One if the threads are waiting for each other. I am saying in the flight simulation subsystems, they don't have to wait. Even the rendering engine can be done in a multithread fashion with minimal interaction.

I think you are underestimating the required amount of interaction of the coding BO. I see what you are saying, but as an amateur designer I highly disagree with you. The coding requires a TON of backtracking, IF switches and other parameters that all MUST work together for everything to function.

Yes, and by no means am I saying it isn't possible to multi-thread a game like FSX, just that it's tricky - and I do see exactly where you are coming from, but to take your example of preparing the autogen objects on a seperate processor or thread - sure, you could, and then the rendering engine can just do it's magic with that data prepared. However, the catch is, when it is behind and it decides it has gotten behind the renderer and just decides to 'drop' those objects, that is a whole load of processing cycles just wasted. With that said, the counter argument could be - well, it's not really using my second core anyway, so how would that harm things? Well other than the bit of overhead for the interprocess communications, as things are currently where it just doesn't use your other processor cores to any degree, it probably wouldn't! :)

Very true, and couple that with the fact that threads generally run in their own 'safe' spaces, and use a special form of communication (inter-thread communication) which helps make sure everything plays nicely, there is significant overhead in that - for it to work, you want a thread to do a significant bit of processing before it needs to interact with another one.Building multi-threaded applications is very tricky (I do it), done badly the impact can be significant, and worse, lead to lots more bugs and inexplicable crashes.Don't get me wrong, I by no means don't think the ACES team aren't up to it - just to bring us MSFS in the first place means they must be a very talented bunch of individuals!

>However, the catch is, when it is behind and it decides it has>gotten behind the renderer and just decides to 'drop' those>objects, that is a whole load of processing cycles just>wasted. FSX is already doing it now. I can beg that when you are getting blurries, the textures are half load but FSX designed to drop them and put blurries on the screen instead of killing the FR. On the other hand, if the renderer decides not send those objects to the gfx card because they are not ready, it is only for the current frame, they will be ready for the next frame. No a single Hz of CPU cycle wasted.

You have show me what system in a flight simulator needs to be back tracked. As far as I can tell, everything is in a forward going bases.

"We choose to go to the moon and do these other things, not because they are easy...but because they are hard." - John F. Kennedy.

>http://techreport.com/etc/2006q4/source-mu...re/index.x?pg=1>>Valve's struggle to implement a sound multi-core processing>routing into their Source engine. This is one of the top 3D>game teams in the world - it's not as easy as many here seem>to think!What makes you think that they "struggle"?It's not struggle, it's just investing some money and talent. Mutlicore support in games isn't trivial and easy to do, but it can be done.In 2 years (or earlier) if your game does not support multicores, you will be out of business. The alternative is 10Ghz diamond based chips.

Who says Flight simulation is difficult to multi thread? Level D sims all use 4+ seperate computers to give the sim pilot one single instance of the sim. What happens to all the dependencies mumbo jumbo? A single instance of FS can be broken into subtasks and processed in a pipeline manner across cores with the last core tied to the GPU.

While I support ACES attempts to continue their investigation towards multi core support, on the other hand the rabid fans of the FS series really need to calm down and put down the pitchforks. Sure, we all expect great things for our current games, but I have yet to see a game implement multiple core technology yet! You know what that tells me? It isn't as easy as some of you would like to think. That was the purpose of this article, while there are companies trying, we STILL don't have software that accomplishes it yet and now we are getting quad cores?!If you purchased a dual/quad core processor for the multi core technology alone and didn't get the performance you expected, tough luck. You should have THOUGHT about the lack of current support.I am not saying we shouldn't be asking for this, but as consumers we also need to take a step back and put ourselves into the shoes of game developers. Name ONE current piece of gaming software that uses multicore technology to its fullest that is currently on the market. Name ONE. Now, why do you expect MS and ACES (people who have real budgets and a business to run) to suddenly break the mold?Lets get real folks. Too many of you are asking way too much simply because you bought into the consumerism of the technology without thinking. It will be a few more years still before we still see the benefits of such technologies on the gaming market, or at least for it to become mainstream. Until then, calm down and stop acting like children about it and let the people who do this for a living (putting food on table) figure it out.

>I am not saying we shouldn't be asking for this, but as>consumers we also need to take a step back and put ourselves>into the shoes of game developers. Name ONE current piece of>gaming software that uses multicore technology to its fullest>that is currently on the market. Name ONE. Now, why do you>expect MS and ACES (people who have real budgets and a>business to run) to suddenly break the mold?Because MS and ACES themself state that they build FS for the future hardware available 2-3 years from now. Now in 2-3 years from now we will all be using multi cores wich run more or less at the same Mhz we have today and maybe a few extra optimalisations of the cores.FS-X certainly doesn't perform that well on current highend hardware and the limited support on dual-cores means that in the future the performance won't improve. FS-X isn't build for future hardware. At the moment it doesn't fully support multi-cores or DX-10. FS-X is build for todays hardware and its performance is lacking. Without a (promised) DX10 patch (and maybe a multi-core patch) its a joke.Now compare that to other gaming software currently on the market. There is a large difference. Almost all those other games run well on current high-end hardware. They are build to run on current (top-end) hardware so they don't need multi-core support that hard right now. And know what? Some companies like Valve are already developing multi core patches for their current software... Want to make a bet? Valve wil support full multi-core before MS/Aces does and they will update their full Half Life 2 line of software with a multi-core patch. At the same time we will keep on changing texture sizes, tweaking the fsx.cfg and deleting xml files in the persuit of 1-2 frames more.With the stated goal of making software for the hardware we have in 2008 FS-X fails. If they had made a real effort to do that FS-X would have been the first game to fully support multi-core. Thats a shame. But what's even worse FS-X also fails on current hardware (presumably because it wasn't their target platform) and thats simply the dealbreaker for me.

>Because MS and ACES themself state that they build FS for the>future hardware available 2-3 years from now. Now in 2-3 years>from now we will all be using multi cores wich run more or>less at the same Mhz we have today and maybe a few extra>optimalisations of the cores.So, MHz wise things may not change... has that stopped AMD from curving the lost ground in the MHz battle by producing solid processors? Is their architecture based SOLELY around MHz? If your answer is yes, then I don't think my argument will pan out well with you.>FS-X certainly doesn't perform that well on current highend>hardware and the limited support on dual-cores means that in>the future the performance won't improve. FS-X isn't build for>future hardware. At the moment it doesn't fully support>multi-cores or DX-10. FS-X is build for todays hardware and>its performance is lacking. Without a (promised) DX10 patch>(and maybe a multi-core patch) its a joke.Funny, it performs just fine on my computer. I recall FS9 didn't run with sliders full right at release on my just purchased $3,000 monster either.>Now compare that to other gaming software currently on the>market. There is a large difference. Almost all those other>games run well on current high-end hardware. They are build to>run on current (top-end) hardware so they don't need>multi-core support that hard right now. And know what? Some>companies like Valve are developing multi core patches for>their current software...All those games are not simulators. We are not asking them to perform functions that are capable of thousand dollar commercial simulators at the price of $70. And no, "some" of those games run well, some most assuredly do not. Also, name a single game currently made that HAS full on dual core support. You won't find one. Has ACES not mentioned they are looking into the subject at any rate? How long has HL2 been out? Are you willing to wait for an answer or are you just sharpening your pitchfork?>With the stated goal of making software for the hardware we>have in 2008 FS-X fails.Interesting assessment. I hope I remember to bring this up in 2008 when and if our computers (which I believe they will) will be running FSX smooth as silk.>If they had made a real effort to do>that FS-X would have been the first game to fully support>multi-core. Thats a shame. But what's even worse FS-X also>fails on current hardware (presumably because it wasn't their>target platform) and thats simply the dealbreaker for me.Well, perhaps you need to go back to FS9, but in the meantime I will be enjoying a game which functions fine for me, without all that dual core BS. Perhaps you people should have looked at the market a bit more before investing in the technology... once again, as I have said, name a single game currently out (patch or no patch) that supports the features of dual core processing to its fullest. Again, you will find none. I think too many people are being unrealistic about the requirements and work that has to be done to utilize this technology correctly.Again, I also reiterate the fact that ACES has already stated they will patch the game for DX10 as well as they are currently looking into further multicore support along with a plethora of other issues. Until such a time that I hear from a representative, I think you can put your pitchfork down because this tired old song is frankly getting tired and old. I have no sympathy for people that didn't do their homework on this, and I certainly have no sympathy for those people that wasted their money on a computer just to run FSX without educating themselves.

>>future hardware. At the moment it doesn't fully support>>multi-cores or DX-10. FS-X is build for todays hardware and>>its performance is lacking. Without a (promised) DX10 patch>>(and maybe a multi-core patch) its a joke.[/b]>>Funny, it performs just fine on my computer. I recall FS9>didn't run with sliders full right at release on my just>purchased $3,000 monster either.>>>Now compare that to other gaming software currently on>the>>market. There is a large difference. Almost all those other>>games run well on current high-end hardware. They are build>to>>run on current (top-end) hardware so they don't need>>multi-core support that hard right now. And know what? Some>>companies like Valve are developing multi core patches for>>their current software...>>All those games are not simulators. We are not asking them to>perform functions that are capable of thousand dollar>commercial simulators at the price of $70. And no, "some" of>those games run well, some most assuredly do not. Also, name aYeah, and other games complexity is at the level of Pong. You buying into this BS, which is even more funny that you don't understand hardware trends and can't simply look at roadmaps of hardware developers/manufacturers.Actually, comparing to todays standard FPS and other type of games, FSX is somewhere in the bottom/middle middle when it comes to complexity, unless there is some hidden voodoo I don't understand and can't see (probably is, considering how FSX performs). Even amount of content isn't comparable to some RGP games. I'd like to remind you that FSX nor any of FS series are proper simulators of anything. They are just plain old computer games with a couple of more or less convincing aircrafts and fairly good but boxy representation of architecture and world.Regular flight sim simulators run happily on multiple computers.>>Well, perhaps you need to go back to FS9, but in the meantime>I will be enjoying a game which functions fine for me, without>all that dual core BS. Perhaps you people should have looked>Just wait few months from now, if your game won't support multiple cores, or at least heavily use DX10, you will be out of business, period. Other who use multicores will have better performance, more characters on screen, better physics, more polygons deformed by skeletal animations, better AI etc.Before you open your mouth on me, I work in computer games industry since 1996 and have many worldwide released titles on my resume, including one flight simulator type game.I don't blame ACES for this fiasco, there is way too many reasons why games are rushed to the market, devs are the last of them.

>Yeah, and other games complexity is at the level of Pong. You>buying into this BS, which is even more funny that you don't>understand hardware trends and can't simply look at roadmaps>of hardware developers/manufacturers.I didn't say dual core technology wasn't the future of gaming. I said currently the technology is unsupported, which is true.>Actually, comparing to todays standard FPS and other type of>games, FSX is somewhere in the bottom/middle middle when it>comes to complexity, unless there is some hidden voodoo I>don't understand and can't see (probably is, considering how>FSX performs). Even amount of content isn't comparable to some>RGP games. I'd like to remind you that FSX nor any of FS>series are proper simulators of anything. They are just plain>old computer games with a couple of more or less convincing>aircrafts and fairly good but boxy representation of>architecture and world.You JUST said in the first paragraph that "other games complexity is at the level of Pong." Am I missing something, or are you contradicting yourself. If you don't understand the complexity of aircraft, or for that matter the simulation thereof then perhaps you need to do more research. We are not talking about rendering a dragon with a million polygons in an enclosed space. We are talking about rendering 50+ miles of landmass with weather effects, a moving airmass along with thousands of auto generated objects placed on a moving geometric plain in which you control the environment in an almost sandbox like situation. If you can't understand the complexities of this, then perhaps we shouldn't be debating.>Regular flight sim simulators run happily on multiple>computers.Oh, you mean like X-Plane, Fly! and FUIII? Interesting you mention that, because those games are not recent releases (with the exception of X-Plane, and I really don't care to get into the debate of the quality of that simulator.)>Just wait few months from now, if your game won't support>multiple cores, or at least heavily use DX10, you will be out>of business, period. Other who use multicores will have better>performance, more characters on screen, better physics, more>polygons deformed by skeletal animations, better AI etc.Somehow, I doubt that. Software developers have always managed to make due. A great example of this is the aforementioned X-Plane, which for the most part has little dual core usage as well as is not a major shelf release. They seem to be doing fine. Also, did you forget you are talking about Microsoft?>Before you open your mouth on me, I work in computer games>industry since 1996 and have many worldwide released titles on>my resume, including one flight simulator type game.Personally, I could care less... but since you want to take this personal, I REALLY could care less. The program runs fine for me, I get acceptable frame rates and I am planning my next upgrade. If you EXPECT developers to feature dual core support in their games, take a look at the game releases for the next 6 months and specify which ones have full dual core support and have a chance at being a true hit among gamers. You might get one, maybe two... if you are lucky, but my list is still empty.This isn't a pissing contest at any rate, and like I said your credentials really don't mean a whole lot to me. If you want to have an intelligent conversation, have one, but don't bring personal information into this. I won't comment any further on this.>I don't blame ACES for this fiasco, there is way too many>reasons why games are rushed to the market, devs are the last>of them.I really don't have a comment for this, simply because I don't see eye to eye with you on the subject. I think the product, while not perfect is not any worse then any prior release of FS.

>>Because MS and ACES themself state that they build FS for>the>>future hardware available 2-3 years from now. Now in 2-3>years>>from now we will all be using multi cores wich run more or>>less at the same Mhz we have today and maybe a few extra>>optimalisations of the cores.>>So, MHz wise things may not change... has that stopped AMD>from curving the lost ground in the MHz battle by producing>solid processors? Is their architecture based SOLELY around>MHz? If your answer is yes, then I don't think my argument>will pan out well with you.>Show me an future architecture that can double the performance of a processor without changing MHz. No new cores please.>>FS-X certainly doesn't perform that well on current>highend>>hardware and the limited support on dual-cores means that in>>the future the performance won't improve. FS-X isn't build>for>>future hardware. At the moment it doesn't fully support>>multi-cores or DX-10. FS-X is build for todays hardware and>>its performance is lacking. Without a (promised) DX10 patch>>(and maybe a multi-core patch) its a joke.>>Funny, it performs just fine on my computer. I recall FS9>didn't run with sliders full right at release on my just>purchased $3,000 monster either.>I disagree. Exactly three years ago this month. I built my current (see sign) machine, and it ran and still running FS9 well out of the box with everything max. Oh, I didn't spend half as much as your monster machine either.>>Now compare that to other gaming software currently on>the>>market. There is a large difference. Almost all those other>>games run well on current high-end hardware. They are build>to>>run on current (top-end) hardware so they don't need>>multi-core support that hard right now. And know what? Some>>companies like Valve are developing multi core patches for>>their current software...>>All those games are not simulators. We are not asking them to>perform functions that are capable of thousand dollar>commercial simulators at the price of $70. And no, "some" of>those games run well, some most assuredly do not. Also, name a>single game currently made that HAS full on dual core support.>You won't find one. Has ACES not mentioned they are looking>into the subject at any rate? How long has HL2 been out? Are>you willing to wait for an answer or are you just sharpening>your pitchfork?>You call FSX a simulator? OK, FSX is simulator just for argument sake. Game like Oblivion requires high processing power. However, their programmers used smarter technics in the rendering engine so CPU cycles can be saved to do other things. Otherwise, how do you think they are able to put a million+ tree on a scene and rendering it at 24fps. In the multi-core department. Valve has already done the engine. Have you heard ANY initiative from ACES? All I am hearing is that they are investigating ways to take advantage of DX10? Quite frankly, which does mean that "Oh, let me start thinking about it." which means DX10 wasn't even in their game plane since day one. However, I don't blame them as DX10 wasn't even in the drawing board when the project started. Which might lead to the code wasn't designed with shifting of computing paradigm in mind. So guys, keep your expectation low for the performance of the DX10 patch, if it ever comes out that is.