Hi Paul,yes this is me. This is what we do with the Airliner XP Airbus A32x in having a multicore support of some sort. This is indeed effective to some extent in that I've experienced flying the airbus from 55 FPS to 65 FPS when enabling the multicore optimization/architecture.Like mentioned, multithread synchronization is almost an art, but we do keep thing simple for now and start scratching the surface of it with good results. Of course, the challenge now will be to extend our new gauge development framework in C++ (which replaces the default SDK, more info here if you are interested: http://www.airliner-xp.com/a320features.html ) to make it use also other cores in the basic gauge handling functions.Hope this helps!Jean-Luc

Framerate counter broken? :-)

Just from watching things, I don't think a lot of people are going to be too quick to jump on the DX10 bandwagon. I myself am not going to upgrade to it for at least a good year and a half. I'm not very happy with what Vista has turned out to be, and personally, I don't like the idea of running out and spending an absurd amount of money just for a new graphics card. Especially when the card I do have is pretty cutting-edge. Not to mention, the card I did buy less than a year ago, states 'Vista Ready' on the box, when it won't even handle DX10. As we all know here, and please, correct me if I'm wrong, Vista is a DX10 based application. That was nothing but a deceptive marketing ploy from the manufacturer which I will no doubt bring to their attention requesting that either the card I do have right now, be made to work with DX10, or that they replace the card I have with a DX10 model. Right now folks, I think let's wait and see what happens with SP1. I'm certain it'll fix a number of issues we all wanted to see fixed, and if these issues weren't fixed, I'm sure we'd hear complaints when the DX10 patch arrives that these issues were never addressed. Keep in mind, the DX10 patch is only to open up the rest of the code to make the software fully compatible with the DX10 platform, it was never stated that it was to fix issues.

Hi,I am sure your video card will run Vista.I am sure you knew that a 8800 or higher is needed for DX10 right?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/

> Framerate counter broken? :-)Not unless fraps is known to be inaccurate with FSX, and I do not believe it is. I'll post the screen capture with the fps number listed when I get home. In these two shots below I was getting up to 20fps with maximum autogen around downtown Vancouver. It still stutters a lot, but the framerate its self was not bad at all, better than I expected. I was actually testing with all settings maxed out, and was getting about 6fps. Then I turned off light bloom, dropped water down to low 2.x, and turned off ground scenery shadows while leaving all other settings at maximum to find my frame rate doubled and even tripled in some spots. Light bloom and setting water above low 2.x are the two biggest performance killers I have seen. http://sio.midco.net/111lll/fsx%202007-03-...03-02-09-93.jpghttp://sio.midco.net/111lll/fsx%202007-03-...02-59-55-00.jpg

>Just venting MY frustration on>releasing a patch that will be obsolete when dx10 comes out>anyway!How on earth did you come up with this "conclusion?"The "performance fixes" being done for SP1 would be required for the DX10 update anyway!They are cumulative fixes; not exclusionary... :-lol

>As we all know here, and please, correct me if>I'm wrong, Vista is a DX10 based application. You are wrong. Or rather, backwards a bit. DX10 is an API that runs on Vista. Vista comes with DX10, but does not require it. Vista also comes with DX9, which runs the Aero 3D desktop, but that isn't required either to run Vista, and Vista Home Basic doesn't include Aero. So while they are interrelated, they are not the same, or at least not tied together in the way that you said.>That was nothing>but a deceptive marketing ploy from the manufacturer which I>will no doubt bring to their attention requesting that either>the card I do have right now, be made to work with DX10, or>that they replace the card I have with a DX10 model. While I certainly won't argue that hardware companies don't fudge their marketing when it comes to capabilities, they technically were telling the truth when they say it's Vista ready, just as FSX was designed for Vista. That doesn't mean DX10 ready, as the two are separate things. It just means (generally) that the hardware will support the OS and drivers will be made available for it.I'm most certainly of the "wait and see" class. We'll know exactly what SP1 or DX10 does on our systems no earlier than when we get it. Any thing before that is just speculation.

In Microsoft's terms, the patch is pretty rapid. For the rest of us grunt developers, we'd probably be out of a job if we didn't update our software every month or so (and I'm not just talking bug fixes).#### it took almost 18 months for Microsoft to release an SP1 for Visual Studio 2005 and SP1 has turned out to be VERY buggy for me (mostly just IDE problems).I'm not defending Microsoft, but for them to release a patch in less than 1 year is pretty good by their standards.But I agree, I've long ago stopped using FSX and returned to FS9 (just a much better experience for me), the features of DX10 if implemented well (as it does look like Phil Taylor is going to make a good go at it) should make the SP1 for FSX for WinXP pretty irrelevant.BUT, I suspect Ace's are really in "profiling" stage and learning how to better optimize the graphics engine and I'm sure part of that work is providing the necessary stubs for DX10.I can wait til 2008 for DX10 version of FSX, FS9 still have plenty of mileage left in it for me. I think most know that the release of FSX back in Oct' 06 was really just to keep cash flow coming so that development can continue.The big question is do I install Vista Ultimate 64 bit? That answer will most likely come from those that make take on the adventure (other than me). I'll keep an eye on the DX10 FSX version -- certainly outside of this forum since there appears to be a strong bias in favor of all things Microsoft at AVSIM. But as always I need more than one source to make any decision.Now, back to FS9 and XPlane...Rob.

There is an issue with both ATI Tools and FRAPS showing a doubled framerate when running fullscreen. There was a long thread about it last October. It wouldn't hurt to compare the FRAPS fullscreen number to the windowed number. If you have the same problem the two number will be about 100% different.Doug

>the features of>DX10 if implemented well (as it does look like Phil Taylor is>going to make a good go at it) should make the SP1 for FSX for>WinXP pretty irrelevant.>This has been my point all along. They should have stuck with the original plan of implementing dx10. I guess they just catered to the squeakiest wheel of people with old machines and no desire to upgrade to vista which makes sense i suppose. My outlook on this hobby is that if you aren't prepared to replace/seriously upgrade your pc every 1.5-2 years then you aren't serious about computer games/simming.________________________________________________________________________________________________Intel D975XBX2 'Bad Axe 2' | Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.20Ghz | 2 GB Super Talent DDR2 800 | Big Typhoon VX | eVGA 8800GTS @ 565/900 | Seagate 2x320GB SATA RAID-0 | OCZ GameXStream 700W | Creative X-Fi | Silverstone TJ-09BW | Matrox Triplehead Setup

>>Now, back to FS9 and XPlane...>FS9 45%/ FSX 45% / X-Plane w/global --- maybe? 10% --- hereL.Adamson

The simple fact is that FSX is broken and needs some work to make it right. The need for a performance patch has nothing to do with "old" machines and everything to do with getting FSX to perform more like it should have been running from the beginning. That said, I think there is much too much being made about the expectations for SP1. Those who are looking for significant performance gains are likely to be sorely disappointed - but, so, too, are those who expect a miracle from a DX10 patch. Maybe, hopefully, the combination of the two will provide the headroom needed for future FSX growth. But, as I've said before, after three years of work, MS should be ashamed of themselves.Doug

>FS9 45%/ FSX 45% / X-Plane w/global --- maybe? 10% --- hereX-Plane 45% / FS9 10% / FSX - uninstalled at least until SP1 / Other activities 45% - since I lost quite interest in flight sims since I realized I'm not very satisfied of neither of the three.Marco

My basis:1. Phil Taylor (Ace's PM) has confirmed the delay of DX10 version2. It was originally schedule for a fall release '073. Microsoft are NEVER earlyThey might try to squeeze it out for Xmas '07, but if they do a repeat -- i.e. "it's not ready, release it anyway" then that would more likely mean another SP1 for FSX DX10. I'd rather see them take their time -- like a fine wine. ;)Besides, the longer they take the more likely the majority will be able to buy the hardware required to run it.Just for kicks I was running the $$$ numbers for a couple of friends that want a dedicated gaming PC (they already have MacPro and don't want to infest them with Windows software - can't blame them) and I was able to come up with a pretty decent upgrade rig for 800 and a really good rig for 800 rig (primarily for use with RTS games) and the other for the $1100 (primarily for racing games, 3D shooters) -- the $1100 has a 8800GS DX10 card. Neither of them are into flight sims though which is fine as it appears we still don't have the hardware necessary to run FSX anyway ;)Rob.

>My basis:>>1. Phil Taylor (Ace's PM) has confirmed the delay of DX10>version>2. It was originally schedule for a fall release '07>3. Microsoft are NEVER early>>They might try to squeeze it out for Xmas '07, but if they do>a repeat -- i.e. "it's not ready, release it anyway" then that>would more likely mean another SP1 for FSX DX10. I'd rather>see them take their time -- like a fine wine. ;)>>Besides, the longer they take the more likely the majority>will be able to buy the hardware required to run it.>>Just for kicks I was running the $$$ numbers for a couple of>friends that want a dedicated gaming PC (they already have>MacPro and don't want to infest them with Windows software ->can't blame them) and I was able to come up with a pretty>decent upgrade rig for 800 and a really good rig for <>$1100 (not top of the line, but pretty good hardware).>>What they can keep is:>1. Case>2. DVD/CD drive>3. Sound card>4. their existing Hard Drives will be put into USB 2.0>external enclosure>5. keyboard & mouse>6. various USB controllers>7. Maybe the power supply (they have a 500 Watt unit,>marginal)>>What they buy:>1. CPU>2. Motherboard>3. RAM>4. Video Card>5. 10K RPM Hard Drive>>Anyway, one friend is going for the $800 rig (primarily for>use with RTS games) and the other for the $1100 (primarily for>racing games, 3D shooters) -- the $1100 has a 8800GS DX10>card. Neither of them are into flight sims though which is>fine as it appears we still don't have the hardware necessary>to run FSX anyway ;)>>Rob.>My system was just about $1100 about six months ago. That was a 300GB SATA-II, Core 2 Duo E6600, ASUS mobo, X800GTO 256MB, 2GB RAM, new power supply. I'm pretty sure that price included shipping from NewEgg. Oh, right. Almost forgot that price included my CH yoke.