Hmmm! - just my 2 cents worth alsoMaybe it is just me - but I think I remember seeing "somewhere" that FSX is not particularly coded as a multithreaded applicationSO! - in reality - it would not matter two hoots about what OS was on the machine NOR whether you have a great new fangled yet to be invented quad triple core proccessor machine - FSX will still likely flow like treacle or mollases whilst you are encoding 3 videos on the extra grunt of the machine that FSX cannot utiliseI hope I am wrong - but that is the way I see it

>Hmmm! - just my 2 cents worth also>>Maybe it is just me - but I think I remember seeing>"somewhere" that FSX is not particularly coded as a>multithreaded application>>SO! - in reality - it would not matter two hoots about what OS>was on the machine NOR whether you have a great new fangled>yet to be invented quad triple core proccessor machine - FSX>will still likely flow like treacle or mollases whilst you are>encoding 3 videos on the extra grunt of the machine that FSX>cannot utilise>>I hope I am wrong - but that is the way I see itI'm confused, but where does this fit in with Vista and DX10, none of which relies on mulitple core cpus?

Where do you people get your information? What makes you think Vista was build for DX10 gfx cards? Any all all AERO effects are pure DX9 Shader 2.0 with some additional optional Shader 3.0 effects for people with those cards.If they build Vista for DX10 cards they might as well wait until 2010 to release this thing, because the cash is in companies and how many do you think will buy their users DX10 next year to do their letters? AERO is an additional component not even included in may SKU.But yes, you are right, there will be performance improvements with DX10 cards, but not because they are DX10 cards but simply because they are newer, faster cards.Somebody asked if you can switch to classic theme, and yes you can. Or if you simply don't want AERO you can turn it off and revert to the Basic theme. If you want you can pretty much make it look like Win2k with the exception of some differences in Explorer and such.

Hmmm! - sorry to confuse you - but I thought that it would be fairly obvious that without FSX being multithreaded - then what you see is what you get with a few minor improvements if you are lucky

>>BTW, do you or anyone else here know whether Vista will>include the option for using the Windows "Classic" user>interface, and to turn off all the 3D, transparency and other>multimedia bells and whistles effects which one might expect>to reduce the hit on one's computer system?>Yes Gary you will be able to turn off the Aeroglass desktop in Vista.>"Edsel" GUI in OS history like Microsoft "Bob" was.>OOh. Microsoft Bob. haha, I forgot about that one. I think that we will be able to pare down Vista to make it "lean and mean". We wondered the same about XP, and it can be sliced down pretty well.RhettAMD 3700+, eVGA 7800GT 256, ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, etc. etc.

>Hmmm! - sorry to confuse you - but I thought that it would be>fairly obvious that without FSX being multithreaded - then>what you see is what you get with a few minor improvements if>you are luckyDX10 greatly changes how much overhead is introduced on the CPU by the Direct X enginge and not to mention unified shaders for processing either pixel or geometry shaders. I don't think I'm confused! You need to do some more reading fella!Sorry to dissappoint!John

The new vista features such as AERO are indeed DX9, but Direct X 10 has been integrated into the operation system and driver model. Quote from this website http://news.softpedia.com/news/DirectX-10-...ends-7762.shtml"Microsoft has decided that backward compatibly with DirectX 9,8,7 isn't really necessary as there will probably will be even less compatible with Vista.Even so, dear Microsoft hasn't totally forgotten us. Some sort of

That is indeed true. I read your post to mean that with DX10 cards Vista will suddenly get rid of any overhead in terms of gaming performace, which is not true. It will still have overhead with is simply lowered by the speed improvement of GFX cards.But back on topic, wouldn't you agree that FSX should performe acceptable on DX9 hardware? Its what people have now and what 90+% will still have two years from now.I don't think youre average joe will be very impressed at this point (I have only played the demo(s) so far, and it was a nightmare to say the least! and from what I've read the retail version isn't much better).

While by no means an authority on the subject, I did read an article about games being "ready" for use with Vista.I did get the impression from that article, that this was nothing more than a specification, sent to game developers, for what was needed for a flawless install, uninstall and general use in the new system. That kind of specification would be expected.I fail to see how the system itself is going to do much of anything to help performance, unless it is significantly tied to DX-10.It appears that unless DX-10 is going to perform a whole lot of what is done by the CPU/memory at this time, there is little hope for this sim in it's life cycle. Clearly additional cores and multi-threading are the next wave of the future towards significantly higher CPU performance.It's unfortunate, that we will all have to wait to see the new Vista/DX-10 relationship for maybe as much as 6 months.I think MS/Aces should issue a statement as to the expected performance improvements in FS on this matter, if any.That way I would know what to do now ! Wait or move on to a higher powered machine at this time.While a little disappointed in FSX right now, I could live with that either way, by just knowing.Bob (Las Cruces NM)

>That is indeed true. I read your post to mean that with DX10>cards Vista will suddenly get rid of any overhead in terms of>gaming performace, which is not true. It will still have>overhead with is simply lowered by the speed improvement of>GFX cards.Actually, right now in DX9 about 40% of CPU is taken up by the API and GPU overhead, but DX10 frees up about 20% of that overhead and leaves it to the game to use.>>But back on topic, wouldn't you agree that FSX should performe>acceptable on DX9 hardware? Its what people have now and what>90+% will still have two years from now.>As Paul (PC-12) stated, the shading effects might be causing some of these FPS issues, but it's is a necessary move to shaders and DX10 will alleviate some of these problems. I think it does perform acceptable at the lower settings. I think people just expect too much at this point. They have raised the bar considerably and it will get better.Later,John

>I fail to see how the system itself is going to do much of>anything to help performance, unless it is significantly tied>to DX-10.>Here is a great article on the CPU improvements that will be made with DX10. Reduced Overhead is the key for DX10!http://www.elite######s.com/cms/index.php...id=69&Itemid=29

Hehehe - sorry mate - you did class yourself as a hardware nut - I'll just class myself as an overall nutYeah - I read that article - great marketing BS with enough gobbledygook in it to sound impressive - and some small measure of one companies vision on how to handle the "problem"BUT - don't you think that this might have been an excellent opportunity for the supposed MASTERS of SOFTWARE to show the world that they are actually "with it" instead of choking the poor guys from ACES Hello! - read your own referrence again - look carefully for that little catch phrase about "whilst data is supplied" or something like that Now - just for a moment - forget about the wonderful advancements that the hardware guys are going to come out with "next week" and just reflect for a moment on the wonders of the super duper fastest blinking DX10 card with 500 different pipesThat is ALL fantasticDont you think that it might have been an opportunity for Micro$haft to at long last show leadership and actually allow ACES to multithread FSX so that IF - just IF there was some spare processing power around not being utilised in encoding videos at the same time we were flying - that the excess processing power might just be utilised effectively in assisting the other hardwareSorry mate - as a hardware nut - this is possibly a very hard concept for you to handle - it also involves softwareAfter all isnt FSX software?

Actually I write software for a living, but you can't really write software without hardware. Actually, Microsoft co-developed DX10 with ATI and worked with developers to improve the bottlenecks of DX9. Again, if you actually knew anything about software you would know that the only thing really holding FSX back is backwards compatibility. If we didn't have that there would be a slew of complaints. Plus, they must release a product every two years, and with that kinda of development time you can't redo everything. ACES rewrites part of the code in pieces, and improves what it can in this time frame. So what do you do, #### off a lot of people with no backwards compatability or move steadily toward multiprocessing. They did add some multiprocessing capability where they could, as shown by my performance test which shows FSX process using about 12 to 20 percent of my second CPU. You really don't know anything about software or hardware do you?

In addition, FSX is indeed multi-threaded.