FSX and multi-Cores

[Guest dom993]

A few additional thoughts on this.At a high level, I see a flight sim (actually any kind of sim) as : 1. a simulation engine (no display), which will handle : - the weather - the interactions w/ pilot - the flight model, - the ATC - any land/see/air/traffic movements - etc... 2. a pre-rendition engine, that will prepare what needs to be displayed based on user selected views of that simulated world : - choosing which 3D objects should be candidate for rendering, based on object size & distance / angle of view - selecting proper resolution (textures & number of vertices) for each 3D object candidate for rendering, again based on distance - preparing the corresponding textures (file loading, decompression, etc). 3. a rendition engine, that will display those viewsThe simulation engine can probably be broken down into a few parts with low dependency, but lets not even discuss that for now. It is pretty clear to me that 1. has no dependency on 2., nor 2 has any dependency on 3. This is very basic pipeline architecture in my view, no rocket science here.

[Guest CocoLoco]

I agree that at a high level, this would seem appropriate. I get the impression that 2 and 3 are mostly taken care of by DirectX and the GPU. FSX seems to be more dependent on raw CPU power than graphics capabilities (as was FS9). This leads me to think it spends a lot of time in step 1, where it becomes harder to tease things apart. This is all speculation on my part so I think I will leave it at that.

[boshar 6]

If thats the whole story and the patch doesn't fix the performance issues FS-X will be the new FS2000. I will wait for FS-XI in that case

[Jay R 0]

Holy moly I think my Brain just exploded from information overload.:-newburn[hr width=100%" size=1 color="black]http://forefrontgrp.com/MyLogo2.JPGJason | General Aviation Fan

[boshar 6]

[boshar 6]

>It is nowhere near that simple. >>And when using DX9 only 1 thread can issue Draw calls. >>So you have to go thru the entire Sim engine and find what>sort of processing is actually amenable to being forked off on>a thread.>>And the "add a bit of synchronization" drastically understates>the difficulty of multithreaded programming.More or less sounds like you have to scrap the entire engine. Build a new mulit core thread model and then look at the old code for bits that are usable in the new model.I always came away with the impression that th FS series was basicly an old game engine that was just tweaked a little every release with only a major rewrite going from DOS to Windows (Fs2000) and a 2nd one improving performance and add beter 3D support (FS2002).Time for a support multi core major rewrite I guess. Maybe technology dealt us badly this time and left us with an intrim release that can't please the old tech and doesn't support the forseeable new tech.

[Guest SimDog]

I wonder what the lead time is for Intel or AMD to design and manufacturer a multi-core processor. Less than 24-30 months? They guessed wrong? Surely Microsoft and Intel/AMD have a closer relationship than guessing.SD

[Guest Funky D]

This will all be moot within a year.http://www.intel.com/technology/silicon/45nm_technology.htmMoore's law is not dead. Multiple cores are not the magic key to future performance. Chips will continue to get faster and more efficient. Even Intel has recognized there is going to be a limit at which adding additional cores doesn't benefit performance.

[RFields5421 1]

Everything is developed incrementally.A key 'decision' factor would have been the projected cost of the computer with the new processors.Dual Core processor advances in the past couple years have been nothing short of amazing. Sometimes the hardware guys make a breakthrough on design or more importantly price and things advance very rapidly.Three years ago, I would have bet you that in 2007 we would have 8-10ghz processors available, not dual-core 2.4ghz on a "high end" gaming computer.With the move to multiple processors, the PC world has taken a 90 degree turn directly away from the traditional method of gaining more processing power. And done so in a very short time.Part of me thinks MS would be better off to start over on FS development from scratch - but could you imagine the forums if a new version of FS came out which was 100% not compatible with an addons - free or payware?

[Flakchak 0]

>More or less sounds like you have to scrap the entire engine.>Build a new mulit core thread model and then look at the old>code for bits that are usable in the new model.>>I always came away with the impression that th FS series was>basicly an old game engine that was just tweaked a little>every release with only a major rewrite going from DOS to>Windows (Fs2000) and a 2nd one improving performance and add>beter 3D support (FS2002).There would be heck to pay if MS were to build the next FS with a whole new engine. Chances are, a complete re-write would have very little in common with previous versions. If that were to happen, a great deal if not all addons from the previous version would not be compatible. And I'm not talking, a building off here and there, but it just won't plain work. There would be an uproar in this community bigger than the one you're seeing now. I've seen it a lot of it on many different forums. People say they won't buy the next product if they can't run all the sceneries or planes they have now.The Flightsim engine we have now is over 10 years old. It has pretty much the same file structure... *.BGL, *.AIR, all those neat extentions as it did in 1995 when FS5 came out.MS is between a rock and a hard place when it comes to designing Flighsim... if they even listen to the community at all that is.

[Guest SimDog]

Was your speculation on 8-10ghz processors based upon Moore's Law? I seem to recall reading somewhere, maybe here, that it is possible processor designers could not break the single core speed barrier and decided to just add another core.SD

[Guest JackDanielsDrinker]

>I didn't mean to "drastically understate the difficulty of>multithreaded programming". Agreed, there is real work>involved, and with no doubt some expertise is required to>succeed.You may not have meant to, but you did. >>But multi-cores are a reality today - with quad-cores already>there. This is something that needs to be addressed,>especially since FSX is so CPU-hungry.It was partially addressed before FSX came out, and it is being addressed now.http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007...od-measure.aspx>>"And when using DX9 only 1 thread can issue Draw calls.">So what ? Dedicate 1 thread to drawing - there is plenty of>other things to do in other threads on other cores.>You are really showing your ignorance here. Stick to telecom.>If you look for solutions, you are more likely to find them>than if you don't start, assuming it can't be done. How many>times did it take for Edison to succeed in creating the 1st>light bulb ?>FSX ALREADY PARTIALLY USES THE SECOND CORE. Quit pontificating about things you don't know about. >Again, nothing that a world class development team would shy>away from.They didn't and aren't shying away. Maybe you should work on turning on the light bulb in your head.

[RFields5421 1]

Somewhat.We have used multiple processor blade servers for several years in the company where I work.But even our guys though multi-core would not be workable, and multi-processor would be much too expensive. (Our Xenon 4X servers run a good precentage of my annual salary)The chip designers have run up against barriers before, and always broken past them eventually.The key point is that we can all sit here today and say what should have been done three years ago. But reality check - Is today's PC world / processors / graphics / etc - exactly where you predicted three years ago?If you are that good at seeing the future of computer hardware - there are people who will pay you close to a half-million dollars a year to work for them.I just got back from a project planning charter on how we will implement Vista in our company. A lot of IT people were surprised to learn that Vista will not be placed on the vast majority of our current 500,000 computers.All the computers we acquired prior to Oct 2006 will not run it - we are on a three year lease cycle - do not have video to support Vista. We also have very few computers with 512MB RAM. Those were corporate business cost decisions - but they locked us into hardware which has to be replaced rather than upgraded.

[Guest Ozzie]

>But even our guys though multi-core would not be workable, and>multi-processor would be much too expensive. (Our Xenon 4X>servers run a good precentage of my annual salary)>>>The key point is that we can all sit here today and say what>should have been done three years ago. But reality check - Is>today's PC world / processors / graphics / etc - exactly where>you predicted three years ago?>>>I just got back from a project planning charter on how we will>implement Vista in our company. A lot of IT people were>surprised to learn that Vista will not be placed on the vast>majority of our current 500,000 computers.>>All the computers we acquired prior to Oct 2006 will not run>it - we are on a three year lease cycle - do not have video to>support Vista. We also have very few computers with 512MB RAM.>Those were corporate business cost decisions - but they locked>us into hardware which has to be replaced rather than>upgraded.hehehe - Either Server costs have reduced greatly or you are paid too much - I think you can probably recognise the humour in thatAs to your last point - that is quite a significant one - possibly why the Marketing Department has "decided" to shove Vista down the Consumers throats so vigorously with all its misleading advertisingAnd who is to say that they have "got it right" THIS time when they still cant get XP right without "How many? upgrades" Already Vista is showing holes and as for it benefiting FSX - thats a laugh from the horses mouth

[Guest wyoming]

languages such as Python had this idea of linking/merging several lines in mind. But then again, I know very little... Seems to me that independently of the current multicore trajectory, this idea is very elegant and I even wonder whether it hasn't been a source of inspiration for the chips makers. If that's the case, we have a case of strategic blindness rather than wrong guessing. Which would explain why n-core chips are working and nobody can use them.