Breaking News From Microsoft

[Nick N]

PTaylor:

One goal of SP1 is to reduce the CPU-bound nature of FSX ....

Another goal of SP1 is to increase the multi-core nature of FSX and get benefit during rendering. How much of that we get in SP1 is still to be determined.

The performance increase will come in the form of less CPU overhead and there is no way to 'gauge' what that will mean because they can not define it in a 'number'. It is based on the system the update is applied

SLI may see benefits because that is what is currently holding it back, but with SP1 and a good reduction in CPU bound addressing, the system must be run at a minimum of 2400x1600 with 16xAA enabled or SLI will give no benefit in FSX, at all

there is no CPU available to the public that can handle 2 8800GTX in SLI anyway

In any case, anything that reduces the CPU load will be a relief to many

The biggest problem I see with SP1 is with all those who hacked the heck out of their textures and autogen files. That may have been a very, very bad mistake and could very well require a complete reinstall of the product. It will depend of the contents of the update. I for one tried all those hacks to see what all the hoop-la was about and as far as I am concerned, they were the worse thing I ever tested. I

[ATI_7500]

Nick, how do you think they're gonna degrade CPU use?

By shifting more graphical calculations to the video card?

[Nick N]

Nick, how do you think they're gonna degrade CPU use?

By shifting more graphical calculations to the video card?

CPU polling in FSX is over the top for current hardware and that with the autogen calibrated as it is along with a few other factors, in my opinion, they were asking too much too soon with the release of the title. Their explanationis it goes to future-proofing the product, ok, I can see -some- of that because of the software and what it is asked to do now, and in the future.

I heard the decision to stay with such huge CPU bound calls was based on a combination of things, most of which were required given the direction of the project a year from now however one factor is that many typical video adapters (lower-mid grade) were not up to the task of rendering the new engine and shifting the load to the CPU balanced that out so low-mid grade hardware stood a chance of running the software. The flip side of that is as you increase the sliders the load is multiplied so the better video card owners who raise the sliders start getting choked because of the bottleneck.

I am not a software or graphics engineer (as you can tell by my cheesy add-ons) but as I see it the statement PTaylor made gives a clue to how they will reduce CPU overhead. That appears to be driven by the fact that they now fully comprehend the use of SMP as it is now found in better systems on the market as standard. FSX is not multithread by definition but it does make use of the 2nd CPU. By increasing that use it will in fact reduce what is bound to CPU0. Additionally they may very well do what they did in FS9.1 and limit the autogen radius but I see them doing it based on altitude as well as distance. This is something that can be 'somewhat' tweaked now in the config file by increasing the small parts reject radius. The rest would be in transferring what calls they can to the GPU from the CPU although I do not see them doing too much of that because then the issue of slower cards comes back into play. They may also play with the polys or other coding associated with autogen to soften the blow. There are a number of ways to reduce the CPU load but...

Want my honest opinion?

I think they -may- have located a duck-up in the write and by fixing it they know there will be a decrease in CPU bound calls. The rest is in the publicly posted schmooo explanation as to how they intend to make FSX better.

[ATI_7500]

I think I prefer the "Fixed something over the code" over the rest.

Hm, I think a solution for the shift from the CPU to the GPU could be a slider in the game or - maybe preferably - an entry in the fsx.cfg. The best thing would be doing it automatically, of course.

[Nick N]

I think I prefer the "Fixed something over the code" over the rest.

Hm, I think a solution for the shift from the CPU to the GPU could be a slider in the game or - maybe preferably - an entry in the fsx.cfg. The best thing would be doing it automatically, of course.

Its funny because the sliders that have the most impact in order are

1. Autogen
2. Air Traffic // you need a good replacement for this such as Project AI and I have seen this one mentioned at AVSIM http://www.world-of-ai.com/
3. WaterFX // my opinon is the shaders on the new cards are not being used quite right because older cards tend to show less of a hit
4. Airport ground //moving
5. Road cars //moving
6. Scenery complex (city and airport buildings)
7. Scenery radius (based on the above)


hmmmmm...

and in the config file its the FFTF

put them all together and it spells a CPU Bar-B-que. When you think about it, this is Flight Simualtor, not World Simulator but more effort goes into packing on the poly's for the ambiance than anything else. Flying is secondary to the simulation.

[Camel_Moe]

[quote]The biggest problem I see with SP1 is with all those who hacked the heck out of their textures and autogen files. That may have been a very, very bad mistake and could very well require a complete reinstall of the product. It will depend of the contents of the update. I for one tried all those hacks to see what all the hoop-la was about and as far as I am concerned, they were the worse thing I ever tested. I

[Katahu]

I have to agree with Nick's assessment when it come to installing the SP1 over an already-tweaked-as-heck FSX [especially when those tweaks may have affected certain essential files in the sim].

From what I can make out of Nick's assessment of the situation, it's more than likely that FSX has become the turning point on how future versions of FS will perform.

[an-225]

Eh, I don't like the sound of "expansion pack". Makes it sound like a cheap shoddy video game.  :-[

[ATI_7500]

put them all together and it spells a CPU Bar-B-que. When you think about it, this is Flight Simualtor, not World Simulator but more effort goes into packing on the poly's for the ambiance than anything else. Flying is secondary to the simulation.  ;D  It all has to be renedered and calculated somewhere.

It all depends on what you want from a sim.

If you want to *fly*, MSFS is the wrong application for you, you might be better off with X-Plane then.

If you prefer the "being there" feeling over an overly realistic flight experience, then MSFS is your simulator of choice.

I like how Aces improved the landscape rendition with all the autogen and dynamic vehicles and thousands of ground textures.
Makes FS9 look older than it ever looked.

[Camel_Moe]

I hear you Heritic. I've been flying since before MS got it's hands on FS, and quite frankly if it wasn't for the scenery improvements, I'd be so bored by now.
Heck, probably wouldn't have updated past FS98 if fs2000 hadn't come out with improved visuals.
Don't get me wrong, If people want to turn off all the scenery, that's their choice, but I love my eye candy.
I can also understand wanting to simulate being a real world pilot of some type, following all the rules and such, but I gave up doing that long ago.

[ATI_7500]

 Pretending to be and airline pilot, or something, flying A to B just puts me asleep, lol.

That what keeps me going, actually. But I'm only a "light" airline pilot.
FMC? SID/STAR? No way...

[Nick N]

[quote]

Want my honest opinion?

I think they -may- have located a duck-up in the write and by fixing it they know there will be a decrease in CPU bound calls. The rest is in the publicly posted schmooo explanation as to how they intend to make FSX better.

[Camel_Moe]

No reinstall "foe" I either. lol

[Nick N]

[quote] No reinstall "foe" I either. lol

[ATI_7500]

Because Microsoft had a stroke over overcorrect political correctness and doesn't want the eight year old son crashing a 747 with tons of passengers on board?