Quote:2: In essence, if Moores Law is the factoring equation used by the ACES team at the time they sat down to project FSX requirements, then while Hard Drive capacities have easily kept pace with ML, (doubling in size every 3 years, and consistent with the installed size of FSX) then the CPU race is currently some way behind, and future developments seem intent on taking as much from dual and quad core as possible, at the cost of raw data processing speed. Indeed, there is plenty of sense in saying that the speed of processors today is ample for the knowledge and software of today, and that it is the data volume, not speed that needs improving.UnquoteI'm not sure I agree with the idea that ML is faling behind. We currently are in the process of moving from 90 nm fab to 65 nm fab. So I think in terms of transistor density we are moving in the right direction. Aren't we still using something like 300mm wafers (sorry to lazy to look up right now).The problem is the power density. That leads to using something other than GHz to increase performance.Phil T is giving us some great insight (Thanks!) in the problem of FSX thread blocking due to need to call graphics functions. scott s..

You sir, are on a ROLL!!! Again, ditto.

Umm, I hate to be the monkey in your wrench, but look at my rig specs below. Granted I have a highly customized system but I can gurantee you that my system right now is among the fastest systems available for home use ANYWHERE on this planet. With all sliders right I sometimes get confused whether I'm running Microsoft FSX or Microsoft Picture Viewer. I don't think you will find any threads making the claims you made above. I don't think that you will build a system anytime soon that will accomplish your goals. I do think that hope springs eternal, so god bless your heart for being so positive! But it ain't gonna happen no time soon my friend.And then there was FS11 :-lol

>Umm, I hate to be the monkey in your wrench, but look at my>rig specs below. Granted I have a highly customized system>but I can gurantee you that my system right now is among the>fastest systems available for home use ANYWHERE on this>planet. Not to be rude, but give me the statistics of your overclock. I am curious how you overclocked your 4800+ to a 6000+, along with memory timings and bus speeds. Also, what is the reported MHz of your processor?

Isnt your memory, at PC3200, very low considering latest Corsair memory is 8500?What is your FSB speed? Isnt that for 400FSB?I suspect that on 1066FSP Systems with PC8500 memory, given the CPU bound nature of the app and how much data it touches, that you would see some benefit.

Could anyone explain this to me... Why both my cores are being used? I don't have anything but the FSX running. (a a couple of nvida monitor and memstatus thingi. Overall..the utilization is at 55% no matter how the affinity was set. That didn't budge. so there may not be consuption of overall CPU cycles by the Sim. The wasted CPU cycls remaining the same.All I did was...set affinity to just 1 and then reset it back to 0 and 1.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161273.jpgThese are my settings.h ttp://img167.imageshack.us/my.php?image=allright2ia9.jpgAlmost everything to the right. Including Autogen, Bloom, and check out AI. That AI is 100% with Ultimate Traffic from FS9 copied over. Except I am flying in that default airfield east of Seattle.. I forget what its called. In this Screen I get close to 20FPS. However, when I go down to the trees its around 14FPS.http://img167.imageshack.us/my.php?image=allright1wf4.jpgI flew to Seattle and it was at 8-9FPS..But thats with 100% UT AI and at DuskNote that I have my Frames at UNLIMITED. Which makes my fiber % moot. which I have set at .75. I really need that no Blurries mainly for the photosceneries, so for that..I will Set Framerate to 24 or so which would kick start the .75 Fiber thingi. Since I don't have blurries problem with default textures I moved it to UNLIMITED which gives me a few more FPS.I have not compromised on FSX by replacing textures of any kind.[url=http://img167.imageshack.us/my.php?image=allright1wf4.jpgCore 2 Duo E6600 OC to 3.3GVideo Card nVidia 8800GTX 670MBRaptor RAID 0.Memory Corsair 2GigsDell 24" Widescreen and an Elo 19" LCD Touchscreen

54% of both cores, whether split equally amongst the two, or one flogs its guts out and the other just ticks over, is still 54% - same amount of horsepower going to FSX. When you can get noticably more than 54% across both cores, no matter how it's mixed up across the two, then dual core will finally be beneficial with this title.Gary

You are quite right Gary..I am realizing that.So,,just moving tasks to the second core per se means nothing. In this case... I feel its the Win XP Scheduler that is doing that.MAnny

Lookit that, over 1000 view for this thread and lots of responses in a couple of days! I really wish our hardware forum was in here, because as soon as things go there, the view and participation rate drops to about 10% of in here for similar threads. :( Gary

http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161274.jpgLook at that.. I moved the second core graphy below the first. Look at the highs and lows..when the first core is busy..the second core is not...and vice versa.That means..the first core is waiting for the stuff thats at the second core.Thats like two blokes doing a job...but one bloke is taking a break while the other fellow works. What a cop out. Thats just swapping the tasks between 2 cores back and forth. Right?But atleast I won't wear out one of the cores. ;)MAnny:)