I wish for flightmodel-computations on a separate CPU core!

[asparagin]

Since you guys opened this loveley part of the forum:

This is what I wish for the future DCS modules!

[yonyz]

Is it really needed?

I think modern Quad Cores should have no problem processing the entire game, plus some motion tracking solution.

[Insanatrix]

It will eventually have to come because clock speeds wont keep getting faster and the only way to increase computation speed will be utilizing multiple core's.

[Mugenjin]

The question is not if it's going to happen, but when ^^

 

Anyway I understand that it requires major recoding and will probably happen in multiple steps (e.g. audio on seperate thread).

[104th_Crunch]

Is it really needed?

I think modern Quad Cores should have no problem processing the entire game, plus some motion tracking solution.

 

You misunderstand. Unless software is written specifically to use multi-cores, it will only use 1 core of a quad core. DCS uses only 1 core of a quad core, except for the sound engine.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

DCS uses two cores, one for sound and the second for the rest of sim engine. BS and A-10 workd pretty well on my rig.

[DTWD]

Yes but your rig isn't standard by any stretch of the imagination. Most users will have 2+ cores, with anything from 0 to 4 cores doing nothing but Windows stuff. There is plenty of GHz available for the devs, they just need to get access to it on the different cores.

 

Like has been said in this post, it's on the cards, as ED re-codes different sections of the engine (and if it's possible, you can't just offload code to another core) then they will do it.

 

I don't see why you can run the AI on another core though, that would help in the big misions...and let's face it, they can be thick at times so it should run happily with 200Mhz :D

[genbrien]

I thought DCS was using 2 threads, but all cores available (2-4) ?

[Steel Jaw]

game

 

Game?

 

GAME??

 

GAME ?

:doh:

[DTWD]

I thought DCS was using 2 threads, but all cores available (2-4) ?

Yes, but it only uses 2 cores. Windows can move the processes around to different cores (to the one(s) with the least load). I don't think the game can do that though can it?

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Yes, but it only uses 2 cores. Windows can move the processes around to different cores (to the one(s) with the least load). I don't think the game can do that though can it?

Well, yes, the game engine could be better. There are only two limitations to make it better. Time and money. Within these two limitations you get simulators, BS and A-10, that are currently used by actual military to train their pilots. So, if you can do better, I'll be more then happy to pay you $60 for your product.

 

In the mean time, save some money, select components wisely, and build you a rig that will up for the task. And yes, demand better from ED, but within reason.

[Mustang]

Game?

 

GAME??

 

GAME ?

 

:doh:

 

Hehe, i know how you feel :)

 

Last night i was on luckybob9's MP server, some guy who i won't name, was going about teamkilling and being a bit of an ass.

 

I asked him why he was doing what he was doing, and he replies "relax man, it's just a GAME".....

[asparagin]

Well, yes, the game engine could be better. There are only two limitations to make it better. Time and money. Within these two limitations you get simulators, BS and A-10, that are currently used by actual military to train their pilots. So, if you can do better, I'll be more then happy to pay you $60 for your product.

 

In the mean time, save some money, select components wisely, and build you a rig that will up for the task. And yes, demand better from ED, but within reason.

 

Yes can maybe run it now well with a high end oc'ed pc. But you have to think about the future. And when the next DCS will come out (2-3 years), that will be the future. It will always be a limitation to what ED can accomplish. I find it positive that they put the sound engine on a different core. It's a good start. And I think taking the time to implement the flight model (pretty CPU intensive) on a different core is worth the investment, especially since DCS is meant to be a series.

Edited March 8, 2011 by asparagin

[Eight Ball]

 

In the mean time, save some money, select components wisely, and build you a rig that will up for the task. And yes, demand better from ED, but within reason.

 

Well maybe we could slow down a lil bit in this endless race to Ghz, I mean you can find 3.8Ghz i7 on the market while almost no game take advantage of all the cores.

 

So what ? In 3 years we will have 6Ghz hexacores and 98% of games will only use 2 or 3 cores? And we will be asked to buy 9Ghz cores in order to run games smoothly ?

 

I'm not blaming ED and I'm not claiming it's as easy as abc but let's stop the senseless waist of ressources. Most of the people never run any application fully using all their cores and minimal requirements in Ghz just keep increasing, it's just stupid. Developpers, whoever they are, must take this into consideration.

[DTWD]

Well, yes, the game engine could be better. There are only two limitations to make it better. Time and money. Within these two limitations you get simulators, BS and A-10, that are currently used by actual military to train their pilots. So, if you can do better, I'll be more then happy to pay you $60 for your product.

 

In the mean time, save some money, select components wisely, and build you a rig that will up for the task. And yes, demand better from ED, but within reason.

 

Erm why the hostility?

 

I was answering his question regarding the cores, I don't get why you got all defensive, my previous post was in defence of ED on the core issue.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Erm why the hostility?

Hostility, where?

 

I was answering his question regarding the cores, I don't get why you got all defensive, my previous post was in defence of ED on the core issue.

You use the word "only" when describing how many cores the simulation engine is using. My point is that a lots of people complaining about the simulation engine without a real understanding what it takes to make something work within buget and time limitation.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Well maybe we could slow down a lil bit in this endless race to Ghz, I mean you can find 3.8Ghz i7 on the market while almost no game take advantage of all the cores.

If it would be easy, every piece of software would be coded for multicore. But it is not easy and as you say, very few games are using more then a single core. DCS is using two cores. The other two cores may be running TeamSpeak, TiR5, all kind of hardware drivers, antivirus, other windows that are open (such as A-10 pdf manual), network services and etc ...

 

Developpers, whoever they are, must take this into consideration.

Do you really believe that developers are so stupid that they are not taking "this" into consideration?

[genbrien]

Well maybe we could slow down a lil bit in this endless race to Ghz, I mean you can find 3.8Ghz i7 on the market while almost no game take advantage of all the cores.

 

So what ? In 3 years we will have 6Ghz hexacores and 98% of games will only use 2 or 3 cores? And we will be asked to buy 9Ghz cores in order to run games smoothly ?

 

I'm not blaming ED and I'm not claiming it's as easy as abc but let's stop the senseless waist of ressources. Most of the people never run any application fully using all their cores and minimal requirements in Ghz just keep increasing, it's just stupid. Developpers, whoever they are, must take this into consideration.

 

The problem to why multicore/multigpu, 64bit app, etc are not developping as fast as we(normal person that understand the concept of evolution:music_whistling:) want is because there are still people with P4 2ghz, 1gb ram, GeForce MX440, WinXP 32bit and monitor with less than 1280x1024..... that complains because they want the best game/sim in the world to run at 60fps on their ''machine'' :mad::doh::huh:

That and the *%&*?! consoles that are 5 years hardware

[Steel Jaw]

I asked him why he was doing what he was doing, and he replies "relax man, it's just a GAME".....

 

And people wonder why we lock our severs...:rolleyes:

[Krebs20]

I think right now ED is evolving its dcs at a good pace. Black shark had the sound engine put on a 2nd core.A10 got 64 bit support. Dx 11 is being hinted at in a future patch for Nelis.

Dx 11 has the ability to split its own workload across all available cores. Civilization 5 did this very well. Running the game in Dx11 is a smoother experience than dx9. By moving its CPU load for graphics to all cores, it freed up the single core that game ran on to improve overall performance. It's not tire muti core support, but its a major step in the right direction.

As stated before. It's not a question of if, but when. I give it 2 more releases before DCS sees more than 2 cores being used directly from the sim itself. Dx 11 should fill that gap in time if its done right.

[Teej]

Game?

 

GAME??

 

GAME ?

 

:doh:

 

Without a dynamic campaign engine to rival F4AF...it's just a game.

[Kuky]

Without a dynamic campaign engine to rival F4AF...it's just a game.

 

Errrr no... it's a high fidelity simulator without dynamic campaign

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Without a dynamic campaign engine to rival F4AF...it's just a game.

So, US Cost Guard pilots and Russian Air Force pilots are playing games? F4AF (whatever AF stands for) is dead, long live DCS!

[DTWD]

So, if you can do better, I'll be more then happy to pay you $60 for your product.

 

Hostility, where?

 

That comes across as hostile to me.

 

You use the word "only" when describing how many cores the simulation engine is using. My point is that a lots of people complaining about the simulation engine without a real understanding what it takes to make something work within buget and time limitation.

 

Yes only because when your using less than the amount of something that is available, so you are ONLY using X amount of a total.

[galagamo]

So, US Cost Guard pilots and Russian Air Force pilots are playing games? F4AF (whatever AF stands for) is dead, long live DCS!

The "AF" stands for Allied force! Sadly, I am unable to get it working on my current PC, or else I would still be playing it! IMHO the dynamic campaign is over rated. I'm more interested in the technical, mechanical aspect, the nuts and bolts if you will. That's all the motivation I need.

Edited March 9, 2011 by galagamo