> The technology just wasn't on par with the software. And looks like today it's still stretching it. Which software are you talking about? If your talking FS you couldn't be more wrong. The FS engine is highly CPU bound and hence inefficient and not scalable. Just open task manager and you can see that for yourself.Other simulators like ACE Combat 6 are the opposite and perform well with 10 times better graphics. And thats on XBox 360. A console limited to only 512MB memory and DX9 like graphics and card! The graphics engine makes all the difference.Cryengine is the same, install the demo and look the CPU usage. Its very low. In fact just read the benchmark!http://www.techspot.com/article/73-crysis-...ance/page7.htmlWhen benchmarking Crysis the demo appeared to generate very little CPU utilization. Using a Core 2 Duo E6700, the processor utilization would hover between 20-30% at times. Both cores did appear to be active though neither seemed to do a great deal, especially at the same time.The processor utilization never really got above 45% which would indicate that the game is really only using one core. However, based on the CPU Scaling results it could also just mean that Crysis is not that processor intensive when you consider that a 1GHz drop in frequency only accounted for 2-4fps.

I hate FSX...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kT50Z-AcGwg***NOT***

Still hugely cheaper than flying the real thing!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

>I hate FSX...>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kT50Z-AcGwg>>***NOT***Thanks for the link to the video. I've been wondering how it looks. I "contaminated" my FSX somehow with various addons, and am slow to getting it cleaned up... Might take a month or two. :)Monument Valley is only a couple of hours away from home, by airplane, and is one of my more favorite areas to visit by air or land vehicle.L.Adamson