Archived from groups: microsoft.public.games.zone.simulation (
More info?)
I've been using a water cooling setup for a couple of years now and am very
pleased with it's cooling performance and durability and stability of those
components I overclock.
Is FS2004 heavy into floating point? If so, then yes I'd opt for an AMD64
FX53. But as I understand it (and this could be old school) developers
often stick with Long Integer types rather than opting for floating point
types due to performance -- this may have changed.
As far as Microsoft, they are much like any company with the same issues
that come up anywhere anytime. The camps seem to fall into these areas:
"closed source" - those that believe they should get paid for their work by
charging people for using it -- aka NOT free.
"open source" - those that believe their work should be free and for all to
use - mostly students that don't actually have to feed a family and/or live
off those that believe in "closed source".
I can see the benefits in both -- but life is much like that a -- one needs
its opposite to reach a balance. I digress.
So FS2005 or FS2006 will most likely not use multi-threading and multiple
processors? Even under a 64bit OS? That's a shame, I would think MS are
one of the few companies that could pull this off and still make money at it
and be the "first" mass market multi-processor support simulation. Oh well.
"Seadog" <seadog@nunyabidness.com> wrote in message
news:Volvc.3876$pU6.330@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
> Seadog wrote:
>
> > Rob R. Ainscough wrote:
> >
> >> 24 fps is minimum for me (based mostly on motion picture quality 29.97
> >> fps) -- I certainly can get minimum 24 fps when I start turning down
the
> >> graphics detail. But Clouds (realistic weather) has always been the
> >> next
> >> big hurdle for FS -- Microsoft have dealt with the problem in a fair
> >> manner
> >> (turn the detail down and you get those funky flat clouds). But, I
> >> can't
> >> see FS2006 (FS2005 or whatever the next version is) having as large a
> >> performance hit as FS2004 did. From this point on, MS can start
> >> using pixel
> >> shaders and a few other cool graphics card hardware features that
> >> will not
> >> hurt performance as much as Clouds did. Moving from FS2000 to FS2002
> >> is a
> >> classic example of this -- the performance requirements between the two
> >> aren't that much different.
> >>
> >> I can see and am somewhat disappointed that MS FS development crew
> >> did not
> >> opted to supporting multiple processors -- Processor A works on clouds,
> >> processor B on instruments, processor C flight physics, etc. etc. -- I
> >> realize this is a pretty significant coding task, but MS is a
> >> significant
> >> company with the resources to make this work.
> >>
> >> But back to my original quesiton Dual XEON's or single P4EE? Will an
> >> ATI
> >> 800XT 256MB show noticeable improvements of my current 9800 Pro?
> >>
> >> Anyone?
> >>
> >>
> >> "zag" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:16aa001c44826$0991be40$a401280a@phx.gbl...
> >>
> >>
> >>> Rob -
> >>> An interesting quest for 24FPS... but let me ask this. If
> >>> your framerate NEVER dropped below 12FPS, would you feel
> >>> that this is good, or bad, performance? I ask this because
> >>> down the road a year or so when you have everything set to
> >>> give you that 24FPS minimum, is about the time when M$FT
> >>> will be ready to release FS2006, and it's going to demand
> >>> more... and poof, there go your FPS's back down to 2 or so.
> >>> Are we ever going to be satisfied, or this this a game
> >>> being played with us by Billionaire Bill?
> >>> z --------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> My quest for FS2004 frame rates continues. My problem is
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> simple, I love
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> multi-layered high detail clouds -- it seems clouds spell
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> the death of frame
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> rates in FS2004 especially at 1280 X 960. It would also
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> be nice to run with
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> shadows turned ON.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm currently running:
> >>>>
> >>>> ASUS Motherboard with Intel 875 chipset on a Intel P4
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> 800Mhz FSB overclocked
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> to 3.5Ghz (rated at 3.0Ghz) with matched Corsair memory (2
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> 512 modules)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> rated to 500Mhz and an ATI 9800 Pro 128MB (clocked at 405
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Mhz core) -- all
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> the latest drivers, etc. etc.. I can easily bring my
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> frame rates down to 2
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> fps with FS2004 on this setup.
> >>>>
> >>>> So some questions:
> >>>> 1. Will swapping out my old 9800 Pro 128MB for an 800XT
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> 256MB help my frame
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> rates?
> >>>> 2. Will a P4EE at 3.4Ghz make much of a difference over
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> my P4 at 3.5 Ghz
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> (800FSB)?
> >>>> 3. Will a dual XEON at 3.2Ghz with 1MB cache (and
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> supporting motherboard)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> be better than either P4EE 3.4Ghz or current P4 3.5Ghz?
> >>>>
> >>>> Or am I still a year or more away from truely seeing
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> enough Processor &
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> video power to make FS2004 with ALL details cranked up and
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> still get a
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> minimum 24 fps?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks, Rob.
> >>>> The quest is the quest...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> .
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > FWIW - My general understanding is that dual processors are useful
> > only in running programs specifically designed to take advantage of
> > them. Since FS is not designed to use more than one proc, I sincerely
> > doubt using dual anythings will be an advantage. If you can even begin
> > to afford an EE, I'd suggest looking into a Newcastle core AMD Athlon
> > 64FX 53 on a socket 939 mobo, preferably with an nVidia nForce 3 250
> > Ultra GB chipset, with as much fast dual channel DDR2 RAM as you can
> > afford, and I understand the boards are currently limited to 2 GB of
> > such RAM [3 GB of slower RAM, before complaints arise]. Video card?
> > Tomorrow's latest release, whatever it is. It just doesn't come faster
> > than that today. Or so I believe after a lot of reading about it.
> >
> > HTH, Seadog
>
> An amendment and a reading reference - The new socket 939 boards
> apparently will support up to 4 GB unbuffered memory in 4 DIMM slots.
> Got that tidbit from AnandTech's June 2 review of the three Athlon 64
> sockets and the the two major chipsets. If overclocking is your desire,
> the firm recommendation is nVidia rather than Via for chipset. Read the
> whole 12 screen article (and accompanying linked articles) at
>
>
http://www.anandtech.com/chipsets/showdoc.html?i=2069
>
> I was quite pleased to see the MSI socket 939 board features a cooling
> fan on the nVidia chip, as it is widely reported to run hot as a pistol
> and was cooled merely with a heatsink in prior socket incarnations,
> albeit without causing any performance problems. This should ease any
> related concern for overclockers.
>
> Seadog
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram