Look at the picture attached. This is a slide from the Intel IDF.Core (65nm) is the latest microarchitecture for Intel and wil be for some time. Nehalem wil be the next new architecture (45nm), not due until 2008 (dont know when in 2008) by which time we will be getting ready for FSXI. There is no doubt that this too will be a multicore CPU. What is unknown is what speed each core will be able to run at.I am sure we will see some good increases from the 45nm process, but how much remains to be seen.

I'm sure I can find this by searching the threads, but could you post a quick set of bullets for me on how to disable autogen, while leaving the major bldgs, etc?If it is a simple as nullifying the autogen value in the tweaked cfg file, then duh on me. If it's more, your help is appreciated.Cheers,bt

Don't laugh....I still have not used tweaking. I just slide the auto-gen slider all the way to the left, but I know some other sliders must be to the right, or you'll loose the buildings. For example, I still get my KSLC airport buildings, in which MS has modeled the actual Class B airport, downtown Salt Lake City, and oil refineries near the airport. I loose the auto-gen subdivision houses & trees, while gaining the photo-type house textures. I do keep the terrain sliders on the high side, as well as the global?? slider. Water is off. However, FSX is not on this computer to look at the menu for exact settings. L.Adamson

Interesting stuff, thanks for posting. I wonder what improvements will be made then to FSX to increase performance on current dual core technologies. And you still have to wonder what Intel and AMD have that hasn't been released yet, or (since I really haven't paid attention since the 1ghz barrier was broken) do they normally layout and stick to their projected plan? Just curious.Ian.

Intel tend to.AMD seem to be a little more hit and miss with project schedules!Athlon 64 was way behind schedule if I remember rightly.We have to hope that ACES come good on the promised patch and implement some multicore usage. Hopefully they will also concentrate on speed increases rather than 'new features' for the DX10 portion of the patching process.I don't require FSX to be any graphically better than it is now, just faster!!!

And I can specifically say that what Adam refers to, in the nearer term, is not DX10. It is the perf investigation to which I have repeatedly referred.DX10 is an entirely different beasty and will take longer.

Yes, he said a few months which is indeed good news. Sorry again about the mix up, I was reading two different threads.Ian.

So not only has fragmentation led to>smaller discrete communities but the absolute number of>members may drop as there is not as much value in membership.>>>Food for thought...>>billg>>>It's just another version of MSFS to me. I'm having no more trouble running it than any other sim I've had. Sure, everything is not perfect, but it never is. EvenFS9 could stutter and moan around busy large airports.It's not anything that FSX has invented. For my purposes, FSX is running well enough. Sure, it gets cranky at the monster airports. No problem, I hardly go to most of them anyway. So all this chitter chatter about large airportFPS doesn't really apply to me all that often. And no, I'm not just a bush flyer. Actually, I fly the jetsmost of the time. And I always use real weather, etc. So far, I haven't had any real trouble at my usual airports.That's what counts to me, not if I can fly to Seattle, and land without a slideshow..I rarely fly to Seattle...I fly to say, KDAL, KLIT, KOKC, KMCI, KHOU, etc, etc.. No real problems at those facilites of aviation devices.Myself? I could care less what the others think or do.If they can't run FSX to their satisfaction, don't. I could care less. If they want to run FS9, do it. I could care less.As far as a "split" in the community, they can split if theylike. I could care less. I don't get emotional about software.It either does the job intended, or it doesn't. So far, for the most part, I like FSX. I've sure seen worse versions in the past. I'm not running that "hot" a machine either. It's not a total slouch, but many have faster boxes than I do.MK

Until I return with the report on our investigations, anything else is just speculation. Adam confirms what I have said, that we are indeed taking a hard look at what can be done. Expect to hear back on this the week after Thanksgiving.

Hah, good stuff, though AMD despite that are a dangerous competitor for Intel, which of course translates into nothing but postive results most of the time to the us the consumer. I agree with you on FSX, though with the new system I'm running where I want to run but it looks like there is good news on the horizon: We (Microsoft) are not planning to wait until FS Eleven to improve the multi-core utilization of the Flight Sim engine. As soon as we have some cool multi-core improvements available, we'll share them with you. It may take a few months, but don't lose all hope.Cheers,AdamSo hopefully they can help alleviate some of the debate on multicore utilization....fingers crossed.Ian.

FSX is a good compromise but a compromise all the same. This belongs to the time: changes in technology rather than mere acceleration of computations.I would even go as far as saying that FSX is a transitional product. I'd lay bucks on the prediction that the next simulators will be qualitatively different from what we know. What we live here is the end of an era, with all its quirks and unpredictable turns.There is also something else worth mentioning: people seem to follow Moore's Law in their perception and appreciation as well. This sim has been released about 1 month ago and what I read, and sometimes feel myself, is in constant acceleration and has a flavor of exacting urgency. I was more patient when I was flying Fly! or ProPilot and I think we all were. Sometimes, it almost looks like a sort of panic...I don't regret one second having bought FSX, for all the reasons stated by LAdamson or Geofa, for example. I'm one of those who have a medium-range system (3.2, 256,2) and who get acceptable Fps. Perhaps because such systems have both feet in the past.

As far as I see it to solve this terrible "mistake" ,the whole FSX engine has to be re-written so it will benefit from multi-core.Unfortunately I don't see this happen.In the current state to get a better framerate some of the eye candy has to be taken out or set on a lower level.Imho you should be able to set the majority of the sliders to 2/3 maximum if you have one of the fastest computers.Compare this to other games; the last released games are graphical miracles , but with a very fast computer you can play them with a good framerate.This should be the same with Flightsimulator.The Aces team bedded on a further developement of the single core processor, but at the end they bedded on the wrong horse.One of the Aces team members told me that in person.Also that they are working on a patch to solve bugs, released around february next year.About looking for ways to get a better framerate he did say nothing ; I am sure that at Acs Studio's they all know exactly what is going on but how to solve this ?So like many of you ; here I am with a love/hate relationship with FSX.I have it on my pc for a week and tweak for better framerates.Then I uninstall it for a couple of days to reinstall it again , just trying to convince myself that this time I will be able to get good framerates in detailed scenery.Yes, I am sure : this time I will get a good framerate ......Only a fool brakes his own hart....... :-abduct

>I would only change my mind if that patch performed a>miracle>>I'm too old to believe in miracles. But something to make me>actually see light at the end of the hardware hype tunnel>would ne nice. For me now, the tunnel is dark and full of>wasted money.>>But first they must deal with XP, DX9 and FSX.>>Now that would be a nice touch for FS hobbyists. But then,>how would doing that get you and me to buy Vista? :-) >>GregTo answer in simple terms. NOT OUR PROBLEM. MS made the decision to release a Vista-intended product into a pre-Vista world. If they had defined the need as Vista then we wouldn't be having this conversation (primarily because FSX wouldn't have been released yet and the team would still be beavering away behind closed doors trying to ensure the performance was going to be sufficient under Vista/DX9 before moving on to DX10). But this genie isn't going back into the bottle, and I'm not buying Vista until others have demonstrated that for a reasonable performance/pound equation I can dramatically improve the FS experience, in a manner which won't mean I have to repurchase the OS every time I make upgrades to suit the MS game on an MS OS. Not related to this thread are the other concerns I have about Vista and its new licensing system, but those have been covered elsewhere. So far, there is nothing - nothing at all in the Vista experience that encourages me to switch, not least of which is the lukewarm diffidence toward DX10 shown by the FSX developers. While I can understand that this may not be entirely their fault, all I know is that it is entirely not MY fault, and I'm not paying to fix it, either by buying exorbitantly priced new OS's which require all new hardware to use properly or to make what I have purchased NOW work adequately with what I have NOW. And that should be the ACES team first and only priority, otherwise we'll all be gone long before DX10 FSX hits the streets. Not going to be much of a `Windows Showcase` product if the customer base has already bailed out!Once ACES and MS have restored my trust by delivering a product that functions as expected under XP and DX9, I may be in a position to reconsider what upgrades will be necessary to make FSX work under Vista/DX10, and the Vista OS itself. But first they will need to produce a DX10 patch that justifies the aggravation and expense. And so far not a single screenshot of games actually developed under DX10 have made me go `Wow!`. You can see improvements, sure, but not of the order of a

I love FSX. I think it's gorgeous. And yes, my FPS is a little lower than FS9 - but as with so many others, only when the skies get a bit busy around the bigger airports. I've also kept FS9 installed, because I love that too, and there are more addons for it. I would like to be able to have the detail pushed right up to the stops on FSX, I admit - but I get comfortable frame rates at reasonably high settings so it's still an improvement over the previous version.Obviously people are going to have all sorts of reasons for preferring one or the other, and that's fine. My worry is what happens when the different choices become deep-set. People get ridiculously emotional about the choices they make sometimes, and I do think it'll be a shame if we all have to start sniping and flaming each other (consider the frequent flamewars between Linux and Windows users). Not that I'm saying that's happening here yet - I just hope it doesn't.As for improving performance, I'll take whatever improvements I can get through tweaks and eventual upgrades of my hardware - at least until I get to see whether the horror stories I'm hearing about Vista are just hysteria like they proved to be when they were about XP. If half of them are true (protections, locks, controls, surveillance, et al) then better performance on Flight Sim is certainly not going to be enough to persuade me to upgrade to Vista.--Moz

You said - "There is no hardware on the horizon (2 years) which will make any difference to this title as has been discussed 1000's of times."Hmmmm .....Have you seen the post from Adam Szofran -http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ode=full#373798We (Microsoft) are not planning to wait until FS Eleven to improve the multi-core utilization of the Flight Sim engine. As soon as we have some cool multi-core improvements available, we'll share them with you. It may take a few months, but don't lose all hope.Cheers,AdamIt's under this thread -http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...73635&mode=fullJerryG