If not, then I am confused. As I said, with CPU affinity set so that FS9 uses more than one core, that seems to be in fact what happens. I have shut down, as a test, all other non-essential processes, and with FS9 set to run on multiple cores, those cores show 40-50% activity. If I then set FS9 to run on one core, those other cores are inactive. I still don't see what we are seeing, so to speak, when we look at the Task Manager graphs (etc.). If the activity on the several cores is not FS9, what is it? It's a rhetorical question really, as there are no other processes running that can account for the activity Task Manager shows. So assuming it is FS9 .... ? What other conclusion can be drawn, other than that FS9 can run as a multi-core application? Or that the Windows Task Manager and other CPU software available are somehow showing something that is not in fact happening?

Ghiom, to have all cores running, I calculate 7F

Martin

Thanks for the links, Jim. Interesting. On the other hand, who knows if everything said there is true - they are people posting their opinions (though I am not saying they are wrong). It's never straight forward to get to the truth on the internet of course!

Isn't this forum on the internet?

 

Opinion is not always a truth.

Observation is not always a fact.

 

All I do know is that the score of this topic going into the bottom half of the 9th inning is tied at 0 (for) to 0 (against).

Obviously you didn't read the information from those 4 links then.

Ok... on my system changing affinity for FS9 only changes core load for FS9 to the core I assign it to.  If I leave it so it can access all cores (it's default setting)... it still shows as running on a single core.

 

Changing my frame rates don't change my CPU load one bit nor does it allow FS9 to suddenly use more than a single core.

 

If you run FS9 on Core 0 and you see 100% CPU... and then you tell FS9 to run on any other core except Core 0 and you see 50% CPU use for that core... that tells me that your system is overwhelmed by FS9...

 

First, I never see 100% CPU usage on a core that FS9 is running on.  That right there should tell you something.  Never.  Let me repeat that... never.  The highest I've seen it go is 80%.

 

So... my guess as to why you see it so differently is that your CPU isn't fast enough to handle 100% of FS9 as well as whatever else is running on your system at the time (which includes any and all hardware drivers: video, mouse, keyboard etc).

I have an I7 990 Extreme.

 

As I've stated... I believe what some are mistaking as FS9 itself spreading across multiple cores is actually their OS and other drivers and software (and there is still a LOT running despite one thinking they've shut everything down).

 

Nothing I've tried allows FS9 to run across multiple cores.  Nothing.

Obviously you didn't read the information from those 4 links then.

Beginning and end of post. You just can't help yourself with the unpleasant one-liners, can you Jim? Does it make you feel intelligent? What a joke. Please just ignore any of my posts in future, OK?

As this is developing into just another "you're stupid, I am not" thread, I'll leave you to it. Sorry I started it.

 

 

Beginning and end of post. You just can't help yourself with the unpleasant one-liners, can you Jim?

 

One line or a thousand lines, you have your mind already set. Why should he bother.

I have an I7 990 Extreme.

 

As I've stated... I believe what some are mistaking as FS9 itself spreading across multiple cores is actually their OS and other drivers and software (and there is still a LOT running despite one thinking they've shut everything down).

 

Nothing I've tried allows FS9 to run across multiple cores.  Nothing.

 

I'd be shocked if Windows itself used any significant amount of CPU time. In task manager, you can turn on the "CPU Time" column in the process list and see for yourself. Look at how much FS9/FSX consumes relative to the other processes and the System process.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

I've see 100% core usage on every single system I've used over the years, including my current one, unless I set affinity.  And for comparison sake, I'm running FS9 on a i7 3770K Processor with a GeForce GTX 660 Ti GPU on Windows XPx64. My system is not overwhelmed by FS9 with overall CPU usage at 13% while FS9 is running.

For the most part, if I lock my frame rate at 60FPS, it stays there.  But the truth is, I can still drag the frame rate down to the mid 30's in certain situations. It's for that reason, my goal is to never have my LOD_TARGET_FPS= dip below 30, so I lock my Frame rate at 45 (UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=45) which sets my LOD_TARGET_FPS= to 31.

As I said in previous posts, setting affinity really makes no difference in terms of FS2004 performance (only a very slight FPS increase for me, under certain conditions).  Does running FS9 across multiple cores save your CPU?  No Clue, but why stress only one core?  Is setting affinity pointless?  Maybe.  I'm sure my current system will become obsolete before burning out one core.  Is FS2004 truly running across multiple cores?  Who knows, but is sure looks pretty when I set Affinity.

I'm out of here before getting more fish and snake oil splashed on me...  That stuff reeks.  :lol:

RJ

Martin,

 

I apologize for not using the Quote button. That post was meant for the scorekeeper who thinks the score is zero-zero when clearly it is not. You took the time to take in the information I found and responded accordingly. 

Martin,

 

I apologize for not using the Quote button. That post was meant for the scorekeeper who thinks the score is zero-zero when clearly it is not. You took the time to take in the information I found and responded accordingly. 

 

I'm very sorry.  My mistake.

 

The score is actually 1 to 1 with two outs in the bottom of the ninth inning.