Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

KevMac

PMDG strongly discourages using FSX in Windows Vista

Recommended Posts

Hey PMDG -This comment is still in your wiki "PMDG strongly discourages using FSX in the Windows Vista operating system".Is that still your recommendation?Just wondering if your team has performed any new testing in Vista, specifically Vista 64-bit?thanks,Kevin

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

That is still our recommendation, yes. Vista 64 is your best bet if you want to try though as the ability to have a larger user address space helps with performance and the out of memory situations.

Share this post


Link to post

I have no problems using the 747X with Vista 32. Smooth and beautiful.

Share this post


Link to post

>That is still our recommendation, yes. Vista 64 is your best>bet if you want to try though as the ability to have a larger>user address space helps with performance and the out of>memory situations.Are you suggesting I could see an FPS increase from XP 32?

Share this post


Link to post

>Well you dont have the 3gb limit.>>STevenYes but are not programs limited to using 2GB anyhow?

Share this post


Link to post

What does that mean. I think your getting confused.Steven

Share this post


Link to post

No, he is not confused. 32-bit Windows programs are limited to using 2GB of virtual memory (or, in some special cases, 3GB). The amount of physical RAM has NO BEARING on that.FYI: There is an incredible amount of documentation "out there" from Microsoft, Intel, and others, on how memory address spaces work on the various CPU and O/S architectures.- Bill

Share this post


Link to post

Vista 32 is junk, only the 64 is gonna REALLY make use of 4GB or more.My question is how does FSX and the 744x run on the 64 bit Vista?Anyone know first hand?

Share this post


Link to post

FSX runs as a 32-bit application. Therefore, it's still limited to 2GB.That said, I've seen lots of reports from people that FSX runs just fine on Vista 64.- Bill

Share this post


Link to post

FSX and PMDG 744X run very well on my system with Vista 64. I used to dual boot with XP, but discovered my performance was better in Vista, so use it exclusively now. I was getting a couple more frames, and everything runs very smooth. Also, never once have I had an OOM with Vista64--I would get them periodically with XP, even with the default 172.KyleFS box: Q6600 (@ 3.24 GHz), ASUS P5E3 Premium, 4 GB OCZ Platinum DDR3 (Cas 6-6-6-18-2T @ 1440 MHz), BFG 8800GTX 768, Soundblaster XFi Fatality, WD 150gb 10000rpm Raptor, Samsung Spinpoint F1 750 GB, Silverstone TJ09 case, PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750 PSU, Vista Ultimate 64http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/747400.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think the Vista 64-bit is getting near the attention it deserves from the flight sim world or otherwise. It flat-out performs better than any computer I've ever had! When I installed FSX, I set the display settings toward the left expecting a slide show. Now, I keep the sliders far to the right and only have challenges in cities like LA or San Francisco. The only thing I'm missing now is the brand new 737NG for FSX. Curt

Share this post


Link to post

>Well you dont have the 3gb limit.Why? Who has a 3gb limit? Me I run my Vista 32 with 3.64GB (4gb installed) and everything turned up to the max and runs smooth as silk. Locked at 26fps and it stays there except for the extreme airports where it does drop to about 17fps.John Veldthuishttp://www.virtualpilots.org/signatures/vpa475.png

Share this post


Link to post

This is going to get even more interesting when the 1GB/Vram'd GTX280 shows up next month. 32bit operating systems are going to get hammered with those pesky OOM program drop-deads. If you haven't switched to V64, ya might as well bite the bullet. The 744X runs fine in V64. The issue is not the plane or the 64 bit op system, it's the FS platform. FXS is prettier, that's for sure, but pounding down a hand flown final at 15FPS with otherwise flyable settings removes any sense of realism. I can't "feel" the airplane at frame rates below ~ 25. 'At altitude' is not a problem in FSX, but that's not the problem. A Q @ 3.6 + 4G-O-ram + 8800GT @ 19x10 runs the vFS9 at Very 'feelable' frames. Don't really know what they are cuz I never even turn on the frame counter, but I can feel the weight. It allows me to 'stay with it' (I mumble to myself) as I attempt to hand fly an ILS at 1/8 mile visibility and gusts to 40. I tell ya what folks, sticking one of those will make your day.That patch for the FS9 version was well targeted . . . and well appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post

I would love to hand fly the 744x to touchdown but the FPS are always too low.My hand built rig is new. All things being equal, I wonder if moving from XP32 to vista64 will increase the FPS?

Share this post


Link to post

Moving from 32 to a 64 bit will not help FPS in the least. You just won't get OOS blue screens anymore. With FS, that's about it. The most significant FPS help with using the 744 in FS9. Hardware that will run FSX smoothly with the 744X in all regimes with normal slider settings will NEVER exist. No sense even hoping for it. A Single Core with the required HP to run a 744x/FSX combo will Never occur. We're headed in the multi-core direction. FSX's (primarily) single core software architecture sealed its fate. Wait for FSII. It's our only real hope for aircraft fidelity (PMDG) and eyecandy (FSX). Until then FS9 works fine. With a full set of addons, it can look pretty good, too. Good enough anyway, it your primary interest is the airplane.

Share this post


Link to post

>FSX runs as a 32-bit application. Therefore, it's still>limited to 2GB.>>That said, I've seen lots of reports from people that FSX runs>just fine on Vista 64.>>- BillNo it's not. It has the /3GB switch enabled and can use up to 3GB. The 2GB limit that everyone really needs to pay attention to is on USER ADDRESS SPACE, which is dependent on the OS, not the app. Vista 64 can use something like 16GB or more.

Share this post


Link to post

So what I am seeing here then is that moving from XP32 to Vista 64, all other things being equal, I will not see any net FPS improvement in the FSX PMDG 744?

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, to be totally and completely accurate, FSX has the LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag set.http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/wz223b1z(VS.80).aspxThe /3Gb is a Windows hack to increase user memory space to 3Gb, whilst reducing the available Kernel memory to 1Gb (assuming a 4Gb limit), but the application still requires the LARGEADDRESSAWARE bit to be set for this to work. After all that, it might still not work.The 2Gb user-memory limitation is per process (an important distinction).XP is limited to running something like 2022 simultaneous processes as it requires kernel memory to track each process, which it runs out of at this limit.There is no good reason why a 32- or 64-bit app that runs on XP fine, won't run on Vista (any version).There are specific cases where this is not the case, but they're the exception and not the rule.I hope that clarifies.I recommend Vista 64-bit because not only does it support a larger memory address space, but it manages memory differently and is far superior to the 32-bit equivalent.If you have the 64-bit version of XP, I can't see a good case for "upgrading", as it already has all the benefits Vista 64-bit would offer.* NOTE THAT YOU LOSE THE ABILITY TO RUN 16-bit APPLICATIONS! *Best regards,Robin.

Share this post


Link to post

>* NOTE THAT YOU LOSE THE ABILITY TO RUN 16-bit APPLICATIONS!Are there even any more of consequence that any of us may be uing? I cannot think of any.My problem is this:I AM NOT GOING UPGRADE TO 64 VISTA JUST BECAUSE I CAN...I NEED A REASON, LIKE FPS in FSX IMPROVING.

Share this post


Link to post

Out Of Memory events will stop. Completely - absolutely. However, there will be no increase in FPS or anything else, for that matter. We'll have to see what happens when (native) 64bit programs start showing up. That will be a while, though.

Share this post


Link to post

AFAIK when 64 bit games show up so will DX10.

Share this post


Link to post

CurtYou should always compair "Apples with Apples" if you want true and acurate refrences.I would have XP 64 over Vista 64 and the same with XP 32 v Vista 32.Yes you will get some Vista users like yourself that have no issues but unfortunatly there are "thousands" that have serious problems. We don't want to give people the false impression that Vista is fantastic...she is far from it.As far as the FS world is concerned I will agree with the experts and say using anything other than XP 32 at this time is risky. In a few years with FS12, DX17 & the new Winmac 128 Bit platform all "Might" be ok...but I very much doubt it...lol RegardsSteve

Share this post


Link to post