I wasn't meaning to be hostile. Sorry if it came across that way. When it comes to the subject of how FSX does things, it is a very good example of how they should NOT be done.
Too many uninformed opinions are made about how FSX threading, micro-thread management (fibers) etc.. is supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread, but it is all junk. Just jump on http://msdn.microsoft.com/
and study how it really works. It will soon become apparent that the way FSX is coded is rubbish.
I was not meaning to attack you personally, but understanding how it works, I can't stand reading this crap any longer. I've spent the last 18 months specifically designing high performance multi-threaded code, but I'm still not there yet because of all the traps. I'm close to scrapping the idea and doing it all in one thread, as it is looking like it will be faster. Sure, I could just write multi-threaded code now, and do like FSX and even use fibers (if I wanted to really abuse capability I don't need), but it will be buggy, unreliable, and ultimately quite a bit slower. Threads (and worse, fibers), take management, and that is stealing time and system resources I could be using for something else.
Phil T was not a ranting, disgruntled employee, but ACES were just desperate to justify why FSX was so slow. "It was designed for future hardware" was an instant classic I'll be quoting a decade from now.