FSX Design Priorities Flawed

[GHarrall 494]

Only wanted a conservative OC, hence why I got the MSI P965 NeoBIOS is currently limited to 333mhz FSB, so it's maxed. Goes well with my 667 DDR2 anyway.Thanks for the tip though.....;)

[Staffan 12]

>But the "Sims" doesn't model the physics of flight and render>the entire world in 3D does it?>>Slightly different application to say the least........Did I say that they should do exactly like the Sims? No ! What I say between the lines is that the possibilities are there alright,...if they want to use them. ;-)http://www.scandicair.com/images/sa_banner.gifFSX..:-hmmm...nah.. Still happy without it!! :-hahMy specs are:Dell Dimension 4600 P4/2.8 at 3.0 Ghz1024 Mb DDR333 Dual channel memory (2x256,1x512)256 Mb ATI Radeon X850 Pro ViVo, flashed to a X850 XT PE. Omega 2.6.87 (CAT 5.12)DirectX 9.0cW XP Home with SP2E171FPb Flat panel monitor 17"370Gb HD (120 GB Maxtor, 250GB Samsung) 7200rpm ATA Lacie 250Gb Extern HDMy work:http://library.avsim.net/search.php?CatID=...&Go=Change+View

[Guest BOPrey]

RE: Fsim is mostly a singly threaded app. Hence the disconnect. Not exactly. FS is mostly multi-threaded. However, those threads are fiber thread. Bad choice for multi-processor/multi-core system.http://www.fsinsider.com/articles/Global_T..._Technology.htm"Flight Simulator

[n4gix 4,947]

>This means there are just far too many places the ACES team>have to insert synchronization code into FS. Or, the ACES team>didn't invision that FS will be run on a multi-core system. How long have multi-core systems been available? Two years? Three years?When did FSX development start? Answer: four years ago.There were no multi-core processors existing when FSX development began, ergo no opportunity to (re)develop the core...Even today, the vast majority of potential customers are still running single-core machines. There's no incentive to invest in redesign yet.

[GHarrall 494]

But the possbilities are not really there are they?Look, FS9 at three year old program, is still pushing most PC's to the limit even now.If improvments are to be made (texture resolution, water, curved earth, detailed airports, environment) then it has to come at a cost.Flight Simulators have ALWAYS been stressful on computer hardware at any given point in time.'The Sims' is not even close to being as hardware intensive as FS so I am not sure where these 'posibilities' are?There is obviously a good reason why FS has no real competition.....no other developer even wants to touch flight simulators in general these days, and certainly not one that models the whole globe.

[Guest BOPrey]

Multitasking OS for the PC has been around for more than 10 years.re: There's no incentive to invest in redesign yet.Are you implying the ACES has no forward thinking? Maybe they are. They should've known, even 10 years ago, by structure the application in a multi-thread fashion, there was going to be enormous play off in the future. As said in another post, FS is multi-threaded, except it is using fiber threads instead of standard os threads. Coming back to your point about multi-core processor. A multi-threaded application will still benifit on a single core hyper-thread capable processor.

[Mace 1,927]

>>so..Basically Flight sim has no hope of putting all the>sliders to the right. Now or in the next few years?>Read my post again. I did not say that. I did not say there would be no major speed advances. I said the major speed advances would be in architecture, rather than raw ghz.Of course, that is all my educated conjecture based on being in the scene for 17 years. :)>What about Piling on Addons like we did in FS9?>>:)>>For sure we are going to need more hardware than we have now, to run sliders pretty right, with lots of AI, at busy airports/cities.I can now say that with even more certainty, as I now run FSX. My rig is pretty stout, and can still buzz-saw through FSX, but I can tell, if you add lots of AI at a busy place, you're going to get bogged down.RhettAMD 3700+, eVGA 7800GT 256, ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, etc. etc.