>What hardware upgrade do you see on horizon that makes you>hopeful? There aren't any other than quad cores!! They will>do jack for FSX!Well.....I still haven't upgraded to dual-core and my video card is probably a generation behind by now so I have some catching up to do. Just can't afford it right now.With regards to multiple cores.....if we are running other addon programs, such as ActiveSky, a chart viewer, etc. will they use the other core??Matt

I agree with Jim (Hornet).FSX has a FAR uglier performance hit than FS2002 to 2004.I was delighted with FS2004 upon upgrading from 2002.I'm absolutely disgusted with FSX. Most the major new feature boarder on the insignificant, even if they had a framerate.The current FSX default settings look like a something running on 3DFX card from the 90s.Vista & DX10 aren

This is my argument for developing FSX on the XBOX 360. Then,(A) The developers can TRUELY optimize to the hardware.(:( Everyone is on the same level hardware wise. A massive amount of time is WASTED tweaking hardware / configuration, etc. And not flying.Most of us spend at least $500 if not more for hardware upgrades, everytime a version of FS is released. So why not just buy an XBOX 360. You can run it on your plasma, HD Big Screens AWESOME!I have seen SOME INCREDIBLE graphic games on the XBOX 360 that just blow me away.This in my opinion was a HUGE oversite by Microsoft. I think you have to get rid of the bloated OS (and Vista will be even more bloated) and make efficiency the primary goal of the release.MIcrosoft's philosphy IS AND ALWAYS BEEN "DO MORE WITH A LOT MORE!" It needs to be "DO MORE WITH LESS!"This has not been done in the history of FS!Barry

I'm not sure why everyone keeps referring to DX10 cards and Vista. From what I can tell, the whole issue is with autogen and seems to be almost entirely CPU limited. My video card isn't working very hard, at least based on GPU temperature, when compared to other graphically intesive games (like Battlefield 2).Two things will help this:(1) Microsoft recodes to send autogen as a separate thread to an additional core. No this does not help single core users, but dual core is the future, so take advantage of it.(2) Microsoft actually spends some time to optimize the code and offer the user more control over the "autogen" feature (like one for foliage and another for buildings as was suggested by someone else).

FSX is tremendous and beautiful. It far exceeds FS9 in many ways and is really a delightfully rich and breathtaking virtual world in miniature. I've been simming for 9 years and have loved most of it (although I've become burned-out with the PC tweaks and myriad issues with add-on aircraft aand scenery.)FSX requires a $6,000 VELOCITY PC to run it well. That's all! I've spent $5,000 on my rig for FS9 in the past 18 months and I have a huge amount of hardware. FS9 runs stunningly well and looks fab with almost everything in DISPLAY pushed far right. It's a keeper for some more time to come.But I ain't shelling out another $5K or more for FSX--not now, not next year. Maybe never again. Unless somebody gives me a VELOCITY PC....!JS

Yes. But so what if chart viewer doesn't cause a drop in your FPS when FSX default is unflyable to beign with?

I think the point you miss is that the $6000 Velocity PC will not cut it! Thats the whole point. ACES tells us that this is designed to grow for future generation PCs. The problem is that the advancement in future pcs are in multicores (quad) and in multi GPUs (Quad SLI). So it doesn't matter if you have $30,000 to throw at it, the next generation computers that can handle FSX are not on the horizon! :(

>Yes. But so what if chart viewer doesn't cause a drop in your>FPS when FSX default is unflyable to beign with? I wasn't disagreeing with the need for FS to someday make use of multiple cores. Just wondering if the 2nd core would be of any use at all. Sounds like it can still help.Matt

Would you like a pink bow or a yellow ribbon on that Velocity?LOL

>FSX default does actually look more real than FS9 with>addons, >You're running the wrong add-ons then. My FS9 + add-ons looks worlds beyond default FSX. Christian

I think I'll take.....black!!JS

The Velocity PC at AVSIM 06 sure handled it brilliantly and it looked fan-frigging-tastic, I gotta say. Smooth as a baby's bum and more.JS

The version you saw at Avsim I dont believe was final code/retail release. It may make a significant difference. I am seeing some indications that something may have gotten "busted" before release. There is evidence that folks who ran the demo fairly well are not getting the same results with the retail version. not 100% sure but it might bean issue.hornit

The PCs at AVSIM 06 were not the latest and greatest CPU-wise. They were something around 3.5GHz Pentium 4 Dual Core, not Core 2 Duos which reportedly perform much better. Maybe there is hope after all!Gary

>The comments about dual core sounds more like an excuse than>an opportunity to get it done right. Programmers, especially>Microsoft, should be at the forefront of this technology>(multi-core / CPU) considering they've made OS's (Win2000,>Server 2003, etc) that manage multiple CPU's.>>Programmers better get used to it because this technology>isn't going away, if anything it is going to get more complex>with quad cores coming to fruition real quickly. I'm tired of>excuses, and for once would like to see a developer who is>charging the customer a decent sum of money to actually>deliver something that works well out of the box.>>In this case with FSX, just running the autogen as a separate>thread sent to a separate core would have probably greatly>improved overall performance. And the developers had to know>that was the bottleneck, but made a bad decision, if it was>even a consideration to have been a decision to make!>>That being said, I like FSX because FS9 ground textures looked>like crap. I am hoping that autogen issues will be addressed>by MS in short order. I can't imagine that changing ground>textures as someone had stated, would improve performance>because that is strictly a video card task, and my video card>isn't being taxed much by FSX.Very few other titles, at a sub $100.00 price point retail, try to model as much of a 3D world as MSFS does. Surely most programs will be expected to do multi-threading as we move forward, but we have to accept what MSFS is presently trying to do - model as much of the world as is posible. This is a very ambitious undertaking.You suggest that the developers offload autogen to another thread/processor... as this activity is largely an I/O intensive activity related to loading textures, you should re-read what tdragger said on the matter: texture I/O is sent to a different thread(fiber).I haven't been the beneficiary of beta testing, inside sweetheart deals or leaked street-date copies, so I don't know how FSX works "out of the box." However, my guess is that we have been given good value for the money.I think the developers were pretty straight with us in discussing the pros and cons of breaking tasks apart onto multiple processes/threads/fibers. There are coordination costs which suggest that extreme multi-threading is not the only answer to this problem.Multicores will be great and will improve many aspects of computing, but multi-cores aren't some magic which will make every program instantly speedy. If anything, this release may have been too ambitious, but I don't think anyone if purposely duping us with poor planning or laziness.But hey... I could be wrong.I've dealt very briefly with Microsoft in an academic capacity and they can be strange company at times. Like most large companies, they have a left-hand/right-hand coordination issue at times. Maybe, just maybe, a Holiday 2006 release was more important than doing some tweaking and optimizing? I don't know if this is the case or not. Perhaps the promised Vista/DX10 version will bring about the opitimizations? I don't know this either.In any case, the title attempts to deliver a lot and is likely configuble enough to bring enjoyment to each of us on a level appropriate for our resources.