PDA

View Full Version : From the horses mouth: FSX not designed for dual cores.


sillyeagle
12-18-06, 12:49 AM
This is an awesome article by one of the developers. Answers most all of my questions.

http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2006/11/30/fsx-today-and-tomorrow.aspx

I am seeing a lot of threads and a lot of thrashing on this forum, and I thought I would try to address some of the discussions and draw a line in the sand. One big topic of discussion is performance (FPS) and DX10.

DX10 by itself isnít a magic bullet for the real performance issues that become evident as you move the sliders to the right. It was a conscious design decision of the studio to load the sliders so that, on day one, no one can run the sim at full slider levels. We did that so the sim will still have life in it three years from now. For better or worse, that is our design center. It is what it is.



Aces made its architectural decisions about FSX 2-3 years ago.

It wasnít clear to me, and I am sure it wasnít clear to the rest of Aces and many of our readers in 2003 and 2004, that multicore was the future. Since those sorts of design decisions are baked in early, as it became clear in late 2005 and 2006 that the CPU landscape had changed it was just too late to make the major architectural changes required to make our internal architecture more parallel.

Once you are on the glide path it is a very risky decision to change the architecture underneath the product. For better or worse, we decided to not do that and ship the product.


5 ) Aces DX10 Update Plan

We are following two paths:

Path 1

An investigation is under way to understand if we can do something that is:

1) targeted and isnít a complete rewrite, and

2) gives real customer benefit.

That investigation includes areas of performance. I cannot comment on the full roster of issues under investigation, I can only say that if there are results worth reporting I will be back.

Path 2

Aces is making a commitment to a freely available Web download DX10 update that will enable all FSX RTM purchasers to upgrade to DX10 support on Windows Vista with DX10 hardware.

We are making progress on understanding what DX10 does and doesnít do, and what we can and cannot count on. When we are done with those investigations we will have a fully booked DX10 plan. And then we can turn those screenies into real rendering and not "artistic impressions".

Q
12-18-06, 12:56 AM
I don't see why they just didn't call it FS2004 2 instead of FSX. The X should have been reserved for more than a crap job face lift.

SH0DAN
12-18-06, 01:24 AM
I don't see why they just didn't call it FS2004 2 instead of FSX. The X should have been reserved for more than a crap job face lift.


Too true....tech wise this game is behind the times...no dual core support out of the box !?!?!!!!?? and no DX10 out of the box.... :thumbdwn:

Mr_LoL
12-18-06, 02:09 AM
Bah Humbug. I will be buying a dual core cpu mainly for this game. Looks like its not worth the bother then.

sAnt@
12-18-06, 02:20 AM
Games for Windows games need to include:

# Games Explorer support
# Parental controls
# Compatibility with the Xbox 360 controller (where applicable)
# Widescreen support
# 64-bit processor support
# Multi-core and multi-threading support :rolleyes:
# Media Center support (Premium and Ultimate Vista packages ship with Media Center)

http://pc.ign.com/articles/749/749845p1.html

Redeemed
12-18-06, 02:31 AM
http://pc.ign.com/articles/749/749845p1.html

Hehe. How funny. MS failed to meet their own requirements. :p Nice. ;)

XxDeadlyxX
12-18-06, 02:39 AM
Yeah, so much for 'Games for Windows' :p

sillyeagle
12-18-06, 02:47 AM
http://pc.ign.com/articles/749/749845p1.html

Yeah I was looking at some CPU benches and FSX gained only 7% with a second core on an equally clocked Core 2 Duo.

SH0DAN
12-18-06, 02:58 AM
Yeah I was looking at some CPU benches and FSX gained only 7% with a second core on an equally clocked Core 2 Duo.


MS programmers are incompetent fools to only get 7%.

Redeemed
12-18-06, 03:48 AM
MS programmers are incompetent fools to only get 7%.

I wouldn't quite claim that. You have to consider that FSX isn't optimized for multi-core systems, as such getting any form of a gain at all is impressive. I'm sure if they really wanted to get more from multi-core systems they easily could.

I'm betting these new features will all be released via a patch.

ynnek
12-18-06, 06:03 AM
heh.. reading some of the comments, what they should have done is purposely limited the amount of detail on initial release, IOW, handicap the sliders. Then people would be like "yay, I can run the game with the sliders all the way to the right"..

Then slowly "patched" it so the sliders can move further to the right.. Then everyone would be like, "yay, improvements down the road, awesome!"

I'm just half joking.. ;)

About the multi core, I can see where they are coming from.. They made the decision back in 2003,2004.. It was a gamble.. and unfortunately, they may have made the wrong one.. But I'm trying to think back in 2003/2004.... I don't think dual core chips even existed for desktop consumers until mid 2005?

a12ctic
12-18-06, 08:36 AM
Not even MS is following this "games for windows" thing? What a joke...

sillyeagle
12-18-06, 05:06 PM
What gets me is they advertised FSX as having "Full dual core support", then we find out later that it has virtually no dual core support.

OWA
12-19-06, 04:03 PM
Yeah, that doesn't seem right in addition to not following the Games for Windows guidelines.

vandalous
12-19-06, 04:13 PM
Maybe they got some of their development team from LOMAC?

*hides from flames* :D

Burner_Tbird2
12-19-06, 05:06 PM
Maybe they got some of their development team from LOMAC?

*hides from flames* :D

HA! Microsoft should be so lucky! LOMAC looks and flies better than anything MS could hope to produce and the code is damn near 5 years old!

That said LOMAC is by far the most linear threaded, processor handicapped game I've ever seen. My e6700+8800GTX can only manage 35FPS during heavy action and 40FPS during no action! ;)


I would also like to add that Aces claiming they chose to single thread the underlieing code b/c they had no way of knowing that multicore was the future is such a load of BS that I can smell it through the computer screen.

What they really mean to say is "We had a choice, write a new modern source code from scratch taking advantage of all the new tech coming down the pipeline, or reuse the same code we wrote way back when and save ourselves months and months of effort. In the end we decided to stuff our target amount of resources through the same old grinder and prey every night that some revolution in clock speeds would save us from ourselves. Many goats were lost in sacrifice chasing that impossible dream..."

(nana2)

sillyeagle
12-26-06, 07:29 PM
In another post on his blog the developer also states the DX10 update to FSX will not be out until "Later next year", and will not be included in the update in January.

http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2006/11/30/fsx-responding-to-community-feedback.aspx

I don't understand why the performance is so bad, even at low settings I don't get much beyond 15fps, and thats with almost no buildings or anything visible. In FS9 I can max everything with a million buildings all over and get over 30 easily. I checked, and even with max settings there are much fewer buildings, in New York for example, than whats visible is FS9. They did a pretty lame job with FSX.

a12ctic
12-26-06, 08:34 PM
fsx is a joke, order x-plane, youll never want to play another flight sim again.

Roadhog
12-26-06, 10:41 PM
fsx is a joke, order x-plane, youll never want to play another flight sim again.

so true.

Lith1um
12-28-06, 06:31 PM
I was digging FSX pretty much until I flew the red bull air race missions.

Knife edge flight is all messed up in the Extra 300S. Rudder authority is almost non existant when attempting to hold the edge.

To have that type of bug in an aerobatic plane's flight model just dissappoints the hell out of me.