Jeffyou're reading this), that you are a programmer as well, so if possible, could you maybe explain in layman's terms what makes the coding so bad.Except for some basic programming in assembly, basic, and limited cobol long ago on 8088 and 8086 computers , doing page flipping, sprite manipulation, debugging, that sort of thing I've always had an appreciation for programmers. But you don't have to be a programmer to know that the code, which can't run efficiently on present duo-core computers is bloated and non-optimized. Even the Aces guys admitted that it was too late with this version to rewrite the thing from the bottom up indicating to me that you do not have an optimized situation.The poster above is echoing things I've always heard about simulators compared to this or that software but given the new game engines out there like the CryEngine I'm sorry it won't wash. See, even us with limited knowledge know when our systems are being dragged down by poor coding such as the autogen issue and others.But at least I question what has been repeatedly regurgigated for the masses. Yourself, you seem to be very receptive, no matter what excuse is made for this version.

Len's just a troll. He's obviously feeling hungry.Looks like the little ms a really excited user are coming out to feed.

I think it's not a question of technical feasability rather than one of economic feasability - ie would it cost too much to build a sophisticated FS engine (in the minds of MS accountants).I believe you are quite correct in this statement. To rebuild the engine may require different programmers, adaptability of new engines, etc. i.e., outside the typical time constraints for preparing the software and getting it to market so that it pays the bills.Regarding the coding. On a very basic level, when I programmed sprites for a game as an example. I'd create maybe five action images and then pointed to their memory locations (such as a character walking). If I was doing this in a high level language such as basic while keeping track of other variables such as a loop for scoring and sprite collision detection routines at some point the code in the high level language becomes too cumbersome and unwieldy. Things start to slow down. I would then optimize the code by sending the program to machine coded subroutines which involved more graphic intensive aspects much more easily and efficiently handled in assembly than in an interpreted language such as basic.I know that programming in C++ and so on allows greater portability across platforms (there's a cost factor to this as well) but I'm wondering to what extent the programming could be machine coded or more efficiently coded.I think many of us flying this version can speculate without having to be ridiculed. I paid for this bloody program ($79 for the Deluxe version) so I have every right to question and wonder - layman or not.

OK genius then explain this:I recently made a modification to FSX that removed the advanced shader functions (such as bump and reflection mapping), and I got better FPS than FS9, with much higher settings including far denser autogen.When you consider that the trees comprise more polys (horizontal as well as vertical) and that the textures are more detailed, as well as a better flight dynamics engine and more detailed scenery, as well as much higher detailed mesh, then really FSX is a highly optimised engine that runs well.Once vid cards run the shaders at least twice as fast as current ones (the next-gen cards will) then I'll be getting that performance with the shaders in FSX turned on!I have in fact arrived at the conclusion that FSX is more efficient than FS9, considering the vastly complex world it needs to simulate.James

Wow you're on a roll!So you know precisely what language was used to develop the graphics engine of FSX? Geez I'm sure you also have a copy of the source at home, I mean you seem to know exactly how efficient it's coding is.FSX is a highly complex app, MUCH more complex than any 3D shooter. It's actually MUCH more complex than FS9. It couldn't be any other way considering how many features it incorporates as well as many enhancements such as better weather/wind modelling.The people who developed FSX are the same that developed FS9. If anything FSX is an improvement in every regard. You don't have to have the sliders turned all the way up. It looks great without autogen if you like the bumpmapping, reflection mapping and light bloom turned on, but if you turn the autogen up as well then you need to realise that hardware will be pushed. On the other hand you can turn advanced shaders off and have plenty of autogen, you just won't get the advanced shading effects. Have a little patience and in probably a year you'll be able to afford a system that'll run FSX surprisingly well.Oh, and $79 is less than the cost of some addons, yet this thing simulates the whole planet up to 10 million feet as well as 24 aircraft with extremely well rendered VCs, as well as the myriad of other features it includes.You should probably cut the ACES team a bit of a break, and really do some research before going on about how the code is inneficient when in reality you don't have a clue.James

>I have seen many people comparing FSX's low framerate against>many other products including first person shooters and saying>how they don't buy the whole "It's pushing the limits of>hardware" thing.>>>You really can't compare the FSX engine against most games.Invest five minutes of your life. Go check the Alan Wake demo from idf ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGoiQaMM61E ). They use all four cores of intel's quadcore to accomplish what you see there. Come back here and tell me that nothing of what they must be doing to accomplish that could be used in flight simulation.Regards,http://www.bremmekamp.com/img/misc/avsim.jpg

OK, but that's to be released in the future. When FSX started development dual core and quad core were not even on the horizon (back in 2003).I've been tech savvy for a while now and the only real implementation of dual core was only made recently. It's much easier to develop for what already exists.I just had a look at it and yes, it looks amazing. The area that it simulates is still far more confined than what is in FSX, and that's understandable because it's a first-person game.But like I said it's very next-gen.James

>You did not really bother to understand (or you can't?)>his point.>>Understood it quite well thank you. An apology for>mediocrity.here here Len. MSFS are cashing in on the fact that most people here like to twaek rather than fly! It's FStweakX

I hear someone trying to compare to Oblivion, well I couldn't run that flat out on a 3Ghz machine with a Gb of RAM and an X800 gfx card. If I ran it more than about halfway it got very choppy much like FS, in fact worse, as at least FSX still runs at 8 fps.

>>OK, but that's to be released in the future. When FSX started development dual core and quad core were not even on the horizon (back in 2003).Neither was DX10, DX10 capable video cards or Vista, yet MS have have 'optimised' FSX to run with this technology - and they haven't even hit the shelves yet. Dual core has been around for a year or more already.....

Not yet it isn't, FSX will need a patch to be optimised for DX10, as stated many times by tdragger and others.

>OK, but that's to be released in the future. When FSX started>development dual core and quad core were not even on the>horizon (back in 2003).>>I've been tech savvy for a while now and the only real>implementation of dual core was only made recently. It's much>easier to develop for what already exists.This is all very true (provided that they really started on FSX right after FS9 was released, which I highly doubt, but that's not the point) and I'm not saying that FSX should deliver all that can be anticipated from multicore processing in the future.I'm just saying the "FS is not a FPS" song, suggesting that there's nothing in FPS development that FS could benefit from, is getting old and, frankly, wrong. Hearing it all over again ist tiresome.Regards,http://www.bremmekamp.com/img/misc/avsim.jpg

It was stated by the devs that DX10 is only planned and nothing more. Promises that's all, I just hope for our and their sakes that that patch will blow us away by actually living up to all it's hype. But I will bet you my liver that those renditions of the lake they showed half a year ago will not be feasable even in DX10.And they could have darn well developed for Dualcore when they knew that would be the next best thing. Multiple CPU's have been around forever, so not being able to test that is no excuse whatsover. In fact, they that's not what they say at all, they just say it introduces many problems with the engine. I say they should have overcome those problems instead of just saying how difficult it would be.God, I'm dying for a complete overhaul of the FS engine.Again, I'm not bashing FSX, I do like it and I bought it the first day despite knowing it not running very well on my PC, but I strongly believe it could be so much more if the old engine was dumped.

Another thread of "you should be thankfull for the 4fps you are getting because FS is so cutting edge it doesn't even have real lightning!"BS!Who even gets the 50fps you speak of? Heck, i would be happy with 15...

You should probably cut the ACES team a bit of a break, and really do some research before going on about how the code is inneficient when in reality you don't have a clue.You don't have a clue yourself which is why you're sounding like a commercial for FSX rather than helping. And as you saw by that link - here we have FSX which can't run efficiently on a duo core system let alone high end HT systems (like my own - by the way does FSX take advantage of HT?). These guys are programming quad core and yet duo core is a year old. The reason FSX didn't go back to the drawing board to take advantage of the duo core system is cost. Get it out quick and those who complain ridicule them and state it's for the future - not in its current coded state is it.