Simviation Forum - Do you think Flight will be more CPU hungry than FSX?

Aug 13^th, 2011 at 6:59pm

F35LightningII Offline
Colonel
I Like Flight Simulation!
Auckland, New Zealand

Gender:
Posts: 266

Place your votes.

i5 3570K @ 4.3GHz, ASRock Z77 Pro3, EVGA GTX 670 FTW, 8GB DDR3, 128GB Samsung 830, 500GB Seagate Barracuda, Thermaltake Armor A60, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro, Logitech K800, Logitech M510, Windows 8 Pro x64, FSX Acceleration

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #1 - Aug 13^th, 2011 at 7:35pm

hyperpep111 Offline
Colonel
You'll Never See Me Coming.
93 million miles from sun

Gender:
Posts: 1328

Too bad there is a limit on how many times you can push yes Cry

Most people think that flying a plane is dangerous, except pilots because they know how easy it is.
Arguing with a pilot is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a while you begin to think the pig likes it.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #2 - Aug 13^th, 2011 at 7:39pm

F35LightningII Offline
Colonel
I Like Flight Simulation!
Auckland, New Zealand

Gender:
Posts: 266

Quite the results I expected.

So do you guys think a quad core (eg. i5) will be enough to max out its settings, or do you think it will need a hex-core (eg. i7-3930K)?

i5 3570K @ 4.3GHz, ASRock Z77 Pro3, EVGA GTX 670 FTW, 8GB DDR3, 128GB Samsung 830, 500GB Seagate Barracuda, Thermaltake Armor A60, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro, Logitech K800, Logitech M510, Windows 8 Pro x64, FSX Acceleration

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #3 - Aug 13^th, 2011 at 8:33pm

skoker Offline
Colonel
Jordan never wore his
safety goggles...
1G3

Gender:
Posts: 4611

F35LightningII wrote on Aug 13^th, 2011 at 7:39pm:

Quite the results I expected.

So do you guys think a quad core (eg. i5) will be enough to max out its settings, or do you think it will need a hex-core (eg. i7-3930K)?

My quad i5 can run fsx @17-24 in rural areas, Im sure it will struggle just as much with flight unless they finally figure out how to develop games that are like just cause or AVA, tons of detail, great FPS.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #4 - Aug 14^th, 2011 at 12:13am

Travis Offline
Colonel
Cannot find REALITY.SYS.
Universe halted.
Dripping Springs, TX

Gender:
Posts: 4515

I hold firm to the belief that one of the main reasons FSX hogs so much mem and CPU time is that the legacy software it was built on had too much goofy code that was left over from previous versions. I still think Flight will work better with current tech than FSX did with the systems available upon its release.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #5 - Aug 14^th, 2011 at 10:15am

SamYeager Offline
Colonel
Where am I?

Posts: 22

I voted no - but I think a better question would have been "Do you think Flight will be as CPU bound as FSX?". After all who cares if Flight uses more CPU as long as it is responsive and delivers decent frame rates?

Maybe I'm naive but I believe a large part of existing processing will be offloaded to the GPU. In my view Flight will be designed for multi-core and optimised for dual core. I also believe the system requirements will mandate a minimum of Vista and DX11, possibly DX10.

IMHO Microsoft's definition of 'existing PC' means Vista or better. IE9 already offloads processing to the GPU and I find it inconceivable that Flight won't do the same thing.

I can't point to any sources for my beliefs so I may be completely wrong. Grin

However the logic seems reasonable to me.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #6 - Aug 14^th, 2011 at 2:09pm

BrandonF Offline
Colonel
The Future of Flight
Location: Earth...Duh!!!!

Gender:
Posts: 2296

What's wrong with you people that voted yes? Grin

There's no way anything will be more CPU hungry than FSX. If anything, it should be somewhat less hungry, or at least take advantage of multicore processors to the fullest. Like the team has said, it needs to run on today's hardware, not tomorrow's. Well, not everyone has a i7, especially not your everyday users/casual gamers. They are pretty much forced to write something that runs well or they really will screw themselves again, which doesn't seem likely will happen. Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #7 - Aug 14^th, 2011 at 5:56pm

Strategic Retreat Offline
Colonel
Wish people were less
idiotic as an average

Posts: 603

BrandonF wrote on Aug 14^th, 2011 at 2:09pm:

What's wrong with you people that voted yes? Grin

There's no way anything will be more CPU hungry than FSX.

Damn it, that's it! You just jinxed us all! You underestimate the POWER of the dark side of M$, young padawan. Angry

BrandonF wrote on Aug 14^th, 2011 at 2:09pm:

Like the team has said, it needs to run on today's hardware, not tomorrow's.

That would be a first, coming from M$. For real. Roll Eyes

BrandonF wrote on Aug 14^th, 2011 at 2:09pm:

Well, not everyone has a i7, especially not your everyday users/casual gamers. They are pretty much forced to write something that runs well or they really will screw themselves again, which doesn't seem likely will happen. Roll Eyes

Remember FSX. They DID NOT feel forced to code something that ran, run or, five years down the line, will run smoothly on any hardware today's available. Tongue

And, for the short of memory, remember FS2000. THAT was maybe a lesser mess-up if compared to FSX, seen that with hardware from 2005 you CAN actually use it. Roll Eyes

Those who DON'T WANT to learn from their errors are doomed to repeat said mistakes... and call it a philosophy of life. Tongue

There is no such a thing as overkill. Only unworthy targets.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #8 - Aug 14^th, 2011 at 6:05pm

BrandonF Offline
Colonel
The Future of Flight
Location: Earth...Duh!!!!

Gender:
Posts: 2296

Why is it that you just HAVE to look at what FSX was, and then say what Flight is going to be? That makes absolutely no sense and is not logical. I don't think ACES ever went on and on about how FSX would have amazing performance on today's hardware. Well, guess what? The Flight team (Not "M$"....call them MS) has said in pretty much every news release/article about how the approach to flight simulation in the past was not right...and that the goal was to have the end user go through a few computers in a few years time and gradually be able to get better performance as they upgraded. Even the Flight team realizes that. It was a bad bad approach, AND THEY KNOW IT. There's no point in saying all this just to disappoint. Why do you think they've been so secretive about Flight's details? They don't want to promise what they can't deliver like they did with FSX. They are only saying that they know for sure. You may not think so, but the Flight team are people that know what they are doing. The Microsoft marketing team, well that's a whole different story. Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #9 - Aug 14^th, 2011 at 10:18pm

JBaymore Offline
Global Moderator
Under the curse of the
hombuilt cockpit!

Gender:
Posts: 10261

Is there any chance that you two guys (Strategic Retreat and BrandonF) will ever agree on anything? Wink

best,

.................john

Intel i7 960 quad 3.2G LGA 1366, Asus P6X58D Premium, 750W Corsair, 6 gig 1600 DDR3, Spinpoint 1TB 7200 HD, Caviar 500G 7200 HD, GTX275 1280M, Logitec Z640, Win7 Pro 64b, CH Products yoke, pedals + throttle quad, simpit

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #10 - Aug 15^th, 2011 at 8:42am

Strategic Retreat Offline
Colonel
Wish people were less
idiotic as an average

Posts: 603

BrandonF wrote on Aug 14^th, 2011 at 6:05pm:

Why is it that you just HAVE to look at what FSX was, and then say what Flight is going to be? That makes absolutely no sense and is not logical.

Please explain in this instance WHY it doesn't not make sense, by YOUR point of view. Huh

BrandonF wrote on Aug 14^th, 2011 at 6:05pm:

I don't think ACES ever went on and on about how FSX would have amazing performance on today's hardware.

I seem to remember EXACTLY THE CONTRARY... you know... marketing reasons and all that jazz... paramount is TO SELL, customer satisfaction comes for last... if then.... this has ALWAYS been M$ philosophy. Roll Eyes

BrandonF wrote on Aug 14^th, 2011 at 6:05pm:

Well, guess what? The Flight team (Not "M$"....call them MS)

Is there a rule on how to call THEM, now? Huh

BrandonF wrote on Aug 14^th, 2011 at 6:05pm:

has said in pretty much every news release/article about how the approach to flight simulation in the past was not right...and that the goal was to have the end user go through a few computers in a few years time and gradually be able to get better performance as they upgraded.

And in fact, the first thing they did was to EJECT the "simulation" part even from the title... not to start about the closed market thinghy they have thought for their "new software". Angry

BrandonF wrote on Aug 14^th, 2011 at 6:05pm:

Even the Flight team realizes that. It was a bad bad approach, AND THEY KNOW IT. There's no point in saying all this just to disappoint. Why do you think they've been so secretive about Flight's details? They don't want to promise what they can't deliver like they did with FSX. They are only saying that they know for sure. You may not think so, but the Flight team are people that know what they are doing. The Microsoft marketing team, well that's a whole different story. Roll Eyes

If you read my past posts in this area, you'll see I'm still a hopeful, but a cynical one. Words are just that, and the FACTS that follow, when M$ is concerned, almost never have followed the promises, in the past. You may be a M$ staunch believer, but where I live, a chronical and historical liar remains a LIAR that CANNOT be believed only on a word basis, his/her actions MUST be controlled and monitored cautiously and s/he MAY be believed only on the base of the end results. Tongue

JBaymore wrote on Aug 14^th, 2011 at 10:18pm:

Is there any chance that you two guys (Strategic Retreat and BrandonF) will ever agree on anything? Wink

Is there any chances of a gas guzzling eight liters V8 engine of the sixties stopping being such, even in modern day petrol crisis? Or M$ stopping behaving like M$? Huh

There is no such a thing as overkill. Only unworthy targets.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #11 - Aug 15^th, 2011 at 8:54am

NNNG Ex Member

I voted no, but I think it will be. Here's why.

FSX doesn't take proper use of multiple cores, Flight undoubtedly will take better advantage of multiple core processors. So even if it requires more CPU power, it still could run better on the same hardware. If however, Flight is anything like FSX in terms of its hardware requirements relative to current hardware, then it will not be purchased by myself and instead the next DCS will.

I never set any expectations for the next release of any computer software or hardware release. That way I can not be disappointed. I don't see the point in moaning about what MS did or did not say in the past, it will be what it will be and there's no changing that.

Quote:

So do you guys think a quad core (eg. i5) will be enough to max out its settings, or do you think it will need a hex-core (eg. i7-3930K)?

Who knows. I would say that very high end hardware is required for highest settings, which would likely be a Sandy Bridge-E processor by the time Flight is released.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #12 - Aug 15^th, 2011 at 11:26am

Club508 Offline
Colonel
I like repainting aircraft!
Planet Earth

Gender:
Posts: 1528

If they don't follow atleast a few of the following suggestions I think it will. If they do, I think it will be perfectly frame rate and CPU friendly.
Number 1 and number 4 are the biggest.

1. One of the big probloms is all the bitmap and Direct Draw Surface images. those things use whopper amounts of data. I'm talking about around 1,500 Kb per bitmap. I would suggest using jpeg images instead if possible. Even on some of the larger ones, I have never seen a jpeg image exceed 300Kb. They are slightly lower quality than bmp and DDS, but they use about five times less data.

2. Don't use as many water effects as FSX. I bet they only need about 1/2 to 2/3 of the effects they put in to make it look as good as it does.

3. In the textures, try to use less colors. I beleive that with less colors, it uses less data. and a 1-3 difference on the RGB scale barely makes a diffrence. And also, it might make it easier on some repainters.

4. THIS ONE IS VERY IMPORTANT
Bring back the 800x600 screen resolution ability! I had the ability to use 800x600 resolution in FS9, but not in FSX, and in FS9, I found that if you increase the resolution, it takes a HUGE amount out of your frame rate. I'm talking about 50 fps.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #13 - Aug 15^th, 2011 at 4:51pm

Strategic Retreat Offline
Colonel
Wish people were less
idiotic as an average

Posts: 603

Club508 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 11:26am:

1. One of the big probloms is all the bitmap and Direct Draw Surface images. those things use whopper amounts of data. I'm talking about around 1,500 Kb per bitmap. I would suggest using jpeg images instead if possible. Even on some of the larger ones, I have never seen a jpeg image exceed 300Kb. They are slightly lower quality than bmp and DDS, but they use about five times less data.

An image, NO MATTER how compressed on disk, to be used in memory MUST be decompressed, so it's ALL MOOT. Tongue

Club508 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 11:26am:

2. Don't use as many water effects as FSX. I bet they only need about 1/2 to 2/3 of the effects they put in to make it look as good as it does.

I can already hear the mob approaching... RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!! I'll try to cover your escape. Shocked

Club508 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 11:26am:

3. In the textures, try to use less colors. I beleive that with less colors, it uses less data. and a 1-3 difference on the RGB scale barely makes a diffrence. And also, it might make it easier on some repainters.

You DO know you can use 16bit colors (which coincidentally is the MINIMUM color depth for 3D acceleration... if you go below, you return to software rendering territory) on FSX already, don't you? Huh

Not that it makes all that difference under the performances point if compared to 32bit depth. Roll Eyes

Club508 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 11:26am:

4. THIS ONE IS VERY IMPORTANT
Bring back the 800x600 screen resolution ability! I had the ability to use 800x600 resolution in FS9, but not in FSX, and in FS9, I found that if you increase the resolution, it takes a HUGE amount out of your frame rate. I'm talking about 50 fps.

Personally never found any particular delta of performances between 800x600 and 1042x768 EVER SINCE FS2002... at 800x600 though the problem becomes the UNGODLY amount of Antialias needed to make it look good, making MOOT of this suggestion, too. Tongue

Sorry, but this is NOT the way. Turn back and switch on your GPS. Wink

There is no such a thing as overkill. Only unworthy targets.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #14 - Aug 15^th, 2011 at 7:52pm

Club508 Offline
Colonel
I like repainting aircraft!
Planet Earth

Gender:
Posts: 1528

Strategic Retreat wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 4:51pm:

Club508 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 11:26am:

1. One of the big probloms is all the bitmap and Direct Draw Surface images. those things use whopper amounts of data. I'm talking about around 1,500 Kb per bitmap. I would suggest using jpeg images instead if possible. Even on some of the larger ones, I have never seen a jpeg image exceed 300Kb. They are slightly lower quality than bmp and DDS, but they use about five times less data.

An image, NO MATTER how compressed on disk, to be used in memory MUST be decompressed, so it's ALL MOOT. Tongue

Club508 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 11:26am:

2. Don't use as many water effects as FSX. I bet they only need about 1/2 to 2/3 of the effects they put in to make it look as good as it does.

I can already hear the mob approaching... RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!! I'll try to cover your escape. Shocked

Club508 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 11:26am:

3. In the textures, try to use less colors. I beleive that with less colors, it uses less data. and a 1-3 difference on the RGB scale barely makes a diffrence. And also, it might make it easier on some repainters.

You DO know you can use 16bit colors (which coincidentally is the MINIMUM color depth for 3D acceleration... if you go below, you return to software rendering territory) on FSX already, don't you? Huh

Not that it makes all that difference under the performances point if compared to 32bit depth. Roll Eyes

Club508 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 11:26am:

4. THIS ONE IS VERY IMPORTANT
Bring back the 800x600 screen resolution ability! I had the ability to use 800x600 resolution in FS9, but not in FSX, and in FS9, I found that if you increase the resolution, it takes a HUGE amount out of your frame rate. I'm talking about 50 fps.

Personally never found any particular delta of performances between 800x600 and 1042x768 EVER SINCE FS2002... at 800x600 though the problem becomes the UNGODLY amount of Antialias needed to make it look good, making MOOT of this suggestion, too. Tongue

Sorry, but this is NOT the way. Turn back and switch on your GPS. Wink

?

I don't hear them, and anyway, it was just a suggestion. I found switching from water effects x1 High to water effects to x2 High water effects encountered a frame rate loss of about 10-15.

No Comment

I actually found 800x600 quite acceptible. I find acceptible/good visuals with a frame rate of 35-80 ten times better than wonderfull visuals with a frame rate of 2-5.

What on Earth (or Pluto) is MOOT?

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: