Phil Taylor Interview on YouTube!

[Mace 1,902]

I like how you briefly mentioned the possibility of moving other things off to other cores in the future. If that can be done that would be a major, major advance for the sim.Imagine the AI off on another core. Much reduced frame rate hits at big airports! Wow! Good stuff! Guiness or Gatorade all around!RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

[Mace 1,902]

Hey, I just noticed, is that a Coolermaster Stacker Evolution case?It sure looks like it...???RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

[Guest Mike707]

Your very welcome, I work in IT as well and I know how difficult it can be. So one last question on the topic for me. Post SP2, would you think an Intel Quad core Q6600 with a clock speed of 2.4 gigahertz and 1066 FSB would perform better than an Intel Dual core e6750 with a clock speed of 2.6 gigahertz and FSB of 1333, or even a 6850 with a clock speed of 3.0 gigahertz and FSB of 1333. Thanks again.

[Guest Len]

Not much to be impressed with. No cockpit, scant scenery, a few gauges, don't know the point of the video at all. As far as multi-core well we'd expect that any game/program would use the other cores.

[PhilTaylor 45]

You want all components to be as fast as possible. So the faster clock and memory/FSB speed the better. Having more cores but slower clock and memory speed is likely not going to be a winner.

[Nick75 0]

All in all an interesting post, especially with regard to Phil's comments about what more cores *could* do for the sim. I won't hold my breath though, but it has kind of got me a little bit excited, I must admit :-hah Although I'm still a bit unsure as to whether to invest in a Quad or a Core 2 Duo for the upgrade I'm about to do...Although this post kind of makes me want to throw caution to the wind and just opt for a Quad }(

[PhilTaylor 45]

As I said in the other part of the thread, dont just consider cores. Consider core clock, and fsb/memory speed too.I'd consider waiting for the Wolfdale/Penryn CPUs which are just around the corner. Faster, bigger cache, more power efficient. And FSB clock may rise too.Definitely as our focus moves to FS11, we are looking at what else we can do to take further advantage of multi-core.And Trains2 should get some goodness too.

[Guest MauiHawk]

>i think that every 2 fold increase of core amount should have>real benefit to fps at least 50%.>i dont want the terrain engine to sharpen up the terrain on>the other side of the world, just show whats closer to the>viewer. Indeed. But I think the limiting factor for SP1 was in finding work that could be easily be parallelized without radically changing the architecture of FSX. So while terrain work often won't directly affect FPS, it was something that could be parallelized and is still accomplishing *something* faster. And theoretically, since the extra work should allow less blurries at a specific FPS lock value or FIBER_FRAME value, you should be able to "give back" some of the terrain work in exchange for FPS by either lowering the FIBER_FRAME value or by raising the FPS lock.At one point on his blog, Phil had hinted that the SP2 patch under DX10 may be able to use a secondary core to issue DX 10 calls which I think would enable a much more direct benefit for multi-core machines in regard to FPS. OTOH, Phil has also been doing a lot of expectations management for SP2 recently (particularily in regard to performance and multi-core usage in this thread), so I'm becoming less hopeful that will make it into SP2.

[Guest PPSFA]

>Why that video looked the way it looked will become clearer>when I can make the SP2 details post. Next week-ish.>>And yes, SP2 fixes that particular issue. :-).Whew, glad to hear that! I was afraid that was what you Aces guys saw when testing! Keep up the great work, after SP1, I fly with almost everything maxxed, but I did have FS-GS setup my machine and FSX

[ccaughie 0]

>And yes, SP2 fixes that particular issue. :-).Excuse me if I'm being obtuse, but what particular issue? I found it hard to comment on the scenery quality in that video due to the compression artifacts etc.Do you mean blurries? If SP2 fixes those you'll be a popular man. :)Colin

[Guest tmholopa]

penryn is only 10% faster than current generation. i am getting the message that only two cores are used properly. if there was 32 cores in the system you would only get stutter free experience nothing more? i am talking about same clockspeeds as of 3 Ghz. if coreclocks increases it would give good performance increase for the two cores.

[jackcnd 0]

>>Definitely as our focus moves to FS11, we are looking at what>else we can do to take further advantage of multi-core.>Phil, thanks so much for the comments.Does SP2 pretty much wrap up FSX development?

[Vulcan 14]

>You want all components to be as fast as possible...

[nudata 10]

The video piece was not really helpful. In fact it was misleading by using an extreme PC with no discussion of its relevance.From the discussion it seems that two cores at higher clock speeds may be a "way forward" for people who are not able to purchase a CPU with more cores. For this segment getting a "reasonable" speed 2-core CPU and over-clocking it will be a good path to improved performance. As more cores become available perhaps the fastest lowly 2-core CPUs will drop further in price. Suggest frequent visits to Pricewatch. Thus by staying just behind the curve, quite satisfactory performance at a reasonable cost will be possible in the not too distant future.To illustrate that point I moved to an e4400 2-core for FSX(replaced AMD 2ghz 1 core). Clocked it to 2.7 ghz from 2ghz. While FSX is still not at a satisfactory level FS9 is stellar in its performance running on only 1 core. Full objects, max autogen, 65% AI, mid-level cloud detail, etc provide 30 to 40fps. New York runs at 20fps. The point is that the same thing should happen for the FSX challenged at some point in time. In contrast to some of our larger problems, there may be light at the end of the FSX tunnel.Regards,Dick BoleyA PC, an LCD, speakers, CH yoke

[PhilTaylor 45]

yes, we need to move on to helping Trains and developing FS11.