i have been reading your comments about FSX hardware related things and low performance on current systems all sliders maxed.my question is, what do u expect to happen hardware wise in the future?- fsx is not optimised to use multiple prosessors, so the fastest single-core product is all ready in the market. and the fps is low.-fsx graphics is using direct x 9,0c and 2.0 shader model so all optimised graphics cards are allready available like geforce 7950, radeon 1900 xtx, sli, crossfire. they are capable of running shader model 3.0 operations etc. the performance is still low all sliders maxed.the real concern is is it possible to run FSX october release at its maximum detail and get over 20 fps at KLAX, Atlanta, O hare, JFK, London heathtrow because they are the most demandind places in the simulator hardware wise.Remember XP and october release (first release) is not capable of running direct x 10 period. it is based totally on SM2.0 and directx 9,0c without optimised multiple core support. so where is your hardware upgrades performance wise??????????(direct x 10 cards dont count cause they are only for vista)CAN U PLAY THE SIMULATOR ALL MAXED IN OCTOBER, GET SOMETHING ELSE THAN A SLIDESHOW?happy gaming to all????

No.

My real concern is that despite a long history of knowing that ACES writes MSFS with a higher level of graphical complexity than can currently be displayed, there are always dozens of people who fire up Flight Simulator, pull all the sliders up to max, and then complain that their super-system can't run the sim.Let me put this as simply as I can here:No current computer on the market will run FSX with all sliders maxed. Won't happen, not gonna do it, fuggetabouttit. In fact, it will proabably be a year or two from now when top of the line hardware will run FSX smoothly at max...and maybe not even then.This is not new information. Flight Simulator has used this same system for the last 6 years, so it should not be new to anyone familiar with MSFS. By the time your computer runs Flight Sim really smoothly, a new version is about to be released. This is done to ensure that your investment in Flight Sim will continue to provide plenty of value even as new amounts of computing power is available. FS pushes the limits.SO, now that I've gotten that off my chest...to answer your question, I think that computing power will continue to expand in the future, possibly even in ways that we cannot predict. I think that what will be graphically achievable in two years will be astounding. And I think that we will be having this same conversation 2-3 years from now when FS11 is about to be released. No matter how much computers change, the users adapt much more slowly. ;)

addon comment:in 2003 when fs9 came to the market, there were still room for hardware upgrades because they were creating new and faster single core products and graphics cards...............now in 2006 fs9 is running smoothly at last with the fastest single core products.in 2006 FSX is coming..................there are no faster single-core products available, expecting full multi-core support..........there is not full optimisations for dual-core products in FSX.........how about quadro(4x) or Octo(8x)-cores in the future are they supported by a patch which comes when vista is officially released.can future CPUs handle the load of AI in FSX. how about addons ultimate traffic etc............................there should be full support for multi-cores for this CPU intensive simulator......otherwise what is really the benefit of using AI cars on the road if the future CPUs cannot handle the load.i am not concerned FSX graphically because the full supported direct x 10 graphics are around the corner. they can handle the graphics load i quess.CAN 2x, 4x, 8x, 16x cores handle the load of FSX AI if they arent supported fully, in other words FSX only uses 100% of core 1, second core handles weather addons etc.......core number 1 cant handle all the processes by itself, unless we see improvement to 10 Ghz or more, are they coming and when????????????????

>No.He took the time to put out that whole rant, so I think he deserves a slightly better answer.>i have been reading your comments about FSX hardware related>things and low performance on current systems all sliders>maxed.>>my question is, what do u expect to happen hardware wise in>the future?I think they expect the game to be more optimized and the hardware to be faster.>>- fsx is not optimised to use multiple prosessors, so the>fastest single-core product is all ready in the market. and>the fps is low.This is a pretty dangerous statement. The fastest single core processor using existing technology MAY already be on the market. Either way, your statement about not using multiple processors has already been proven false, so it doesn't really matter. They do use dual core, and see a performance increase.>>-fsx graphics is using direct x 9,0c and 2.0 shader model so>all optimised graphics cards are allready available like>geforce 7950, radeon 1900 xtx, sli, crossfire. they are>capable of running shader model 3.0 operations etc. the>performance is still low all sliders maxed.>And, yet, oddly enough, people are finding that if they slide just one slider (autogen) down a bit, it works much better. Besides the fact that they are claiming almost daily performance increases in their in house testing, and the fact that most of the complaints I've read on performance are coming from year old or more cards, I don't think we have much to worry about. It will, undoubtedly, get better.>the real concern is >>is it possible to run FSX october release at its maximum>detail and get over 20 fps at KLAX, Atlanta, O hare, JFK,>London heathtrow because they are the most demandind places in>the simulator hardware wise.>Nobody can answer that for you right now, so I would suggest, for the sake of your own blood pressure and well-being, not to worry about it.>Remember XP and october release (first release) is not capable>of running direct x 10 period. it is based totally on SM2.0>and directx 9,0c without optimised multiple core support. so>where is your hardware upgrades performance wise??????????>See above. I'm running fine on three year old hardware, just by turning down autogen, everything else on max, no lag.>(direct x 10 cards dont count cause they are only for vista)>Well, that sort of stacks the deck, doesn't it? DX10 is the next step. You can't just say the next step doesn't count because it's not here right now. I can't imagine all the hungry add-ons the community is using now would all work flawlessly if we were still on Athlon XPs and 128MB Radeon 9700s. Technology moves forward, and with it, the requirements move forward. I, for one, am amazed at the fact that FSX is coming out at a time when it will scale down to my current hardware, work well with my new hardware coming up, and will even get better and more efficient as time goes on. That's something you don't often see. Normally, it's one way or the other.>CAN U PLAY THE SIMULATOR ALL MAXED IN OCTOBER, GET SOMETHING>ELSE THAN A SLIDESHOW?>Until October, no one can tell you that. I would suggest that if you are worried that FSX is going to be a complete bomb, stay away from it for a few weeks after launch and read reviews and other thoughts on this forum. I am getting it at launch, and I would be more than happy to share my initial findings at those locations with you.>happy gaming to all????>Thanks, you too.-Brian

Please see this topic regarding the use of dual cores.In short, yes, FSX does use dual coreshttp://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho..._id=13482&page=Why is no one getting the message?

so why release XP based product, if u cannot handle the load. default settings dont look any better than fs9 with ground environment pro. FOR MICROSOFT: consider releasing the final product after VISTA is released and add full multi-core support (not partial) and direct x 10 support, finalize the code and remove bugs. that is the only way to get more customers to the product. and existing simmers will be happy also............happy flights anyways to the users of excellent FS9.FS9 is for XPFS X is for VISTA and future

I am also a little bit disappointed about the reports of dual-core users not noticing a significant improvement of performance. Since earlier releases of FS have been always very CPU hungry, I would have imagined that the dual-cores would be the holy grail for FSX and the developer team to use make *extensive* use of unused processor cycles. Apparently not so, but I am sure MS/ACES have their reasons for it - or not.Maybe you will notice more use of the "under-utilized" core with 3rd party add-ons? We don't know that yet.However, I can't get over the fascination/obsession of people to run FS with all sliders maxed. Does your experience suffer so significantly, if you tone down the settings a notch? If the code and your hardware turn FSX into a slide show then you have two options: Upgrade your hardware or turn down the settings. I never expected to run FSX maxed out with current hardware, so I think we should just lower out expectations a bit. We have still great things to come. DX10 and patches, for example.When FS9 was released, noone could max out all the details and we're just now up to a point - 3 years later - where FS9 runs fairly smooth on the latest hardware.Pat

so why release XP based product, if u cannot handle the load. default settings dont look any better than fs9 with ground environment pro. FOR MICROSOFT: consider releasing the final product after VISTA is released and add full multi-core support (not partial) and direct x 10 support, finalize the code and remove bugs. that is the only way to get more customers to the product. and existing simmers will be happy also............happy flights anyways to the users of excellent FS9.FS9 is for XPFS X is for VISTA and future

>so why release XP based product, if u cannot handle the load.>default settings dont look any better than fs9 with ground>environment pro. >>FOR MICROSOFT: consider releasing the final product after>VISTA is released and add full multi-core support (not>partial) and direct x 10 support, finalize the code and remove>bugs. that is the only way to get more customers to the>product. and existing simmers will be happy also............>>happy flights anyways to the users of excellent FS9.>>FS9 is for XP>FS X is for VISTA and future>> >I've got a compromise for you.I'll buy it and enjoy it in October, and you can wait until Vista and DX10 hardware is out?Savvy?

do u enjoy slideshows, not a senator.i will be enjoying my fs9 until vista and direct x 10 is released with my 1500 euros worth of upgrades to fs9 i will be enjoying more than u with FSX. but always hungry for more. happy landings, all

>I am also a little bit disappointed about the reports of>dual-core users not noticing a significant improvement of>performance. Since earlier releases of FS have been always>very CPU hungry, I would have imagined that the dual-cores>would be the holy grail for FSX and the developer team to use>make *extensive* use of unused processor cycles. Apparently>not so, but I am sure MS/ACES have their reasons for it - or>not.Pat, did you read this from Mike? If not, here it is again..."The demo code is the same as the full product. As for the multi-core issue I think I've beat that to detah in other threads. There's nothing magical about multi-core that will ensure all your cores are maxed out all the time, especially an application that has a hard constraint on a foreground render loop. Only so much stuff can be scheduled and offloaded to background threads before they have to yield to allow time for the main process. Flight Sim is not a web server or database."

The demo code is the same as the full product. As for the multi-core issue I think I've beat that to detah in other threads. There's nothing magical about multi-core that will ensure all your cores are maxed out all the time, especially an application that has a hard constraint on a foreground render loop. Only so much stuff can be scheduled and offloaded to background threads before they have to yield to allow time for the main process. Flight Sim is not a web server or database."happy slideshows to all with xpheheheheheheheheh

>do u enjoy slideshows, not a senator.>i will be enjoying my fs9 until vista and direct x 10 is>released with my 1500 euros worth of upgrades to fs9 i will be>enjoying more than u with FSX. but always hungry for more. >>happy landings, allWhat kind of person jumps online and presumes to tell someone what they will or will not enjoy?I am enjoying the friggin demo of FSX, with all its limitations, more than I enjoyed FS9. It's the flight sim experience I've always hoped for, and I'm getting it at a solid 20 FPS with all but one slider maxed.Let's be frank here, you have no clue how FSX will run on my system, or what enjoyment I'll have from it, and you earn absolutely no points from me for bragging about how much money you've wasted on mods that I have contended many times should be free.So you get to enjoy your bloated three year old program , and I get to enjoy my buggy, unoptimized, unfinished demo, and if we are both happy with that, what does it matter if the other guy enjoys something else?Is it really so terrible that I suggest that I might enjoy something you wouldn't?

I really can't believe that I allowed myself to feed a troll.It must be a friday afternoon. I'm going home, guys.