Multicore was clearly the wave of development, no? I don't have the degree of knowledge expressed by some on the forums, but with single processors somewhat maxing out in terms of plain frequency, it seems the writing has been on the wall for quite a while.Since this is the case, and since MS/ACES seems to have adopted a 3+ year product cycle for all the right reasons, why ever would they not have "rewritten code from the ground up" yada yada to be able to better utilized multicore? I can only imagine this is because, as some have said here, multicore systems are really more optimized to run multiple applications versus single ones. Does anyone know, definitely, if FSX could have been written to utilize what multicore has to offer, or is there something in the current implementation in the OS or hardare that really will not lend itself to this? From some comments I've read here, my impression is that "multicore support" isn't likely to be possible in a patch (versus a rewrite).I can't believe MS/ACES doesn't understand fully every aspect of this issue, certainly much more so than any forum commentators might. Therefore, I think the odds are that significantly better performance IS forthcoming during the expected product lifecycle of 3-4y, else surely they would know the product's anticipated service life and market will fizzle very signficantly.Again, anyone know what it takes to be optimized for multicore, when you are a single application? Perhaps it is in dividing up this single app into virtual multiple apps, save the graphics engine perhaps.

You guys need to read my ENTIRE post, Especially the last paragraph! Please note I am not in any camp. Im in the flight simmer camp, period. I was plainly pointing out that even I can enjoy the sim but not in a crippled fashion. I have a decent system and I do agree there are some great things about this release, but we dont constantly need to see the same handful of folks posting the same stuff over and over about how fantstic the sim is. If your so enamored with the sim, how about a seperate post all by istelf, instead of jumping in to every post making an observation about the negatives? IMHO it would be more appropo.In case you hadn't noticed, "the rest of us" seems to be a sizable portion of this community. I will always stand by my post about low fps. I fail to see how my post was inflammatory to anyone, its just an observation and an opinion. Mr. Adamson, I dont understand what your talking about concerning me being "on you" about your frame rate? My comment was meant in general as I have seen this posted numerous times. I love the comment about "jihad" very good :), take a look in the mirror!Hornit

Spent zero dollars.Auto Gen on Sparce which equals the HIGHEST level in FS04.EVERY PAI, WOAI and Ultimate GA plane and plan installed and both traffic sliders set to 100%Water set to 1X high.AMD64 3400+ATI 9800XT 256MB1GB system RAMAverage 20 FPS with higher numbers in flight.No need to tell myself or anyone else how great FSX is because I experience how great it is everyday. Perfect? No, nothing is. Room for improvement? Sure, just like every other piece of software out there. Great? You bet!Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Development Team Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterHiFi Beta TeamRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/AirSource Member: http://www.air-source.us/FSEconomy Member:http://www.fseconomy.com/

>Have you every really looked at FSX's built in photo-city>textures, versus FS9's less than pleasing muddy textures with>cartoon auto-gen?>>Doesn't appear so...Mmm could be. However you gave us all a glowing report of a flight you did today. Seems to me that you would have employed your time better, had you just gone out your door and looked at the real thing, since it's just outside.Some folks would like to be able to fly in and out of places such as JFK, LAX, Heathrow etc, with realistic levels of AI traffic, using something with bit more grunt than a C208.Once I read about you're flight into LAX, with full United, Continental, Alaska etc etc installed and running..........then I'll be impressed.After all ain't that what you paid the money for?BC

WHen one looks into some of these posts however, one also sees autogen slider all the way left AI Aircraft set low, water textures switched off, ground traffic switch off or set low.Please note my settings in my above post, Autogen at Dense setting, Scenery extremely dense, and running with 100% UT Traffic. I'm getting greater detail than FS9, (Although, I think the Southwest textures need some work!) and am now getting acceptable frame rates, similar to FS9. That is though with a fast single core processor. (3.8 Ghz) It seems FSX doesn't do as good with the multicore processors. Once I get my replacement Core 2 Duo, I can compare to see if this is in fact true.

Sorry Tom,But just because the Core 2 Duo are clocked lower than than the old P4 and Pentium D's does not make them slower. Quite the opposite in fact due to it's improved microarchitecture the Core 2 duo is faster in single core apps even with the lower clock speed. Just check out the benchmarks. The Core 2 Duo line beats anything else out there including the old P4 Exteme Edition. Single core app or dual core app, makes no difference. Core 2 Duo is top of the pile.I have attached just one of the many benchmarks from AnandTech to demonstrate.

>Mmm could be. However you gave us all a glowing report of a>flight you did today. Seems to me that you would have>employed your time better, had you just gone out your door and>looked at the real thing, since it's just outside.>And you've been missing the point all along. I don't use flight simulations to replace reality. I use them to see just how well they replicate reality. For the situation/scenario I spoke of today, FSX did extremely well, and more so than FS9 ever did. Should I choose to have an airport full of AI, then I will revert back to FS9. And yes, my wife also say's I should employ my time better. I've kicked her car out of the garage to paint a full size airplane, and then I waste the time in front of this computer instead.L.Adamson

Jim,That's great........all I can say is that it's a good job for you that AS6.5 runs in FS9 and FSX!I don't think I need elaborate anymore on that statement.......

"I love the comment about "jihad" very good , take a look in the mirror!"So true.....it works both ways.

Gee Larry, come on even U admit to having very poor eye sight, what were those great settings you used to fly with telling us all how great it was to fly FS9 with a PIII? wasn't it 800x600 or something? LOL!!!Just Kidding!Hey I love FSX too, but some of the things that passed QC like some of the landclass issues bug me big time, other than that its shaders, shaders shaders, DX10 plus DX10 Vcards, will help a great deal, the new cards can't help in the CPU dept though...the multi-core support or lack is unbelievable though! ouch!yer old pal, Paull01.

>Sorry Tom,>>But just because the Core 2 Duo are clocked lower than than>the old P4 and Pentium D's does not make them slower. >>Quite the opposite in fact due to it's improved>microarchitecture the Core 2 duo is faster in single core apps>even with the lower clock speed. >>Just check out the benchmarks. The Core 2 Duo line beats>anything else out there including the old P4 Exteme Edition.>Single core app or dual core app, makes no difference. Core 2>Duo is top of the pile.>>I have attached just one of the many benchmarks from AnandTech>to demonstrate.>>Sorry I should have been clearer! I meant specifically with FSX. I know most other apps as well as FS9 does much better with the Core 2 Duos, then the single cores, but that doesn't seem to be the case with FSX for some reason! If that is the case, that is clearly a programming issue, and probably could be corrected, if Aces, can find the code that is causing it. Sometimes though, that could be like finding a needle in a haystack, when it comes to finding unintentional performance bottlenecks in code.

Tom,Sorry, I misunderstood.Yes, FSX does seem to be stange in this regard.It's pretty much unflyable for me with my slightly overclocked E6400.Glenn

I have to say that as this debate rages on and on it's quite clear to see that this has been a true and proper debacle. Allcot's posts are just about spot on, we have been grossly misslead and it's a shameful situation. On the rear of the FSX DVD package it quite clearly states "play to win with Core 2". Now you tell me how mis-leading is that? Currently the vast majority of users who have spent tons of cash on upgrades to Core 2 systems are feeling pretty annoyed and rightly so. I just don't get it...perhaps someone could explain it as to what purpose does a product serve that simply won't work with the latest hardware, it's just shameful.Even if Nvidia release a 8900GTX or 9900GTX neither will improve the current situation as much as opening up access to Core 2 support, this is really the crux of the matter. DX10 will most likely make things worse not better.It's just not going to be acceptable to compromise on such important areas like terrain detail or simplified texturing to alleviate this situation. I would like my FSX to provide usable framerates (by usable I mean at least 15fps) at major airports with 100% AI and all details at 80% to almost max and look and play better than FS9 ever could, is this really that much to ask for?My system (which is struggling)Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4 x2Nvidia 7900GTX2GB RAMPhilips 19" Widescreen 1400x900

Some people seem to always state that FS9 never has any FPS problems with Full AI a super plane like the Queen at a busy airport. With the highest textures you can have for FS9. With boat and road traffic if you can have that in Fs9 and still has tons of FPS to spare. It never did for me so maybe I'm missing something like you guys that can't seem to get FSX to work for you.I can rememeber setting at the Reno/Tahoe airport with the PMDG 747 in Fs9 and my FPS being 18/20 FPS and still having fun so why cant we have the same in FSX? Without some of you guys calling us sheep a really excited user or whatever the name of the days is.

I don't get it. Why do you care if they increase performance irrespective of using multicore cpu's and SLI? If they get you 25+ FPS, why do you care how its done? While I agree that FSX is a mess, I can't see why you guys insist on being negative, even when a glimmer of hope is offered?