Yep :->1990 - 1995 BAO Ltd1995 - 1999 Microsoftand2004 - present MicrosoftTim

>do you really think quad cores will help your FSX>performance?Considering that FSX has no way to use a Dual core, my guess is "no".

Wow..you were with BAO? You've seen it all ha?

Not related to Your post but, Glad to see there is another FS junkie like me here in the KCHS area! Im at 50J Berkeley County.FSX Now and Student Pilot Real World 13.5 Hrs so far!Gary TrammellPro Rodeo Announcer"never drink downstream form the herd"

Ok first, everyone should have expected an MS software product to be late. That just goes back to what, 1990? Come on. Next, I want to strongly advise everyone, again, do not fall into the Vista Upgrade hype. If your system works reasonably well now, you do NOT NEED VISTA. Vista for must consumers will IMPROVE NOTHING (it looks different though). I will say again---if you think there is heartache and sorrow trying to get FSX to run on a two year old computer, wait till you try a new OPERATING SYSTEM. (With limited/unproven drivers). Some of your programs won't work anymore (like antivirus) though vendors are almost done with "Vista Compatible" versions. But why would you want to buy more software when what you have now, works? The only way I could see Vista making sense quite frankly is, if you had say a 5 or 6 year old machine and were going to get a new computer; in that case I would still wait until the OS is preinstalled; don't try the upgrade bit. Personally that's why I bought my new computer now; so I could still get XP Pro. Yes I have the hardware to run Vista now, but why? I don't need it! When MS stops supporting XP, that's the time to get Vista.Of course, I understand all this is just my own opinion, so maybe some one who is waiting anxiously for Vista could tell me..why do I NEED it? I'm willing to listen.....

To answer your question, 'why do we need Vista?' there is only one answer I can think of. And that is if it allows a step change in graphics quality, or graphics performance, or both, from DX10. We have been promised that this step change will happen. The hardware is out there now, if you can swallow the price of a G80 card, and when running DX9 titles that are not CPU limited like FSX, they are indeed somewhat faster than previous GPUs. But the Vista DX10 graphics drivers still have not been released. Neither have the games that will use this new technology (including FSX under DX10). So until we see a demonstrated and compelling value case for the whole chain (DX10 hardware, Vista, and DX10 FSX) there is no point investing in ANY of it. Simply because the step change we have been told to expect may never happen.Substantial delays have already occurred, and the probability of further delays to DX10 game titles (Crysis and FSX come to mind) is high. So I'm delaying any hardware upgrades, at least hardware with DX10 capability. ACES have refused to give us a time line for the release of the DX10 version of FSX, so it would be silly to buy hardware now, when it will probably be out of date by the time DX10 FSX is released, perhaps sometime next year. In summary, Vista makes no sense at all unless it brings improved capability to the table. This capability has yet to be demonstrated.Cheers,Noel.

My theory is that FSX was designed from the ground up to take advantage of the proposed DX10 features for best performance. When DX10/Vista delayed, FSX was left a bit out in the cold.Shaders should really help FSX, but even running an X1950pro, performace was lackluster on my older PC (knowing that I have a 3 year old PC, I totally understand) IF I had a fast CPU this would have been different.Add in that the hardware side has shifted from speed increases to adding cores- strike 2. FS is not heavily threaded.Quad cores will yield minimal benefit in FSX (unless somehow the rendering pipeline is REALLY changed for DX10) as it is a dual core should be enough for the foreseeable future. The only game I've seen that uses 4 cores is Alan Wake. Falcon 4 AF might use more than 2 (I know it's multithreaeded)Maybe the nature of DX 10 is such that DX is now more heavily threaded such that DX is now able to run on multiple threads. Once into the DX engine, threading happens even if the game is not inherently threaded. I do not know that answer though. GPU threading is a reality under DX10, but I'm not too into the tech behind this. Add in that DX10 by design has lower CPU overhead, and there's more potential wins.Hopefully Aces will use DX10 to first improve performance with the same options as today, then add additional features. As it is, can anybody render the water on High 2.x (even if most of us have Shader 3 cards)?

>ACES have refused to give us a time line for the release of the >DX10 version of FSX, so it would be silly to buy hardware now, when >it will probably be out of date by the time DX10 FSX is released, >perhaps sometime next year. >>In summary, Vista makes no sense at all unless it brings>improved capability to the table. This capability has yet to>be demonstrated.>>Cheers,>>Noel.Noel, with all due respect, did you even read this thread? A member of the Aces team AGAIN has posted on the plans for the DX10 update. No one has "refused" anything except you, and that's to take a straight answer at face value and not read things into it.

Unless there is a major change, quad cores won't help us much...*but* if the Core2Duo can be used as a guide, the next gen quad-core *could* conceivably be a faster architecture per core (just like the Core2 is), which would help us for sure.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

>FS is not heavily threaded.This subject has been beaten to death in many threads and different blogs.FS is very much threaded but FS development team claims many threads need to be 'synchronized' between themselves to satisfy basic rules of delivering picture to the screen. This synchronization may to some extent nullify the effect of threading. Also as many programmers would tell you threading alone is not a guarantee of better performance, actually too many threads may cause performance to go down since keeping many threads requires additional overhead. It is a very delicated design balance to use threads only in places where it can deliver actual performance gain - any type of a network 'server' is a prime example where threading delivers wonders indeed.My personal theory is that those who wait for DX-10 to realize a quantum leap in performance in FSX will be disappointed (again ?).Michael J.

In another thread I asked Phil directly for a time line on the release of the performance patch and for the DX-10 version of FSX. He could not provide this information and the only indication I have seen on the release of the DX10 version of FSX is 'next year'. By this I assume sometime after the performance patch, which I guess is the higher priority. If anyone has a clearer indication of timing than that I'd be most grateful...Cheers,Noel.

I remember that thread. I think the thing to remember in all of this discussion (the other thread and this one) is the fact that even Microsoft themselves does not have a firm date for the DX10 patch. --too many unknowns right now.From what I gather, (and this is MY wild guess) I can guesstimate Q3 or Q4 2007 for the DX10 patch at the earliest. Barring unforeseen things in the hardware/software scene. :)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

If they could have gotten any more performance from fsx don't you think they would have done it in the three years that they had during development? If any of you seriously think that there will be any real performance from this patch then you're going to be disappointed. The only REAL performance patch that there is for fsx is a core2 machine. They need to stop wasting their time on a patch that will do nothing for anyone and concentrate on dx10.

>If they could have gotten any more performance from fsx don't>you think they would have done it in the three years that they>had during development? If any of you seriously think that>there will be any real performance from this patch then you're>going to be disappointed. The only REAL performance patch that>there is for fsx is a core2 machine. They need to stop wasting>their time on a patch that will do nothing for anyone and>concentrate on dx10.What, you think there'd still be any market momentum left if we all jumped ship becasue we weren't going to spend the think end of a thousand quid to get the hardware that runs the software, when the software runs like cack? ;)ACES have taken the only step open to them. Committed to supporting the existing customer base on the `need, now` base, while promising whatever they can within broad lines given that Vista hasn't shipped yet, DX10 cards that are oput there don't have Vista drivers, so can't use DX10, and DX10 is going to require more resources again, to achieve the leap in graphics that many are expecting. EVERYTHING costs, but doing nothing costs you everything.But given how ACES have failed to deliver on the FSX out-of-the-box experience it would be a fool who rushes in to upgrade now, without seeing the cost/benefit in action. The last thing they want todo is pitch up on DX10 to the exclusion of everytghing else. They'd lose almost ALL the customer base overnight.Allcott

MS WILL have an INTERNAL target date for the release of DX10 FSX. No one runs an R&D project (as this essentially is) without targets. The fact that they are unwilling to share that date with the wider community is a pointer to how far away the objective may be. So I completely agree with you Rhett. The release of DX10 FSX is not on the immediate horizon, so upgrades of hardware and software to suit are unwise at this point.I also note incompatibility problems are being reported with G80 cards on some motherboards, and indeed some are experiencing problems with the new nVidia 680i mobos themselves. These are both probably symptoms of the pre-Christmas rush to market and will be sorted in time, as will the Vista driver issue. But again, not a great time to buy hardware.Cheers,Noel.