FSX is Good - Really it is

[Guest jwflowers]

>No dual core, no SLI and they talk of multi threading!! >Actually, I ran performance monitor on my system while running retail version of FSX on my AMD 4800+ and my findings were quite suprising. A 100% of my first processor was used and about 12% - 20% of the second processor was used continously by FSX. I could tell this was only FSX because I also monitor the FSX process to determine percent usage of CPU which was at 100%. My next step is to install the Performance Monitor drivers from NVidia to see how much GPU usage there is. As for game programming, Dual Core will not solve everything. Certain processes need to be completed before moving on to the next. While it does help some applications such as Adobe Premiere and other media products, it doesn't help much with all games. Just my two cents worth!John

[ahuimanu 50]

>boshar: "Sure my new square wheeled cart can be coupled with>a new highpower engine + turbo and with some future engine>development it too can reach speeds of 60 Mph.">>Couldn't have said it better. Pathetic performance to say the>least and what was thier greatest marketing hype for this>version? Living immersive world. What did they do to achieve>it? Borrow animals from zoo tycoon-a dated obsolete product!!!>No dual core, no SLI and they talk of multi threading!! >>Everyone in MS should be made to read kernighan and ritchie>all over again.>Uhmmm...what does K & R have to do with multi-threading, dual cores, SLI or anything else in your rant?Are you just name-dropping or are you deluded to think that K & R covers more than it does?

[n4gix 4,948]

>Couldn't have said it better. Pathetic performance to say the>least and what was thier greatest marketing hype for this>version? Living immersive world. What did they do to achieve>it? Borrow animals from zoo tycoon-a dated obsolete product!!!>No dual core, no SLI and they talk of multi threading!! Excuse me, but this is the "I want to contribute something useful!" thread...The "I just want to p*ss and moan" thread is over there =>

[mrfuni 0]

Peter, I have to agree with you...When I fired up the latest demo I just left the settings where they defaulted to...which was higher then I expected. I tweaked a few things down and man this is a nice experience. I will be buying the full version, and flying it along side fs9

[Manny 1,293]

Sorry.Total misrepresentation of what folks have been saying about performance issue.There is a real gap between Processor technology direction and the way FSX's single threaded architecture is hitting the wall.Manny

[erict 9]

"It's been made to work in 3 years from now on computers more than twice as fast."I don't agree with this statement at all. FSX was not designed with multi core CPUs in mind. Later this year quad core CPUs will be released. Who knows how many cores CPUs will have 3 years from now. Even with an 8 core CPU, FSX can only really use the full potention of one core. So 3 years from now we'll be running FSX on one core while the rest are playing with their balls. Impressive...Meanwhile other 'games' like Crysis were designed from the ground up to take advantage of dual core CPUs and DX10.& yeah there is something we can do about it. Not buy FSX.

[Guest Elvi5]

Hey Peter,You make some good points & for the most part I do agree with you.I'm a scenery developer for Fly Tampa & from our perspective FSX isn't so much of a blessing. For you, FSX is wonderful; you have 2x the texture res to play with.For us, the FSX scenery SDK is bias towards creating default looking scenery. We'd rather totally override all the default elements & replace them with custom made 3DS MAX objects. This is vital for Runways, Taxiways & Ground. FS2002 had a feature called ground polygons that is vital for creating any quality airport scenery. All the major developers rely on it & have cried to keep it in play. Of course MS didn't care despite many pleas in their beta forums. They may have good reason? I suspect they'd prefer us to use terrain based photo meshing, but these are extremely difficult to control & far lower in resolution.For making airports, we'd prefer to work in Max as much as possible. To be able to define runtime parameters like visible distance, texture swaps, no shadows, LODs, Reference points (pivot based not 0,0,0 in max), taxiway lighting etc. Currently making an airport work requires a lot of hand coding that shouldn't really be necessary with reasonable exporter plugins.Another issue is the current performance, there

[Guest Elvi5]

.

[Guest Ozzie]

....Hello! Guys! (& Gals) - at long last we see some intelligent comments coming inWhat a missed opportunity for Micro$haft to actually show the world that they can REALLY write software (no reflection on the poor #### from ACES)Never mind all the duck shoving hype from the golden tower in Redmond - this is yet another disaster - they have not yet even got Vista working properly and yet they proclaim that FSX relies upon it and DX10 Hello! - why would a Software company rely on a bunch of Hardware companies to get them out of the manure? - How much easier would it have been to actually let the poor buggers from ACES actually write multi-threaded software to take care of any "spare" processing power available - yes I realise that we all want to encode movies on all the other cores that Intel and others are going to provide us with "soon" - but NOT me - I like to just FLY for relaxation using EVERY resource available to me for that benefit - especially since I have to pay through the nose to get the Hardware upgrades that this piece of software cannot utilise

[B777ER 2,489]

Good post George although not very heartning for those of us that look forward to Fly Tampa's work. Perhaps you all should continue developing for FS9 as many of us are staying with it! I am sure some MS a really excited user will be along shortly to tell you how wrong you are and that FSX is the best thing MS has ever released (either they are paid by MS, afraid to talk about the crystal palace in Redmond for fear they may actually read the thread or have their head in the sand).For those that don't know, George designs games for a well know company in Florida and believe me, he knows what the heck he is talking about! MS/ACES should bloody wake up!

[Guest]

>Good post George although not very heartning for those of us>that look forward to Fly Tampa's work. Perhaps you all should>continue developing for FS9 as many of us are staying with it!>>I am sure some MS a really excited user will be along shortly to tell you how>wrong you are and that FSX is the best thing MS has ever>released (either they are paid by MS, afraid to talk about the>crystal palace in Redmond for fear they may actually read the>thread or have their head in the sand).>For those that don't know, George designs games for a well>know company in Florida and believe me, he knows what the heck>he is talking about! >MS/ACES should bloody wake up!Seriously, shut up. Saying this might convince Tom to put me in the doghouse, but I think its worth it just to get this off my chest . All you do is whine and complain, offer something constructive or disconnect your keyboard, log off, and take a break for a while. You have over 2000 posts, and from the way you've been acting it seems like the next 2000 are going to be more of this. How old are you? Because I'd be surprised if you were a day over 13. Coming onto this forum and offering nothing but your negative attitude over and over isn't going to make your FPS counter increase. If you like FS9, go play with that and quit complaining about software you won't even use.

[Guest tango_d]

Peter...........What a breath of fresh air !!!!!!! :-cool Living in the UK, we still don't have FSX until maybe this Friday if we're lucky. x(But, hey - I know there's lots of people out there getting frustrated and i'm sure it will frustrate me a little having all those goodies not quite available to me straight away, but frankly i will be patient. I will still enjoy it the new version, just as every previous version. Sometimes we all have to exercise just a little patience. Upgrades - heck yeah, i'll be doin it just as i've done before and i'll certainly do again no doubt, but it won't dampen my enthusiasm for this great hobby.MS have given us a great new platform to tinker with - they didn't have to remember, and yeah they make some money too, i don't begrudge them for it - that's just business and life.....I still know i will get more value out of this than any other regular PC simulation out there by miles....Thanks too Peter for your great work :-)Just my two pence / bucks /cents worth !! Off my soap box now LOL.....Best RegardsEddy North Wales - UK

[Guest tdragger]

Gosh, that post is such a gem I can't really add anything more! ;)

[Guest tango_d]

:-lol :-lol :-lol RgsEd North Wales - UK

[Jimmy Angel 19]

>Don't try and run FSX flat out. It's been made to work in 3>years from now on computers more than twice as fast.>I agree with much of your sentiment, but this argument always makes me scratch my head. Why would we want a sim that's made to run at full tilt in 3 years when Microsoft releases a new version every 2-3 years?I can understand staying ahead of the curve by 6 months or maybe even a year, but 3 years? What is the point in that?Imagine, in a year, if we had reasonably priced hardware that could run FSX at full-tilt. By full tilt I mean all sliders to the right, decent res, AA, Anisotropic, a moderate number of add-ons, default-level plane complexity, urban areas with cloudy weather--all at a steady 30fps. Would we be complaining at that point that FSX was behind the times, that they needed to issue a new version so our systems could struggle once again? Heck, no. We'd be praising FSX as one of the greatest versions ever.Perhaps DX10 and Vista will give us that capability in a 6 months or a year. If so, then kudos to Microsoft. Personally, I am going to wait it out and see. If that capability is 3 years away, I am not going to even bother.