Blast from the past

[Guest MrBitsy]

>It's time to accept the fact that fsx will>always run slow.What some people ought to realise that many people find FSX performance to be smooth and flyable.What some people ought to realise is that every edition of FS has seen people screaming the 'its dog slow' message.For me, FSX is superb in most ways and I enjoy it very much.Ray Keattch.

[Adam Szofran 0]

We're not just sitting on our hands counting our money! :-) As a matter of fact, we are looking to see if there is anything we can do to positively impact performance. If we find anything worth sharing, I'm sure we will. No time frame is set because we haven't found any magic bullets yet, but we are looking.Cheers,Adam

[B777ER 2,492]

From what I understand, this is ACES first release for FS? It was another group who did FS9 and FS8, etc...If this is the case, one would assume that FS11 will (hopefully) be totally redone taking advantage of multicores, SLI and 64bit. ACES jumped in the deep end of the pool with no water wings this time, next version will hopefully see them sipping a Pina Colada on a lounge chair in the pool, not drowning at the bottom. It may be some of us just use FS9 which is really nice with addons on FR's until FS11 comes around 3 years or so from now. By then one would hope they learned their lesson on performance issues.

[Guest Len]

I can't wait to see the LDS 767/757 and the PSS777 under FSX.Won't be able to purchase them anyway because they'll kill the meagre framerates I'm getting for city flying. And that's not "whining".

[Guest]

Ironically the same patched up graphics engine is still running in FSX today.

[Mace 1,957]

>>That's why I laugh when I read someone say that there will be>a performance patch released. I'm assuming they mean a real>performance patch and not a dx10 patch since that will only>apply to those of us who have adopted an 8800 card and vista>already. In my eyes a performance patch is not the same as a>dx10 patch. Maybe when I read these claims of an>all-saving-grace performance patch they are actually referring>to the dx10 patch but referring to it in the wrong manner?I think a lot of people are indeed hoping that the DX10 patch will also feature some performance improvements. But I will say this, going back thru my 15 years of being in the scene...and someone correct me if I am wrong: Never in the history of Direct3D, has a new version resulted in improved performance. Rather, new versions have resulted in better visuals. *So*, if DX10 actually has better performance (which it might...or might not who knows) then it would buck a trend going back 10 years or so to the first Direct3D.So with that in mind I am thinking we'll mostly see an improved look, but not so much change in performance. If it looks even better with the same performance, I'll be happy enough. It runs decently well enough on my system with good settings.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2530 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

"50%?" and "where they need to be"? Totally subjective and without regard for the performance others are seeing. "This will never come I'm sorry to say". Man, I wished I had that much insight!"I will eat my humble pie and beg forgiveness from the avsim crowd." You might want to start practicing in front of a mirror. :)

[Mace 1,957]

>>The days of "easy pickens" for game developers with "high>level and high overhead" languages and programming simplicity>is clearly over. I think many of them are having a hard time>accepting that as a fact.>You bring up an interesting aside; in the old days, when I first learned programming, we were taught to be VERY conservative with the amount of memory use and processing power used by our programs. The reason was because a computer only had 16k of memory, or 64k or 128k. And not much processing power, either. And if your program was to be run on a mainframe, it REALLY had to not use much processor time.But then, the 90's happened.Massive leaps in cpu power and memory occurred. And programmers were gradually taught not to worry so much about overhead, but focus on threading, object-oriented programming, and so forth. In fact the last programming class I took, back about 1995, that's exactly what the prof said: "Well, we used to worry more about that but these days, it's not as big a consideration. It really frees us up as to what we can do. "And then in 2003, Moore's Law died. And since then, the yearly advances we saw between 1983 and 2003 in cpu and memory have been at a somewhat slower pace.It does seem to have gone full circle with programming. But then again, I'm sure we'll see some new advance that pushes the cpu/mem bar out further. A lot of it probably will come with taking advantage of multiple processors.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2530 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

[Guest Vilk]

thanks for all your work. this one's a keeper :-)

[Guest]

>"50%?" and "where they need to be"? Totally subjective and>without regard for the performance others are seeing.Not sure where you've been lately if this is the case.>"This will never come I'm sorry to say". Man, I wished I had>that much insight!Me too!>"I will eat my humble pie and beg forgiveness from the avsim>crowd." You might want to start practicing in front of a>mirror. :)Right.....I'm practicing as we speak and about to hit the hay with my supermodel too.Just like the man says above about directx never improving frame rates when a new version comes out; never before have they released a flight sim patch that increased performance without tricking the sliders to improve it at the expense of the visuals. I do hope I am wrong but history is on my side here and you know it. Please Aces prove me wrong. I am not a hater because I love this sim so please don't group me with the haters. The sim has so many great things and such hard work went into it. It just needs a 50% boost in frames!

[Guest byoung]

I am guilty for complaining about performance and really questioning why Microsoft / ACES produced FSX in the state that it is:This blog was posted on a performance thread, but worth inserting here:I was pretty enlighted by the FSX Project Manager's response to the "performance" issue:http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/archive/200...patibility.aspxSpend the time and read this. What this PM said makes sense to me. Like to hear comments though!Barry

[Guest FxF3]

Thanks for that link Barry.Well that says a lot seems like the people that ACES wanted to please are the people that are now turning on them the most. The we want all our old stuff to work with FSX guys.:) That must be why my big old AMD work horse cpu still can run FSX pretty well.:-jumpy And a big sweet patch is comming dont get any better then this.

[DougMatthews 0]

>From what I understand, this is ACES first release for FS? It>was another group who did FS9 and FS8, etc...Ummmm.... nope.>If this is the case, one would assume that FS11 will>(hopefully) be totally redone taking advantage of multicores,>SLI and 64bit. Ummmm.... we'll see what happens (don't hold your breath on "totally redone").>ACES jumped in the deep end of the pool with no>water wings this time, next version will hopefully see them>sipping a Pina Colada on a lounge chair in the pool, not>drowning at the bottom. Sign me up! Sounds like fun!-Doug

[Guest Ozark Dogfighter]

Do you have to respond anymore? Is your gloom and doom message so important? You must be really proud of your ability to hit the "reply" button, because other than a really poor sense of humor I see no need for your constant hate mongering. If there is a patch released, you'll complain it doesn't do enough, or (gasp!) makes it worse, and I bet you'll not even admit to preaching that there would be no patch.Just try to keep these forums enjoyable for everyone, regardless how proud you are of your stupendous insight.-Jeremy Burchhttp://home.earthlink.net/~dawgfighter/sit...es/swvasig1.gifSWVA4806 http://www.virtualswa.com/home.phpThe Ozark Dogfighter http://forums.avsim.net/images/wedge.gifCurrent system:Pentium 4 Cedar Mill 641 (3.40GHz), Abit AW8D, Gigabyte GeForce 7900GTX (512MB DDR3 PCI-Express x16),Corsair XMS2 Pro 2GB PC2 6400 (DDR2 800), 2 SeaGate Barracuda 250GB hard drives, Sound Blaster X-Fi PlatinumKlipsch ProMedia Ultra 5.1 speakers, NEC 20" CRT, Microsoft SideWinder Force Feedback 2Please note: System specs are for reference in tech forums only and are not to be taken as meaning anything else.Doing so will result in eye-rolling, possible teeth grinding and perhaps mild internal chuckling.Happy Flying!

[Guest Ridge_Runner_5]

>Just as fsx will. I'm not sure why people keep spewing this>'things will be better when the patch arrives' nonsense. There>will be no patch just as there was no patch for fs2k and its>performance issues. It's time to accept the fact that fsx will>always run slow. What it lacks in performance it makes up for>in other attributes though so all is not lost. I just wish>people would stop thinking that some kind of 'miracle' patch>is otw because regardless of what you think, this is simply>just not the case.You DO realize FS2000 had a patch, right?