I know we haven't got any info from the MSFS Team about how they have implemented multicore usage in MSFS2020, but...

Will MS2020 implement code to fully utilize multicore usage?  Which will be the most important, clock speed, cores or threads?

 

Likely all of the above... speculate on

It's a 2019 architecture software. Multicore/Thread optimization should come without worry.

Speculation mode on. 🙂

A clue might be in the early CPU specs for the upcoming Xbox Scarlett: "Custom AMD with Zen 2 and Navi technology, 8 cores." With that capacity in the Xbox and multi-core becoming standard on PC, they'd be crazy not to use it to some extent.

That doesn't necessarily mean it will be fully optimized for multi-threading, because it's common for one core to do most of the work in current games and sims. But it can certainly help reduce the load, and I'd expect it to be optimized as far as they can.

If it's still single core Microsoft will take a beating in the forums.

35 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

FSX, P3D, XP11 has never been single core, so no idea what this post is about?

Skip to 6:00 min, all my cores working hard loading scenery ... never really understood why people say these simulators don't use multi-core?  Only time the multiple cores remain low utilization is if one is sitting stationary and not flying.

I guess what's being said here is that FSX/P3D (can't speak for XP) don't take advantage of multi core CPUs as you'd wish they did. Of course all cores are working, but most of the time I find one of my cores is doing most of the work (close to 100% actually) while the others are relatively low on utilization. Are you using anything like an AM to have them work so evenly?

Edited September 14, 20196 yr by threegreen

16 minutes ago, threegreen said:

I guess what's being said here is that FSX/P3D (can't speak for XP) don't take advantage of multi core CPUs as you'd wish they did.

Thanks for helping me out here. A good multicore utilization should be more than using extra cores for loading etc, they should be used much more in the rendering code and flight system code. I think the P3D solution to multicore usage is not the best way of doing it.

And to Rob, why do we not all jump to the 12 core AMD CPU if cores are used in the best way? A CPU with 12 cores / 24 threads should be superior to Intel CPU with an 8 core / 16 thread. Why is that not the case?

 

 

For me, a bigger question will be will we need Multi-Core and how badly?

• Will the real weather be able to read much more than METAR 2-3 cloud layer reports? 
• Will the cloud layers be limitless to 60,000+ Feet?
• How far will the clouds draw before the sim protests? 200-500 NM I hope is more the standard (no popping)
• How about Autogen draw distance? I hope 200+ NM is more the standard, adjustable down to whatever a system requires.
• How about AI quantity - Will KTEB or KVNY have hundreds of planes based on the field? Will KATL have a thousand flights daily? I'm talking ability with-out CTD or crippling the sim.
• Will we be able to fly all day for weeks with out exiting the sim? 

These are just a few quick things that I know (would) cripple ESP and any other sim out there.

No matter how many cores are used, no matter how powerful the system, the sim itself has to be able to handle what developers develop days/years from now!  

 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, pracines said:

No matter how many cores are used, no matter how powerful the system, the sim itself has to be able to handle what developers develop days/years from now!  

That is why the MSFS engine (FSX++) should be scalable so it takes advantage of more cores. The way forward in CPU technology is more cores and not faster cores.

33 minutes ago, nas123 said:

That is why the MSFS engine (FSX++) should be scalable so it takes advantage of more cores. The way forward in CPU technology is more cores and not faster cores.

Taking advantage of more cores can help with FPS and a beautiful scene, but if the SIM itself crashes because of too much data, then who cares how many cores it can take advantage of. Reminiscent of that disaster OOM, which was completely unnecessary!

Either way, faster cores are always going to be eventually necessary. We simply cannot remain satisfied with 5.xx GHz.

My point is that the SIM must remain strong and stable under the HUGE pressure of realism.

Dang, dang, dang...I had it on good authority that the programming team for MFS2020 was kept locked in the basement for the last 10 years and not allowed to read any news regarding developments in computer hardware...as a result they were programming the new simulator on a 16-bit OS for a 4:3 1280x1024 CRT monitor driven by a DX9 card running on a single 2.4GHz Pentium IV CPU.  Now that they've discovered Turing video cards and multi-core CPUs by reading about it for the very first time here on AVSIM, they're going to have to go back and completely re-think how to use all this new-fangled hardware.  Ugh, I can feel the release date slipping to 2022 already.  /snark

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the dev team probably knows a wee tiny bit about modern hardware and projected future capabilities...maybe even a wee little bit more than most of us.  I think it might even be reasonable to suspect that some of those guys have a few intel and nVidia engineers on speed dial...

 

4 hours ago, nas123 said:

I know we haven't got any info from the MSFS Team about how they have implemented multicore usage in MSFS2020, but...

Will MS2020 implement code to fully utilize multicore usage?  Which will be the most important, clock speed, cores or threads?

 

Actually, it should be "none of the above".

So you have one core at 100% and you want all cores at 100% then what are you going to do after that.

17 minutes ago, rjfry said:

So you have one core at 100% and you want all cores at 100% then what are you going to do after that.

They'll wait for the system to catch up... cuz they seem to think only full 100% use is of value.  When it shuts down audio, drive access, etc... then they'll complain that the software has bugs.

3 minutes ago, WarpD said:

They'll wait for the system to catch up... cuz they seem to think only full 100% use is of value.  When it shuts down audio, drive access, etc... then they'll complain that the software has bugs.

I am thinking more like how many cores would they like it to run on 1. ok 4 cores 2. better 8 cores 3.even better 16 cores 4. super 64 cores top end $5,000 CPU😎