"So I can percieve the add-on developers having a challenging time in the near future. Many folks will be waiting to upgrade their hardware, and so naturally will be cautious about buying add-ons for the new sim that in stock form already taxes any hardware combination available. Uncertain consumers have a tendency to sit on their money."Greg, your statement is correct regarding the challenging times for FS Developers over the short term but we at Eaglesoft are optomistic about the future of FS Development over the longer term.:-)It seems that FSX Development does present a challenge/learning curve but it does not spell doom for us at Eaglesoft. With four FSX products already available and the rest of our FSX product line progressing well we see no need for doom and gloom...We do recognize however, that for some developers, the costs in time and effort to continue in FSX Development may be more than they wish to devote and may simply wish to save themselves the headaches in the future.

HelloI just cannot see how ACES did not see multiple core CPU's as the future of processor design.AMD announced the X2 range in April 2005So it would have planning the move to dual core for some time before that I would have thought that Microsoft being the folks who just happen to be writing the next version of the OS that most of these processors would be running did not have a clue as to AMD and Intels intentions.Now fast forward to the release of FSX and it is nearly impossible to buy a fast AMD single core chip at the online retail sites that i look at.Unless they get this Sim to work properly on Dual and Quad core CPU's then it is a piece of software that is stuck in the past.This may be the last major game written for single core CPU's, a legacy app a month after release.

>Is there much chance the new driver implementation in Vista>combined with DX10 will totally reframe the argument, ie that>the CPU/memory subsystem is always the limiting factor? >Perhaps this is much more the case in XP/DX9/FS9, and so there>may be reason for hope for FSX with or without multi-core? >Hard to believe the developers couldn't have seen all this in>spades during the early phases of product development. Or is>is more likely that ACES didn't see multi-core as the trend of>the relatively near future?>>NoelNo chance whatsoever, without a code re-write from the ground up. Although Vista will re-write the Input/Output speed equation for the OS, it really will have little impact on FSX, except to slow it down in some cases (the OS takes more system resources than before, leaving less available to the sim) or by at best regularising the fps a little (as has already been seen by some who have tried Vista RC2 and FSX, under DX9). I suspect we might then see the much-vaunted `smoothness at low fps` that was promised, but certainly not delivered so far.Even then, you'll have to upgrade to at least 2 gig of RAM or more to get the most out of Vista. And that's after you've spent all that money on Vista itself, which is a very pricey option. If indeed you wish to, as the performance/pound equation seems clearly to favour running FSX under XP with better hardware than would be possible if part of the budget was redirected to the new OS.ACES make no bones about what the game was written for - Vista/DX9. Vista/DX9 performance cannot be much greater than XP/DX9 and in any case, the bottleneck with FSX is shown to be CPU, not GPU or API. I see little hope that MS will perform miracles. Instead we might get reduced textures as standard, more limited options and some subtle engine editing, but you can't spend two years developing something, then re-write it in only months and double fps. Not without sacrificing a firstborn. ;)While the perspiration has to come from the MS boys, I hope the inspiration will probably have to come from the aftermarket, who may be able to devise methods to make use of dual or multiple cores to run their software outside of FSX on the separate `spare` core, but allied to it using Simconnect or some other bridging interface. What this shows is that developing too far ahead is worse than developing for todays market, when it comes to flight sims. Just look at what the hardware upgrades that people are spending money on to still be disappointed by FSX performance can do for FS9!Allcott

While there is no doubt that FSX's lack of ability to fully utilise dual - and even multi-core processors - is something of a setback, the reasons why this is so have been fairly thoroughly gone into in other threads. However, some things needs to be borne in mind here...Most of the people developing multi-core processor technology will tell you that it, in large part, was developed to allow multiple applications to run, since a single application on a multi-core system has to (at some point) pull the information from multiple processors together in order to move to the next calculation. As far as I'm aware, essentially this is the crux of the FS problem in terms of multi-core utilisation.At the heart of the multi-core development process is a desire to continue progress - the method for which - was in some part forced upon the developers of processors, because of physical limitations in constructing them.These limitations include: Wire capacitance (which has put the brakes on practical methods of reducing of the actual physical distance data has to travel); Power leakage issues (which has meant that processors have to physically ramp up the amount of power they take, in order to keep going despite power leakages); Tunnelling (such as the need to avoid quantum mechanical tunnelling - where the data actually skips through shorter routes because the distances involved and manufacturing tolerances are microscopic). This is of course a simplified round up of the issues (and doesn't even get into SLI and other factors), but it's close enough without turning this post into a 20,000 word dissertaion :-)With all of this in mind, side-stepping the physical limitations of miniaturising processors further, to achieve faster processing speeds by simply not bothering to do it and instead gluing two or even four processors together seems like a logical way to go. But in terms of making technology affordable, if the only means of progress is to add even greater numbers of processors, at some point the game is not going to be worth the candle, and processors are going to end up both physically large and large in terms of how much they cost to produce and sell (or not sell if the cost becomes prohibitive).This in itself will, of necessity, drive development of single core processors, which of course may never appear in any form other than as part of a multiple core unit, but the problem remains the same. Ultimately, real progress is going to have to come in the form of making a single unit faster. Therefore I imagine even as part of a multi-core unit, development of the various single core speeds will continue.At the time of the decision to concentrate on making FSX dependent on a single core (a decision which it has been explained has much to do with the difficulties in doing otherwise), Intel and AMD were yet to come to the conclusion that processors were not going to expand at an exponential rate, and initial hopes that 10 Ghz speeds on processors was just a matter of time, were firmly shelved in favour of going the multiple-core route. Of course, well into the development of FSX, the developers realised that they might be driving up a blind alley, but one can hardly blame them for continuing to do so, when the ability to utilise the emerging multi-core technology was largely not an option for FS.So where is all this going?I think that there is still much that can be done to improve matters. If we want real progress, FS backward compatibility ought to be dropped for a kick off, perhaps too, it is time for a newer, more capable 3D engine to show its face in FS. Intel staff are on record as saying that a smart programmer who optimises stuff well can achieve in one day what it would take technicians several years to achieve physically, so maybe we need some smart thinking; after all necessity is, and always has been, the mother of invention.If FS remains bound to a single core, ultimately, we might just have to wait for the physical technology of processors to improve. Perhaps this will involve a dramatic change, where there is something completely different from the PC components with which we are all so familiar, the merging of ATI and AMD could open up such possibilities, who knows?Personally, I have several areas of interest in flight simming: One, the less processor-intensive elements, such as gliding and pootling around in a DC-3. But two, I also enjoy flying the big jets (as the 'heavy metal' element of aviation is something I've got very little experience of in real life). So I have to admit that I'm prepared to forego the more realistic fluid dynamics of FSX in favour of FS2004 to enjoy the highly realistic big jet add-ons. I suspect this is a decision many may make (at least in the short-term). I'm not giving up on FSX, there are lots of cool plus-points to it, but clearly there are some issues that need to be addressed.Anyway, here's my suggestions...For add on FS software that does not need 'instantly' updated data, there would of course be potential for it to utilise a second processor and stream the data to FS at a useable rate. Unfortunately, for stuff like scenery and AI traffic etc, this is not a viable way to go. Real world weather processing on the other hand, with a low rate of change might make use of this method however, and so shifting this to another core might offer some possibilities. Similarly, IRS, INS and FMC data could probably be handed off to a second core. Another possibility would be to drop the inbuilt ATC, for the casual user this would be no great loss, and for the serious user, it tends to get ignored in favour of more convincing options such as radar contact and VATSIM. Kicking all the default WAV files out of your RAM would probably speed things up no end.Whether you choose to fly in 9 or 10 - Happy Landings.

The CS 757 is a disaster in FS9 as well esp. when using the 2D cockpit. I don't think you can compare CS to the rest of them. Craig

>Bill,>>That does not sound good......especially coming from you.With respect Glenn, have you read my disclaimer""NOTE: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, everything written by my hand is MY opinion. I do NOT speak for any company, real or imagined..."It seems evident that some 3rd party developers have opted to place their bets on FSX and made plans accordingly. Other developers wisely decided to support both versions, and not place all their begs in one askit... er, eggs in one basket... ;)

I'm guessing since from a engineering/manufacturing point of view, unless a quantum change in approach happens, Intel n AMD will continue to develop multi-core. It seems reasonable to assume OS & game designers will continue to refine the ways in which tasks can be run on separate processors with more efficient means of timing their interaction points (sorry, don't know the IT jive). Or perhaps multi-core design itself will also improve the applicability towards single games or applications. With Alcott's comment, "No chance whatsoever, without a code re-write from the ground up." seems reasonable enough. That was actually a question I posed, why didn't ACES go the way of multicore support and re-write the code [from the ground up as I've heard it framed]? Has anyone from ACES offered a statement on this? To expensive to offer code for both CPU types? I guess this must be the issue. Anyway, some very insightful comments from Alcott n Chock. I am glad I did not buy FSX. I am disappointed to read that Vista/DX10 and a hot new dual or quad core CPU and DX10 card [vintage about early 2008] may not really fix this thing enough to get overly excited about. Who knows maybe there will be some surprise in the patch that will somehow help things out especially for all the folks who bought in early.