What's MOD can let X4 to support more core CPU？

[CK33333]

some CPU is 4 core，6 core ，16 or more core CPU they still run a core in the game？ like ：7950X3D，ultra 9，14900K
also。 i hope studying how to make a MOD ？

[Vault Traveler]

this ia not how multicore support works

[zpc]

Originally posted by Vault Traveler:

this ia not how multicore support works

^ this. Or parallel computing for that matter. If you really want to learn something OP, check Amdahl's law for example to get a better understanding why something like you requested is very hard to do and / or almost not possible with mods.

[SinisterSlay]

At the very least that's not how modding works. I guess there could be some sort of DLL injection where you steal some function of the game and thread that. But chances are it would break things. Otherwise someone would have done it already by now.

[mmmcheesywaffles]

The main way it would break things is, as I see it, that the game is CPU bound by the OS on I/O management therefore adding I/O to control the mod resource management will only add more CPU cycles to the overall resource requirement.

You will need to wait until both the OS and the hardware are all efficiently running parallel.

So I agree with the other posters.

[Valhalla Awaits]

Can't be done with mods, the game would need to be completely re-written at the engine level to make proper use of more cores. But there is a severe case of diminishing returns on "more cores", which is why more cores don't really help make things faster unless something is very specifically designed to utilize all of them. It's why gaming really doesn't need more than 8 cores right now at the max, any more than that and all you get is the ability to run multiple programs at once.

The game would massively benefit from being re-written at the engine level however by some very talented programmers Egosoft could outsource the work to. As the current way the game handled things is VERY poorly optimized, and the game's engine is basically held together with duct tape as it is.

[mmmcheesywaffles]

It needs rewritten AFTER and only AFTER a complete OS re-write and Firmware changes . Neither of which the games authors are responsible for. Parallel processing is the only hope as the game cannot bypass the System I/O and that is the ultimate cause of all the CPU bottlenecking.

[Doom]

Originally posted by CK33333:

What's MOD can let X4 to support more core CPU？

Can't be done without source code access and engine rework.

[Daemonjax]

I tested this game extensively on my 10700k @5ghz machine (with hyperthreading disabled), and the game used all 8 cores all the time (as shown by msi afterburner + rtss osd per core monitoring).

So I never understood what people are trying to say when they say the game only uses one core.

Sure, one thread is going to be the main loop thread, and it's the devs' job to not overload the main thread at whatever target fps (usually it's going to be 60). But that's how all game engines work.

At some fps number, assuming infinite gpu horsepower and infinite memory xfer speed, every game will cpu bottleneck on one of the cpu threads. If you make a toy engine that does basically nothing besides render a quad canvas, you'll cpu bottlneck at something like 10k fps because the rendering thread reaches 100% cpu utilization of one core -- and there's no way to split that thread up. Does that mean that toy engine "only runs on a single core"? No.

[Azunai]

Multicores are essentially a scam by the chip industry. They hit physical limitations on improving CPU performance years ago, so to keep up the illusion of progress they started adding multiple cores.

For some applications that's useful, so you can still claim that your quad core has four times the performance of a single core (or whatever), but in practice many applications can't use multiple cores at all or the extra work of implementing the logic for distribution of tasks and synchronization of results isn't even worth the minor performance increase.

Think of it like going from a single employee to a team. You can't cut down dev time by 4 just by adding 3 other guys to a project. In fact, you may well end up slowing the project down because not all sub tasks can be split up and handled by different people. And the single guy that worked alone before now has to spend alot of time discussing, reporting and documenting instead if doing his actual work.

[Daemonjax]

Yeah, there are parallelization efficiency limits to using multiple threads. And some things can't be parallelized at all. And then there's hardware limitations/differences regarding how some resources are shared or not.

But I wouldn't call it a scam, otherwise we'd all still be running Pentium 4's OC'd to 5ghz.

There ARE things that are highly parallelizable -- the main loop thread (usually also gets the user input), rendering thread, audio thread, UI update thread, AI thread, physics thread (if there are any)... that's 6 right there, and then you could easily add a 7th for very low priority background stuff (stuff that doesn't matter if it takes 10 seconds to get done).

I'm talking about real physical cores, not hyperthreading/SMT -- that's highly dependent on how something is coded and not really something worth optimizing for.

[Geist]

Originally posted by Daemonjax:

I tested this game extensively on my 10700k @5ghz machine (with hyperthreading disabled), and the game used all 8 cores all the time (as shown by msi afterburner + rtss osd per core monitoring).

So I never understood what people are trying to say when they say the game only uses one core.

Because,... reasons. Don't try to argue with the "it only uses one core" crowd. I even shared 30 minute long Hardware monitor logs showing the utilization of all the cores in the past and it was still dismissed.

[ZombieHunter]

Originally posted by Geist:

Originally posted by Daemonjax:

I tested this game extensively on my 10700k @5ghz machine (with hyperthreading disabled), and the game used all 8 cores all the time (as shown by msi afterburner + rtss osd per core monitoring).

So I never understood what people are trying to say when they say the game only uses one core.

Because,... reasons. Don't try to argue with the "it only uses one core" crowd. I even shared 30 minute long Hardware monitor logs showing the utilization of all the cores in the past and it was still dismissed.

Because people don't understand that more threads != more performance. It just isn't that simple.

[Buster]

The developer of this game needs to spend time optimizing their engine probably completely rewriting parts of it to be more multi-cpu friendly, instead of making more xpacs, no mod will fix it until then.

I spent alot of time playing this game and don't want to go back because the end game performance issue. Always = 20-30fps unplayable slide show making it feel like you wasted your time.

[mmmcheesywaffles]

Oh boy, this thread is real proof that too many posters only read the top post then THINK they know what the game dev needs to do.

It is a hardware issue then an OS issue before the Game dev gets any input

[Vault Traveler]

In that regard I want to say the game works pretty good if you consider all the calculations that run in the background.