162 replies to this topic

[alainneedle1]

From somewhere...

Quote: So lets clear some doubts: flight will have sli support because the developer added that feature in the engine, thats beyond any doubts as you already realized.

Since its a remake you'r assuming or expecting that the original game can work in sli as well, but thats not how it works.

The developer in order to make a sli enabled game needs to implement such technology in their game, so if you want to use sli in older titles the developer needs to patch the game and then notify nvidia, which creates a sli bits for it and adds a profile in the next driver release.

Mind you, you can attempt to force sli in older titles by either using the new Flight sli bit (if the engine is similar) or by using another bit, but it may not work at all (mostly it will likely happen). Sli isnt a technology that works with everything, we still dream of something like that really.
Point is that before the driver supports a game in sli there should be an official support by the developer.
Hope it helps now. end of Quote

Quote:In nvidia inspector use the dropdown menu to check if a profile for a game has been made.
If not, pick a game of your choice, in this case Flight, the use the drop down menu and browse all the bits.
Anyway you can try something out. If you have FSX or something like it, add the exes to the Flighr profile by clicking on the small green plus in inspector toolbar. You need to add the game exe like fsx.exe as an example.
If theres no Flight profile but theres an FSX one, just select the sli bits for it.
don't forget to set render mode to AFR2.

[stonelance]

alainneedle1, on Apr 12 2011, 07:37 PM, said:

The developer in order to make a sli enabled game needs to implement such technology in their game, so if you want to use sli in older titles the developer needs to patch the game and then notify nvidia, which creates a sli bits for it and adds a profile in the next driver release.

This is not true at all.  SLI works for any game, but some games are not able to parallelize their work across multiple GPUs due to how they use the GPU, or like in the case of FSX, are CPU bound in the render loop and therefore no matter how much GPU power you throw at it, there isn't much difference in performance.  The SLI compatibility bits that nVidia puts in its game profiles are to turn off, or change how SLI works for those games in order to either disable SLI if it has no benefit, or tune the internal driver workings to get the maximum performance based on how the game uses the GPU.  They are set by nVidia, not the game developer, so I wouldn't read too much into them for unreleased games.

[alainneedle1]

stonelance, on Apr 13 2011, 01:40 AM, said:

This is not true at all.  SLI works for any game, but some games are not able to parallelize their work across multiple GPUs due to how they use the GPU, or like in the case of FSX, are CPU bound in the render loop and therefore no matter how much GPU power you throw at it, there isn't much difference in performance.  The SLI compatibility bits that nVidia puts in its game profiles are to turn off, or change how SLI works for those games in order to either disable SLI if it has no benefit, or tune the internal driver workings to get the maximum performance based on how the game uses the GPU.  They are set by nVidia, not the game developer, so I wouldn't read too much into them for unreleased games.

Agree if FSX was to stay as it is, like I said (if not here) in other forums MS will trow a little something at FSX, they are working on Flight (same engine) to improve what they already have...full DX10 (not a preview) fixing bugs or what ever you want to call it as much as they can, SLI implementation and by doing so they will have to send some workload from the CPU to the GPU.

There is no point of implementing SLI in Flight if no modification is made to offload the CPU, do you really think MS will give us the same CPU bound Flight as it is for FSX, that would be the biggest mistake of all.

Using the same engine, making all the appropriate change to it for Flight it is easyer for them to repakage some of the implementation and make a patch for FSX to improve it a little (SP3) since both sim. are from the same engine.

NO they will not fix FSX 100% since they are pushing Flight but all FSX user who invested a lot of $$ in their addons and can't switch from one sim. to the other (no compatibility) will get a little something, also FSX addons is the biggest part of the market for the dev. as of today until Flight can take off, they have a lots of $$ invested in future projects as far as addons for FSX so they have to keep FSX alive, from the dev. point of view why not keeping both alive right?

By the way, thank you for not attacking me personally because of the fact that you may disagree with what I'm saying, it's refreshing.

Edited by alainneedle1, 13 April 2011 - 07:13 AM.

[_BD6_]

alainneedle1, on Apr 13 2011, 08:07 AM, said:

Agree if FSX was to stay as it is, like I said (if not here) in other forums MS will trow a little something at FSX, they are working on Flight (same engine) to improve what they already have...full DX10 (not a preview) fixing bugs or what ever you want to call it as much as they can, SLI implementation and by doing so they will have to send some workload from the CPU to the GPU.

There is no point of implementing SLI in Flight if no modification is made to offload the CPU, do you really think MS will give us the same CPU bound Flight as it is for FSX, that would be the biggest mistake of all.

Using the same engine, making all the appropriate change to it for Flight it is easyer for them to repakage some of the implementation and make a patch for FSX to improve it a little (SP3) since both sim. are from the same engine.

NO they will not fix FSX 100% since they are pushing Flight but all FSX user who invested a lot of $$ in their addons and can't switch from one sim. to the other (no compatibility) will get a little something, also FSX addons is the biggest part of the market for the dev. as of today until Flight can take off, they have a lots of $$ invested in future projects as far as addons for FSX so they have to keep FSX alive, from the dev. point of view why not keeping both alive right?

By the way, thank you for not attacking me personally because of the fact that you may disagree with what I'm saying, it's refreshing.

I think I recall reading in PMDG forums that Flight will actually be backwards compatible with FSX.. could be wrong though.

[-Dexter]

b0gey_dead_six, on Apr 13 2011, 09:40 AM, said:

I think I recall reading in PMDG forums that Flight will actually be backwards compatible with FSX.. could be wrong though.

Microsoft would be shooting themselves in the foot face by not making Flight compatible with FSX addons.

[alainneedle1]

I do understand the scary part of FSX addons not been compatible with Flight as I have a lot of $$ invested in FSX myself, Orbx, Aerosoft, REX, UTX, name it but we have to take a step back and look at the other side of the coin...

One of the best reason for MS and the dev. not to let FSX addons be compatible with Flight is piracy.

I don't think piracy can be eliminated 100% but if addons made from approved dev. are sold in a market store the risk of piracy is greatly diminished, so who ever is an approved dev. for Flight will have his addons in the store, let say you have Flight and by shopping in Flight store you see Miami X, you look at the screen shots or vid. and you like what you see  so you want it, enter your Flight number and your store customer number pay with paypal or you cc...approved...you go back to Flight enter Miami as the departure airport load the sim up and bingo Miami X is there.

The other good reason for having approved devs. addons only in the store is to maintain addons quality, by doing so they are making sure of the quality of what you are getting, the dev. make more money and MS does also by taking a % of the sales or the other way around, they pay the dev. up front and resale the good at a fixed price.

One more point of controversy here, as we all know MS showed us vids. and pics. of Flight from Hawaii only and I have to say that I like what I see, the last airport look good and the scenery is an improvement over FSX BUT is this Flight default? What I getting at is this, lets assume that Hawaii is Flight default one is to also assume that the rest of the Flight world will look like that right, airport and scenery so who will need addons if this is Flight default?

Now lets say that what we saw from Hawaii is not Flight default but what was released so far for our viewing pleasure is some addons from a reputable dev., no matter what Hawaii is looking good, but don't you want to know how Flight default will look without addons and if Hawaii is an addons be ready to spend more $$ because you sure would not want to use your FSX addons (assuming they were compatible) with Flight after seeing how Hawaii look with the new addons right?

So which one is it?

Always keep in mind that the dev. and MS are in bed this time and as a business both are in it for the money so will they let the FSX addons be compatible with Flight, not in my book?

Edited by alainneedle1, 13 April 2011 - 10:24 AM.

[-Dexter]

^ WTH Piracy for braking compatibility?



Oh, you.

[alainneedle1]

-Dexter, on Apr 13 2011, 03:56 PM, said:

^ WTH Piracy for braking compatibility?



Oh, you.

LOL...anti piracy is not for breaking compatibility but for the dev. to quit loosing money on the sales of their addons, what better way of selling their addons but using the market store since MS will have the absolute control.

Look at all the the piracy website where you can download some dev. addons for free = lost of $$ for the dev.

Breaking compatibility is to have us on the hook to spend more if we like what we see and if MS is to take over with the store they will have to make money somewhere right, will they make money by letting FSX addons be compatible or will they by selling new addons in their store?

I'm a business man myself and if I look at this from their side it does make sense for them to do so. Will they?

Edited by alainneedle1, 13 April 2011 - 03:24 PM.

[162db]

alainneedle1, on Apr 13 2011, 04:07 AM, said:

There is no point of implementing SLI in Flight if no modification is made to offload the CPU, do you really think MS will give us the same CPU bound Flight as it is for FSX, that would be the biggest mistake of all.

Using the same engine, making all the appropriate change to it for Flight it is easyer for them to repakage some of the implementation and make a patch for FSX to improve it a little (SP3) since both sim. are from the same engine.

Source of information? Or is this pure speculation? If they use the same engine, that's exactly what's going to happen, a cpu bound Flight. They worked on "improving" that engine for 4 years or so with FSX and look what we got. How are they going to make it any better? Now is the time for them to ditch the old engine, start from scratch, and make a great product IMO.

[_BD6_]

All pure speculation. Stop wasting your breath.

[alainneedle1]

162db, on Apr 13 2011, 11:54 PM, said:

Source of information? Or is this pure speculation?

(Source of information? Or is this pure speculation? Yea! right.)

The same engine?? Have you not see the oversized houses and trees in the webisode? Sinking back wheel in the runway? Same gas station at the airport in one of the webisode, so in all seriousness, just think for a sec. here, if MS was not using the same engine will we see some of the same bugs at all, even one? New is new right so how come we see some of the same stuff from FSX.

Brand new engine mean none of the old stuff, AT ALL, I was exactly like you all when the news hit the web about MS doing Flight, I was thinking "New engine, DX11, Multicore, 64-bit, SLI, FSX compatibility, hyperthreading, +++".....to day I'm thinking does Flight look better over FSX, YES, a new engine NO.

There is no way they can implement SLI without offloading the CPU to the GPU, cheaper for the to do compaire to a new engine.

Even after been presented with the facts some peoples still think that the 9/11 tragedy was an inside job. The good think about Flight is ....at the end we will all know.

Edited by alainneedle1, 14 April 2011 - 07:32 AM.

[BrandonF]

alainneedle1, on Apr 14 2011, 05:29 AM, said:

Sinking back wheel in the runway?

It doesn't matter what engine you use...if you use contact points on the wheels, but don't place them right, you will have this issue. Not a problem with the engine. Not sure how many more times this has to be said before it is clear.

[ChaoticBeauty]

The developers said somewhere that they actually rebuilt the Flight engine from scratch, I'm sure I read that somewhere. But I can't find it, sorry.

[BrandonF]

Kaotika, on Apr 30 2011, 08:44 AM, said:

The developers said somewhere that they actually rebuilt the Flight engine from scratch, I'm sure I read that somewhere. But I can't find it, sorry.

I'm sure that they didn't say it, but it was an article someone wrote or something that was based off of guessing or false information. It is quite obvious that the engine is not new.

[ChaoticBeauty]

BrandonF, on May 1 2011, 09:09 AM, said:

I'm sure that they didn't say it, but it was an article someone wrote or something that was based off of guessing or false information. It is quite obvious that the engine is not new.

I think it's a new engine but with old assets. Some things like the lighting and the shadows have been improved a lot. Whatever, if it's the old engine, I hope they optimise it.

[Peter797]

Look at this guys. I have the leaked version of FS 2015, and it runs DX11!!!!

[-Dexter]

^ OMG HE'S RIGHT DISREGARD MY TINFOIL HAT.

Edited by -Dexter, 01 May 2011 - 02:46 PM.

[Mohammad]

Kaotika, on May 1 2011, 07:37 AM, said:

I think it's a new engine but with old assets. Some things like the lighting and the shadows have been improved a lot. Whatever, if it's the old engine, I hope they optimise it.

Probably is, otherwise the performance of the game won't be any better than FSX right?
So it should be a new engine if good performance is what they're aiming for.

[-Dexter]

Mo_Camel, on May 2 2011, 09:26 AM, said:

Probably is, otherwise the performance of the game won't be any better than FSX right?
So it should be a new engine if good performance is what they're aiming for.

I just hope they don't expect everyone to buy a new PC/hardware for MS Flight.

You know what I'd really like?

Area-specific scenery. Like, areas of 15-20 sq. miles with very high quality static scenery, where the engine renders only that area, and thus a much higher framerate. When you meet the boundary of the area, it will load the next high detail area.

This would be a system where the engine would only need to render, in detail, the area that the player is flying in.

Ever played ARMA II? Exceptional performance, even in dense towns and forests (of course, the downside here is that the area being rendered is much smaller than what FSX renders). This type of high performance and high detail is phenomenal for chopper flying or low-flying GA exploration.

It would lead to much better performance.

Edited by -Dexter, 02 May 2011 - 10:12 AM.

[ChaoticBeauty]

-Dexter, on May 2 2011, 06:10 PM, said:

I just hope they don't expect everyone to buy a new PC/hardware for MS Flight.

You know what I'd really like?

Area-specific scenery. Like, areas of 15-20 sq. miles with very high quality static scenery, where the engine renders only that area, and thus a much higher framerate. When you meet the boundary of the area, it will load the next high detail area.

This would be a system where the engine would only need to render, in detail, the area that the player is flying in.

Ever played ARMA II? Exceptional performance, even in dense towns and forests (of course, the downside here is that the area being rendered is much smaller than what FSX renders). This type of high performance and high detail is phenomenal for chopper flying or low-flying GA exploration.

It would lead to much better performance.

Microsoft said they wanted Microsoft Flight to run acceptably on today's hardware, so I don't think so.

Doing what you say would introduce loading screens while flying, which is a bad idea. Dynamic streaming can be used, but it will take performance, which doesn't make it better than the current system.