Don't forget about DX10. A while back did say he expects CPU overhead to be reduced at least a bit further with DX10 (though I'm sure enabling extra DX10 eye candy could negate that advantage).Actually, Phil, if you are still following this thread, as you work on the DX10 patch, will you still have an eye out for further non-DX10 related optimizations?

>Phil,>>Looking ahead with single core CPU's being phased out and>multi-cores being forcasted to be priced very affordably, can>you say anything about what the team has learned about coding>for multi-core and it relation to future possibilites?>>Since different application are coded and designed so>differently, what I mean is, does FS have a chance to really>benefit from multi-core based on the limited time you and ACES>has had with this new technology? Have the ACES Team just>started breaking the ice or does it seem that FS is just not>one of those applications that based on all its elements will>ever get near the potential multi-core CPU offer? I don't think they would have allowed Intel to promote expanded multi core capability, nor would I think Intel would state it, if there wasn't a significant verifiable benefit to the enhancements made in SP1. Note they didn't say the current version benefits from their multi-core CPU's, only SP1. That plus the fact Phil emphasizes that his stated 20% target performance boost, is a conservative estimate, is very encouraging. I don't think, with the current state of affairs with FSX, he would state anything or allow anything from another source, especially like Intel, that couldn't be backed up. We'll just have to wait and see!!

Even an image space post processing effect requires a 2nd pass across the frame buffer to use luminance to detect hot spots and enhance them.

I was really hoping that light bloom would be improved since that is the option i would most like to use. Light bloom with hawaii scenery at dusk is almost photoreal and really shows what this sim can do.Phil, what would the performance differential be between a core2 and a core2 quad? I was going to hold off until end of year to get my quad but may just grab one this summer if it makes a substantial difference over the core2.

I would like to go on record and just say that as an avid PC gamer, I think it is incredibly refreshing to see a development company be so forthcoming when it comes to keeping the community "in-the-loop". There are not many companies that give updates on progress these days, and I am proud to own FSX. Well done Phil and the team at Aces.

> I don't think, with the current state of affairs>with FSX, he would state anything or allow anything from>another source, especially like Intel, that couldn't be backed>up. We'll just have to wait and see!! >True Tom. But what I was getting at is ACES is just learning how to design for multi-core and based on that, has it been a struggle just to get the smallest amount to run across cores or do they see more potential down the road now that they are starting to really put it into the big picture. No promises or hard facts just feedback as to the feel for where FS and multi-core can go.

>I would like to go on record and just say that as an avid PC>gamer, I think it is incredibly refreshing to see a>development company be so forthcoming when it comes to keeping>the community "in-the-loop". There are not many companies>that give updates on progress these days, and I am proud to>own FSX. Well done Phil and the team at Aces.

Phil's blog post indicated that the primary improvements for multi-core would be for load times and also texture loads/processing in-flight. But it sounds like the texture processing comes in batches and is not always ongoing... so my guess is that additional cores may help to cut down on stutters or slowdowns that may otherwise occur during these periods, but not have that much of an effect on FPS outside of these periods of texture processing. I would have to imagine the added benefit of 4 cores over 2 would probably not be that noticeable outside of load times.Ordinarily I would think you'd get a lot more bang for the buck by going for a higher speed C2D rather than a quad... but you are already running your C2D at 3.2Ghz. So in that case, I would go ahead and suggest the quad, and send your old C2D to me :D

>Phil,>>Looking ahead with single core CPU's being phased out and>multi-cores being forcasted to be priced very affordably, can>you say anything about what the team has learned about coding>for multi-core and it relation to future possibilites?>>Since different application are coded and designed so>differently, what I mean is, does FS have a chance to really>benefit from multi-core based on the limited time you and ACES>has had with this new technology? Have the ACES Team just>started breaking the ice or does it seem that FS is just not>one of those applications that based on all its elements will>ever get near the potential multi-core CPU offer? Hopefully, SimHQ may well do another review, using FSX and quad-core, to compare with the first report -http://www.simhq.com/_technology2/technology_093d.htmlRay

>What I'm thinking (assuming all pans out) is that these next>gen quad's that will come out here in the next 6 months, will>give us a minimal level of overhead with the super-advanced>add-ons like PDMG.The rate PMDG are going that wont be for at least a year yet. I mean they still don't even have the MD11 out and how long has that been going on now?Then there is the 737NG from scratch and the 747 update. Nope would not hold my breath waiting. It has been real disappointing from them and not even a word on what they are up to. So much for customer service.

>I say minimal because as you are well aware, performance is>all in the eye of the beholder--some are well satisfied with>less. Others demand more.Ain't that the truth. I'm running FSX quite successfully on my 3 year old rig, admittedly using default scenery with the Carenado Cessna's and the Beaver x from Aerosoft. I refuse to look at the frame rate counter and modify my setup based on look and feel only.I am constantly amazed at just how good the sim looks and performs out of the box even with some of the sliders on the wrong side of half way. Having said that, I am equally amazed at why others are not getting much better performance out of significantly more powerful rigs.I guess it's as the quoted poster said above "performance is all in the eye of the beholder".My 3 yr old PC specs below. Only one minor video card upgrade a year and a bit ago.Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern AustraliaPentium IV 3.0GHz (800FSB) Socket 478 pins CPU w/Hyper-Thread Technology MSI 875P NEO FIS2R, AGP 8X, i875P ICH5R Chipset with Gigiabit Lan2GB PC3200 Double Data Rate (DDR) RAM CAS-2.5- 400MHz RatedVideo Nvidia 6800GS 256MbASUS MW221u 21" Wide Screen LCDWestern Digital Raptor 36.0GB HDD IDE, for OS WD 40Gig HD for dataWD 200Gig HD for FSXHercules Game Theater XP, 6.1 speakers Dolby

>I would like to go on record and just say that as an avid PC>gamer, I think it is incredibly refreshing to see a>development company be so forthcoming when it comes to keeping>the community "in-the-loop". There are not many companies>that give updates on progress these days, and I am proud to>own FSX. Well done Phil and the team at Aces.

I disagree-- I think they have kept people pretty informed at what their up to. Unfortunately, they've made it pretty clear they've made very little progress. Last I heard, they were "months" from deciding if they were going to target FSX with MD11. I can only imagine how far they have to go from that juncture.I can identify with the mantra of quality over quantity, but there has to be a limit if you are going to run a successful business. They are pushing that limit hard. There comes a time when you simply have to get something out the door.I think there's a decent chance they've lost my business for one. Since AirlinerXP's A320 is close enough to allow myself to get excited about, I'm pretty sure I'll be getting the FSX version of it. The question is once PMDG gets their line out, will I be satisfied with what I have?

>I was really hoping that light bloom would be improved since>that is the option i would most like to use. Light bloom with>hawaii scenery at dusk is almost photoreal and really shows>what this sim can do.>>Phil, what would the performance differential be between a>core2 and a core2 quad? I was going to hold off until end of>year to get my quad but may just grab one this summer if it>makes a substantial difference over the core2.I am interested in the answer in that Q as well.Earlier, there was no difference between a dual core and Quad core. In fact a dual core was better for OCing. So how marginal is the benefir of a qua core over a dual core is good to know. Would it be substational over the benefit of added value of OCing a dual core more than the Quad core. Manny

We just havent tested whether an OC Duo is better than a Quad. Once we release SP1, I am sure someone will generate that data.