>Bill till now I had some residual respect for you. Its>vapourized completely now with these ridiculous analogy of>yours. Have you ever seen a level d simulator? Forget>processors, that"string" of yours is cut and run on four>different computers and put together in one screen!!! render>loop and similar very less understood by you jargons dont>impress anymore!! Rendering is a just one part and it could>have been very well be tied up to one core and the the gpu>freeing the other core for FDE( this precisely is the>technique used in all modern games). Infact, modern GPUs do>the rendering all by themselves, only old archaic programmers>use GPU for pixelling alone and tax the cpu!!To be perfectly blunt, I honestly don't care what your opinion is about me, or my "rediculous analogy."Was it simplistic? Of course! Was it directed to you? No. It was a deliberately simple analogy to explain how FS works at this time, in laymen's terms.It was directly written to describe a sub-hundred dollar program, not a multi-million dollar collection of hardware and software. Let's keep the expectations realistic, eh?Could it be rewritten to make it better? Of course! But, keep in mind that at the time ACES began work on FSX, duo-core systems were still prototypes in the lab.Furthermore, consider that even today, duo-core systems are still an extremely tiny minority. Would it have made economic sense to backtrack and rewrite the core engine? Evidently not. Wishes of the minority do not drive business decisions, cost-benefit-analysis is the major determinant.By the way, if you care at all, I can safely state that my level of respect for you hasn't changed one iota...

>I've just seen an article that is a bit worrying, something>about messages coming up to do with gauges that say they>aren't registered. And apparently it's going to cost the>developers $500 a year to register themselves to stop these>messages, in other words killing off freeware and smaller>developers who can't afford it. Not to mention it will drive>up the price of add-ons even further.>>If it's true, then it's not good at all. And I have to say>that now I'm beginning to doubt the wisdom of pre-ordering>FSX...Did you bother to read the repiles about that "article" (I'm being polite by not calling it screed)?It's essentially stuff and nonsense.

>Yes I replied with an insult! What in the world do you call>your little diatribe? A freindly critique? Are you totally>daft?>You came on the forum and basically spewed insults at folks>who are simply frustrated with a product. Yeah its just a>'game', a 'game' that as a flight instructor I happen to use>in my business of training pilots. If it means so little to>you, why are you here? And why act surprised that spit and>vinegar would be replied to in kind? Obviously you haven't read some of the posts in this forum! When people start using M$, it becomes apparent that they are lot more than people who are "simply frustrated with a product". They are bashers and incessant whiners!To me a whiner, is a whiner, is a whiner. People with problems ask for help or suggestions, not come in with rants and "threats" that they won't be buying this product. I, and probably most of the people who read this forum, don't give a rat's behind whether anyone buys FSX, and finds these statements totally ignorant!So, if you choose to put your self in the same category as the people above, than you are the same as them. As I said before, I was not addressing anyone specifically, but if the shoe fits.........If you are depending on FSX for your livelyhood, and training of new pilots, than perhaps I'm not the one who is "totally daft"?Isn't it funny how some people with a lesser machines are able to run this program satisfactorily, yet some people with "$4000" systems can't? Maybe having a great machine is only part of the solution? So far I am having little problem running it with my almost a year old "lowly" AMD64 4000+ single Core processor! Looks like most of the complaints are coming from the Dual Core crowd.>As for my financial health---obviously I'm doing pretty well>if I can afford a $4000 computer.Than quit complaining about your monthly payments!>Lastly, why should you care if people are upset over the way>things look to be turning out? Is it really necessary to jump>on here and start calling people 'whiners'? It would be like>me making my first post in the thread about how stupid you are>for drinking the MS Kool Aid. Can you at least understand>that?Because they are the ones doing all of the squawking and manage to infest almost every thread in this forum and I'm tired of running across their mostly ignorant posts. You did read the title of this thread? While there are people with genuine problems, but they get drowned out in the sea of endless bi###ing!I am done with my whining about the whiners, and if you took offense to my post, than I am truly sorry, but I will not apologize for my opinions.Pete S.

I didn't say I depend on it to train pilots. I said I use it. Many do.But then even though you aren't a CFI, I'm sure you know better than I about FS's many practical uses.I love how you twist facts to fit your agenda. Yep I can get FSX to run 40 FPS no problem. Unfortunately that means alot more dumbing down than I found acceptable. For someone like yourself with an old machine, I'm sure the difference is meaningless.And you know what? A whiner might be a whiner, but then an jerk is a jerk--and you sir (*stealing your analogy) fit quite comfortably into that particular shoe. If you can't handle differing opinions, then May I suggest removing yourself from these forums and moving to North Korea? You'd fit right in.As for the real issue at hand:I've purchased FSX since this all began, hoping to see a difference in the retail version. So far, it's about the same. However, to be constructive, I have bought an extra Gig of RAM to see if that makes the difference. An extra Gig puts me a 2 Gigs total, and hopefully that will be enough. Likewise I'm using nearly all of my free time to figure out how to get this thing to sing like a bird. Whatever results I discover I will be happy to share. Perhaps you can get off your high horse, quit bashing people with views that differ from yours, and do something constructive as well.

Might your assement of the article be a tiny bit influenced by an old personal feud with Roy or would that be to big a judgement?I think the worst case scenario has us clicking on 2 to 3 dll not trusted warnings with every start of FS-X. Doable but its a little annoying. A bit like the old module message you get with the FSSOUND.DLL until add the OldModules option in the fs9.cfg only this time you can't get rid of it.

>I didn't say I depend on it to train pilots. I said I use>it. Many do.>But then even though you aren't a CFI, I'm sure you know>better than I about FS's many practical uses.>>I love how you twist facts to fit your agenda. Yep I can get>FSX to run 40 FPS no problem. Unfortunately that means alot>more dumbing down than I found acceptable. For someone like>yourself with an old machine, I'm sure the difference is>meaningless.>>And you know what? A whiner might be a whiner, but then an>jerk is a jerk--and you sir (*stealing your analogy) fit quite>comfortably into that particular shoe. If you can't handle>differing opinions, then May I suggest removing yourself from>these forums and moving to North Korea? >You'd fit right in.>>As for the real issue at hand:>I've purchased FSX since this all began, hoping to see a>difference in the retail version. So far, it's about the>same. However, to be constructive, I have bought an extra Gig>of RAM to see if that makes the difference. An extra Gig puts>me a 2 Gigs total, and hopefully that will be enough. >Likewise I'm using nearly all of my free time to figure out>how to get this thing to sing like a bird. Whatever results I>discover I will be happy to share. >>Perhaps you can get off your high horse, quit bashing people>with views that differ from yours, and do something>constructive as well. You know something Pike?I have tried to be civil to you, but you are obviously an ignorant boob who seems to like taking everything as a personal insult.I never said you were not entitled to your opinions, I went out of my way to make you understand as to who I was talking about, when refering to whiners, but you are obviously either to dense or just spoiling for a fight! Well.... I am not going to oblige you, so you have a nice life! I am done talking to you!Pete S.

Thank God, you were becoming a bore anyway (and taking away from my efforts to tame this beast).

I see your point. In retrospect, I regret my statement. Mostly it's just frustration boiling over, and for that I apologize.

>Might your assement of the article be a tiny bit influenced>by an old personal feud with Roy or would that be to big a>judgement?That would be an incorrect judgement. I've never corresponded with Roy, never met the man, nor used any of his panels or gauges.My evaluation is based on my own knowledge of programming, gauge/panel development, and my working relationship with the nice folks at ACES, as well as other professional and freeware developers. IOW, an objective evaluation rather than a subjective critique based solely on outdated methodologies, and indirect anecdotal comments. ;)>I think the worst case scenario has us clicking on 2 to 3 dll>not trusted warnings with every start of FS-X. Doable but its>a little annoying. A bit like the old module message you get>with the FSSOUND.DLL until add the OldModules option in the>fs9.cfg only this time you can't get rid of it.No, the "worst case" is that you have to manually approve any specific gauge or module ONCE and then forget about it!FSX will calculate a 'hash value' for the gauge/module and store it in the fsx.cfg file:C:Documents and SettingsBillMy DocumentsFlight Simulator XGAUGESCitation II.GAU.buteqhizhnublenboueucnakbkknrbhtzzouhkii=2Of course, if your fsx.cfg file becomes corrupted, or you delete it and allow FSX to create a new one, then you will have to "re-approve" all of the gauges/modules manually, unless you were "proactive enough" to periodically make a backup copy of your fsx.cfg file, or at least this part of the fsx.cfg file! ;)

>Of course, if your fsx.cfg file becomes corrupted, or you>delete it and allow FSX to create a new one, then you will>have to "re-approve" all of the gauges/modules manually,>unless you were "bright enough" to periodically make a backup>copy of your fsx.cfg file! ;)Bill notice this one to should be a great program feature to automate via FSX only important cfg files... (but hey that's the programmer in me :-lol )But you right a backup copy is more important (or was always :-lol )...Thanks for the tip :-)Andr

Ugh, well sounds so good but on my old system I think I'll get it next year sometime.

Bill-You seem pretty knowledgeable, so explain to me how FSX will ever reach max potential without support for multi cores? Do you think even in 3 years we will have machines that can crank this thing up?

>Bill->>You seem pretty knowledgeable, so explain to me how FSX will>ever reach max potential without support for multi cores? Do>you think even in 3 years we will have machines that can crank>this thing up?Well, it probably will reach its potential, even without having been explicitly coded for multi core, but the most important thing to keep in mind is this absolute fact:Whether it does or does not simply isn't relevant with regards to FSX. The meal is already cooked, so the choices are to either go hungry or enjoy it as much as possible.Discussing it, ragging on it, cursing at it, or screaming about it isn't going to change anything about it.However, here are two points to keep in mind:1) When the design process for FSX began, multi-core processors existed on paper, and were still "vaporware." It's darn difficult to design and test without the hardware!2) Even today, multi-processor systems in the hands of simmers are still a very, very tiny minority. It makes no economic sense to blow a very significant part of one's development budget for such a miniscule segment of the market, especially when the odds are that single-core performance would be compromised.

>>1) When the design process for FSX began, multi-core>processors existed on paper, and were still "vaporware." It's>darn difficult to design and test without the hardware!>Didn't we have Hypther Threading?>2) Even today, multi-processor systems in the hands of simmers>are still a very, very tiny minority. It makes no economic>sense to blow a very significant part of one's development>budget for such a miniscule segment of the market, especially>when the odds are that single-core performance would be>compromised.>>So FSX is really made for all those old PCs? Is that what I hear you saying Bill? :)Manny

You aren't offering many proofs to support your reasoning Bill and your contradicting yourself.You said FSX is designed for computers 3 years from now. Like so many others have. Yet, when I pin you down about the multi core future of PC gaming/simming--you dash around the issue and say that they didn't want to hurt the economic majority with something that might hurt single core performance. So why design something meant for hardware 2-3 years away? How's that make economic sense? How many have hardware from 2 years in the future? And you're very wrong about multi-cores being vaporware when FSX was being designed. They were very aware of it, even if it was still in its infancy at the time. You can't say that FSX will probably reach its full potential, when heck even FS9 can't be run full out and getting 30 FPS at KSEA on hardware built 3 years after it's release. It's the same cycle we've been dealing with for years now.Anyway, enough negativity. As you say, its eat or starve. After some basic tweaks, and alot of experimentation, I have FSX Delux running along at about 25-28 FPS in rural areas. It's very, very nice for a default release. Certainly not the pictures on the box, but good work nonetheless. I'm still chugging in cities, though turning off autogen makes a big difference. If there is one improvement that I think the ACES team can hang their hat on , its the flight dyanmics. Before, the planes didn't FEEL like they were suspended in the air. You couldn't 'feel' the bumps in your pants. Now you can. Flying the sailplane is a absolute JOY. Well done creating an activity that by itself could consume untold hours. Once again the visuals are very nice. Bravo for including terrific mesh by default. We've all been paying through the nose for this for years, not anymore. The textures are impressive, though I can't say better than FSE. But the cars going down the road? Terrific. All in all, FSX out of the box is a mild improvement to my admittedly suped up FS9 (suped up as in $200 worth of addons). Not too shabby.If this sim was running 30 FPS universally, it would be the most impressive piece of coding so far this century (in the realm of gaming and sims). As is, it has missed the multi core boat and that will hurt for many years to come. But don't let my critiques fool you---FSX is a terrific piece of work for a measley $70. Makes you wonder how companies can sell "Cargo Pilot" for $20 less with a straight face. I may b*itch about frames, but never doubt I'm liking much of what I am seeing, the more I fly around.