Now you can run FS2004 on All cores With just one click

[Garciamk4 1]

For those who don't know I found a little utility that allows you to RUN FS2004 on all cores with just a click of a button.

Yes that means you no longer need to go into the task manager and set the affinity,by checking the CPU0 CPU1 Check boxes this little utility does it for you.

 

 

Works on both AMD & Intel Cpu's http://www.mediafire...3cshc8hlz03rvc5

 

You verify if its working by viewing your TASK Manager and clicking on the Performance tab. I think FS9 Actually runs best using one core but for those who likes using multicore then this is for you.

 

 

B)

[graemeb 14]

I am sceptical about that. Since FS2004 was not written for multi-core processing, how can you force it to use more than one processor?

I may be wrong but I think software code has to be specifically written to allow threads to run on multi-core systems.

[Garciamk4 1]

Yes your are correct FS2004 at the time of its released was design to run on a single core cpu, But Considering that we are now using multi-core PC's it is possible to allow windows to use more then one core to run FS2004 Although it wasn't design to run on 2 cores and its completely safe harmless and possible.

 

You can accomplish this 2 ways

 

1.) Just use the utility above and that will simply tell windows to use both cores

 

or

 

2.) Press CTRL+ALT+DEL (There you will see the Task Manager)

a.) Click on the Process TAB To view your currently running programs

b.) Assuming that FS9 Is already Running (In the process list you will see Fs9.exe)

c.) Right Click on Fs9.exe and set Priority to High

d.) Just under Priority you will see affinity it is there where you can tell windows to use both cores tu run FS9 http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?60499-Setting-FS9-to-its-own-CPU-core

[WingZ 547]

FS9 cannot use multiple cores simultaneously.

What these utilities do is allow you to assign other Windows programmes to (usually) the non-FS9 core.

This frees up computing power on that core.

If you select multiple cores for FS9, it will be assigned to one or the other, depending on the priority setting.

There is actually a small performance loss, doing this.

[HaraldG 559]

Hi,

 

I tried a FS2004 multicore utility some months before; and I experienced lower FPS then without it, just as WingZ did.

 

Harald

[Garciamk4 1]

Just to clear myself up I to agree just simply decided to share this tool for people would still utilize it. i know for sure there's still people out there that find themselves doing the steps above day in day out right before game-play. I just simply gave them an easier way to do it that's all :p0504:

[Luis Hernandez 570]

I can recall a discussion years ago about this very same utility (judging from the filename), and the developer (a Turkish guy) acknowledged that all the software did was assigning one thread for FS9 and the other threads/cores for the rest of processes. I saw good effects in my old P4 desktop running on XP; however, in Vista and 7 I'm not seeing any benefits (the OS itself can do better?) and thus, some people may find lower performance when doing so. But I still find myself running this utility, maybe just for placebo...

[ronzie 21]

In Win 7 (without this utility) it will trap complex math calls to the main CPU (as FS9 and FSX do mainly rendering images with the main CPU, not GPU) and pass them to the much more efficient graphics processor on your video card if it is not very busy. This is not multi-core but can reduce the load on the CPU. The graphics processor is more efficient than the math processor built into the main CPU.

 

It was noted in an FSX benchmark published in Computer Pilot magazine that just changing to Win 7 using the same hardware and CPU clock frequency improved performance significantly. The author confirmed this with one of his sources.

[A32xx 129]

I have also tried setting affinity to a single core for FS9 in Windows 7 x64, I didn't notice any significant FPS loss but Radar Contact began "stuttering" (the sounds became intermittent) which obviously rendered the experiment pointless for me.

Regards, Tim