If it will revolutionize performance then...YESTristan

what a rediculous comparison.

FS11? I don't think so. FSX already can handle textures with resolution of 1 cm, and very high mesh resolution as well. The only problem is that it is still mostly single core. As far as visuals go, DX10 can improve a lot of those. Hence, even if there is a FS11, there will only be performance improvements which I do not think warrants a major version, 10.05 is more probable. However, moving to efficient multi-core support requires a complete re-architecture of most of code which contradicts my previous assumsion. ACES might just let it pass by and let the community to deal with it.

Interesting read. Please observe that this post's from August 2005 though. In any case I would like to comment on one paragraph:'Saying we should scrap our current engine or move to a different graphics technology would be like saying, "I don't like my 3-year-old metal Volvo. I want a new one built from carbon fiber." Is the material going to make the difference? Won't the new one still be a car?'The analogy is interesting but does not hold water. If I got a new car built in carbon fibre instead of steel it would improve the performance, but yes, still be a car. Same thing if I demand a new (not revamped) engine from FS it would still be a flight simulator, just performing better (hopefully).Cheers,

NO!!!Oops I got bumped on the head!!Yessssssssssssssssssssss

1. ReWrite of FS was LONG over due, hardware has long exceed the limited FS compatibility engine/design.2. If Ace's team really did care, they can and would produce conversion utilities availabe via SDK or to the end users.Bottom line is what you see with vague information from Phil and Ace's team which consists of nothing, nothing that helps anyone nor the FS community.It is time to STOP listening to Phil/Aces and start evaluating what they actually produce. Drop the a really excited user bias and look at the product as if you never owned any Windows based software.Rob.

Well said, but what about all the other problems in FSX not related specifically to performance?1. ATC routing me to NYC when my flight plan was from SFO to LAX?2. Ground trucks getting priority over AC and in some case driving into the AC and triggering crash detection.3. etc. etc. etc.Beyond the performance problems there are still MANY other issues with FSX that are pretty serious. But lets NOT drop our expections of a $70 product.Rob.

>Horizon must have constructed it correctly then. I invested>in a lot of the megasceneries which are thousands of little>files. In FSX the blurries are 10 times worse then they were>in FS9 because FSX is worse at loading imagery made with lots>of files. They are not planning to patch it so its all>useless.>>I might have to move to the UK to fly on usable scenery in my>local area.While, Horizon's VFR Gen-X is very impressive visually (I have all three volumes), it has been plagued by a few problems. Many developers seem to be unipressed by claims of "backwards compatability". I have been thinking for a while now that to keep the civil aircraft simulator market alive, microsoft need to rethink their approach on this title and we definately need some more healthy competition. Apart from X-plane, having only one ohter title to chose from is a really sad state of affairs. Are we really that boring that no other games company/distrobuter wants to get involved in this market??? So YES, YES and uhh YES.Rhydian

I don't think that fs Needs a graphics rewrite, but a core engine change that better supports threading. While the current engine is lightly threaded, much heavier threading is needed. This requires a major shift in just HOW to program. Then there are issues of dependencies and starvation, but it can be done (then again, one could jack up the Empire State building and move it from it's current location to Albany- if you had unlimited time and money :))It's not like there's some magic tool that makes programs magically multi threaded either. Unless there somehow appears the magic reverse multi threading- multiple cores running as one virtual (extremely fast) cpu.We should see quad core CPU's that are mainstream in 2007.Now there may be other ways to do this- third party developers may be able to run their gauges as threaded apps and NOT part of the MSFS engine (See the FMC in the old Dreamfleet 734, but extend it to gauges) and run more via simconnect.That would in theory not bog the rendering.I'm running a Radeon X1950- a shader monster. You'd never know it. It's more likely that my Athlon 3400 cannot feed data to it fast enough, but performance outside of major cities, with much higher detail levels is comparable to MSFS (meaning that FSX looks better, more eye candy, higher scenery detail at default) and the framerates are near the same as fs9. Halifax CYHZ is an excellent example of this. Boston (fs9 running G Grimshaw's BOS and the default FSX) is still faster and better looking in fs9, but that's because there are height scale issues in the default buildings.On the other hand, I cannot fly into LA or NY. Period. 5 FPS, thanks for playing. You lose.We know that our woes are not falling on deaf ears at ACES (and I sound like a total shill for them). In the past, a faster CPU and GPU would cure the issues. Nowadays, the hardware is going to more cores, and less simple speed boost.Further, I was playing with the PMDG 737NG in fs2004 last night and it seemed cartoonish compared to the basic FSX! Boy do I miss the functionality and Real worldish traffic.

YES! Please!

Xplane for the Mac Pro (universal) is a VERY nice experience. Have you tried Xplane on a Mac Pro? It is probably in your best interest NOT to compare Xplane PC with Xplane Mac Pro -- there is a world of difference in the experience:1. No 4GB memory limit on the Mac Pro as with WinXP2. Much better threading model in OSX and multi-CPU support (start with 4 CPUs even on the low end Mac Pro)3. Mac Pro EFI is light years ahead of BIOS4. Make sure you get the X1900XT graphics option in the Mac ProAlso, you can get FS2004 to Xplane scenery converter tools here:http://marginal.org.uk/x-planescenery/tools.htmlTakes a little tweaking in some cases, but based on how many of the folks here have tweaked the heck out of their FSX install, should not be an issue for most.Yes, FSX does some things better than Xplane, just as Xplane does some things better than FSX. Overall, the flight experience is better in Xplane:Why Xplane has an advantage:1. No instant weather changes (better transitions)2. FSX flight model has now only just caught up with Xplane3. No stutters4. No brain dead AI5. No obvious texture swapping6. Performance is considerably better on a Mac Pro7. Better multi-monitor support8. Regular updates as new features are fixed/addedBut one most important feature of Xplane, you don't have to beg for updates and/or hope the dev team comes out with a patch. The product is updated and fixed regularly with no cost to consumer. New features are added regularly again at no cost to the consumer. It is a great flight simulation that isn't limited to the way Microsoft do business.How many updates do see from Microsoft over the course of a product -- one, maybe two? And these updates only address obvious bugs or missing features that should have been there (bridges comes to mind). Xplane updates are considerably more regular and they do more than just fix problems, they add feature content. Do you see that from Microsoft? Sure, once every 3 years and with ZERO upgrade benefits to existing customers. New major version jumps of Xplane are considerably less to existing customers.The key being the Xplane developers don't release a product and then go hibernate for 3 years, they make the Beta they're working on available to all registered users so they get a far greated amount of input/data for the community. Microsoft's limited and top secret approach to their product Beta just emphasizes their paranoia and just how nervous the company as a whole is about competition.And you don't see any "artist's renditions" of what Xplane looks like, you see what it really does look like here and now.Go over to the Xplane forum and you'll see a lot of folks moving to Xplane 8.5 over FSX. You don't get PM's posting useless marketing information about Ace's team missed commitments and their might be an update sometime in 2007, and we think we found something but won't tell anyone...and even more important you don't have to thank them for taking time out of their so very busy schedule to talk to you.http://www.x-plane.com/Rob.

Good to see so many people voting for change.Now, go check out Xplane 8.5 -- if you have a Mac Pro with 4GB or more memory with X1900XT and a 30" LCD you'll be amazed - jaw dropping compared to FSX and very nice frame rates!!http://www.x-plane.com/Hang on to your FSX or wait for FS11, but do yourself a favor and at least try Xplane. Competition is the only real way to get meat rather than marketing out of Microsoft.Rob.

> Competition is the only real way to>get meat rather than marketing out of Microsoft.>>Rob.>Isn't FS9 currently competing with FSX?

>Good to see so many people voting for change.>>Now, go check out Xplane 8.5 -- if you have a Mac Pro with 4GB>or more memory with X1900XT and a 30" LCD you'll be amazed ->jaw dropping compared to FSX and very nice frame rates!!>>http://www.x-plane.com/>>Hang on to your FSX or wait for FS11, but do yourself a favor>and at least try Xplane. Competition is the only real way to>get meat rather than marketing out of Microsoft.>>Rob.>No offense, but if I had a Mac Pro with 4GB or more memory and a X1900XT and a 30 inch LCD, FSX would look great on it too.Then again, I'd also have to explain to my family why I can't afford Christmas presents for them :(I would, however, ask that you limit yourself to one "Switch to X-Plane" post per thread in the FSX forum.

Unfortunately FSX would run at 1-2 fps at that resolution (even with everything turned down) so it's just not possible to make FSX look that good. X-Plane 8.50 has a very flyable fps at those resolutions.I would ask that you don't mis-quote me. Please show where I said "switch to X-Plane"? I didn't -- in fact I wouldn't want everyone to switch as that would eliminate competition. What I said, is "try X-Plane". Is there harm in trying? The demo is free, not a functional as the real thing, but still free.Just as nVidia/ATI competition has produced some of the most impressive graphics hardware, so does competition in the flight sim market.I also didn't realize that we're limited to posting only once about any particular "content". A quick search on a specific topic and I can see many folks posting multiple times -- so why are you singling out my post? Because I have one other Xplane related post that contained more specific details on why Xplane is worth a trying.Your FSX bias is showing, tuck it in.Rob.