This topic is now BANNED. If you guys want to spill more ink discussing the version numbering scheme, please do it on the org.

At the end it does not matter where mathematically the number scheme falls. It is what it is.

I mean, Laminar Research has named this release X-Plane 10.50. Not X-Plane 10.5.

No, w2xpl doesn´t do the same. It uses the information of single buildings from the OpenStreetMap DataBase and places in this location either a preconfigured building from its database or generates a building from facades. Only in areas where it doesn´t get any information it can switch the X-Plane autogen on.
So I don´t see what the problem should be, if the X-Plane autogen works differently.

I have both an NV and an AMD card for my PC, and if I pull both I can use the Intel mobo graphics. The AMD card happens to be what’s in there right now. It gets left in there a lot because it’s what my Linux partition has drivers for. (Leaving both sets of drivers on Windows works fine, but on Linux you have to swap driver installs, which is painful.)

Wait, I don’t agree with either of you; the single core performance of gamer-class CPUs is, per watt, getting better. This is a mix of smarter architecture, larger on chip control structures, etc. The growth is not nearly as large as the improvement in process density, but it’s not -nothing-. I have computers of varying ages in my office, and while the tick from a single generation isn’t huge anymore (maybe you see 10%), over a few generations, it matters. Don’t try to run X-Plane on a 2008 Mac Pro, for example. 🙂 (My previous PC, which was Sandy Bridge, had 2.5x the memory throughput.)

Anyway, there is no question that multi-core is where the most hardware gain is available, not hoping for faster single core speed (either by clock rate or efficiency improvements). We always keep this in mind when constructing new performance sensitive code.

The mobile version of X-Plane (the flight simulator) does not network with the desktop version right now. Xavion and control pad (I think) do.

I agree that there should not be autogen obstacles in the flight path or unrealistic contours on the runways. We already do some processing to try to prevent that, but soemtimes the algorithms are tricked by the data or have bugs. Roads with unrealistic contours is really more of a design problem: the elevation data isn’t accurate enough to reflect the real-world “grading” done locally when a road is constructed.

This is what I was trying to get at gently. Each years fastest i7 is about the performance of the last (sometimes lower if you take over locking into account) even if the rest of the line is slowly catching up. Unless Intel stumbles across something that lets us jump to 8-10ghz at reasonable TDP, additional cores is where it’s at.

I have full sympathy though. You guys are jamming a ton of polygons into a scene and reality requires multiple passes. Global lights and shadows, and reflections and scattering and clouds, it’s kind of astounding any of it is going near real time.

AMD and Nvidia still have some room to throw silicon at the problem, but we are pretty stuck at a minimum time a single core can churn through the main loop.

I know it’s a ton to ask, but hey, if it works out there’s at least 6 years worth of 4+ core machines out there and potential people to benefit (unless jamming data over the bus is already the limiting factor?)

(I know this is one of the hardest CS problems, so none of this is a complaint)

The second is that a certain airports the runways and taxiways side to side ( roads are even worse too) follow unrealistic slopes and contours. I think XP autogen should create a reasonable apron around all runways and taxiways where gradients are limited ( side edge to side edge ) and then create a fillet to match the terrain surrounding them.

This is an awesome sim and I really feel bad complaining about these realatively small problems. I run 3 50″ 4K monitors ( albeit at 1080p for now) with an i7 and gtx 770 and get quite good frame rates ( 45-60) if I take it easy on the clouds and don’t use HDR.

Also… Do you know if the new improved iPad version will allow networking with the desktop version so as to display cockpit instruments or other views on the iPad as a slave computer?

Back in 1965 Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel, noted that from the invention of the IC in 1958 to 1965 , the number of transistors on a chip had doubled each year. He predicted that this trend would continue for at least another decade.
He later revised the doubling period to every two years and the prediction became known in computer circles as “Moore’s Law”. This trend has continued to this day and remarkably expected to carry on for at least another 10 years.

Up to 2003, processor clock speed increases followed the same “Moore’s Law” trend and as an example, Maximum PC’s (May 2001) Ultimate gaming machine included the latest fastest CPU from AMD, a 1.3GHz Athlon.
Maximum PC’s (Sept 2003) Dream machine which they described as the “best hand-built PC ever” included the latest Intel 3.2Ghz Pentium 4C.

Here we are 10 years later and the fastest processor you can buy is 3.8Ghz!!
As noted, “Moore’s Law” relative to transistors on ICs (read processors) still prevails, so what’s the holdup on speed?
What’s happened was in the last 10 to 15 years we increased how much power you burned on a chip every time you had more transistors. We ran into the limit of what you can economically dissipate, about 100 watts, in about 2003,
Clocking processors any faster would result in them melting their own circuit boards!
Since then, rather than having very inefficient single processors on a chip, we have made a transition to multiple, much more efficient processors.
It’s not because we had a breakthrough in programming, it’s because power limits us.
If we want to take advantage of “Moore’s Law” , the only way we could get more performance was parallel computers (i.e. multi-core processors).
This means we have changed the programming model, which is one of the biggest changes in the last 60 years of computing.
But Houston, we have a problem…..
Writing software to make effective use of multi-core processors is still extremely difficult for programmers –most of all existing software is incapable of making use of parallel computer technology unless it is re-written.
Overclocking is the ONLY way we are going to get faster computers in the foreseeable future.
In general, with good equipment, expect to end up around 4.5Ghz, Also remember why the manufacturers do not sell the processor rated above 4GHz, they cannot guarantee it’s life expectancy or stability above that setting. That is also presumably why they switched their marketing from locked to unlocked multipliers, the onus is on us if we want higher performance, while they maintain their market share.
Regards
Roy