hello,as I'm willing to set up a 64 bit system (Vista, Seven) for exploiting more RAM resources on 3D rendering applications, I am thinking to give it a try too with FSX and X-planeare there any considerations to take in account?is there a better choice?thanks

I just built a new 64 bit rig (see sig) and while my rendering apps (Carrara, Max, Vue) are 20 X faster, the main benefit I see with FSX, is a more fluid sense of motion and much faster texture loading. So far I have no issues with Vista, but I have a free upgrade for Win 7, so I'll try it at one point since everyone I know seems to rave about it.

Hi,Be aware that a lot of aircrafts add ons are not working well or simply not working at all with an 64bit OS... :( Cheers,

Hi,Be aware that a lot of aircrafts add ons are not working well or simply not working at all with an 64bit OS... :( Cheers,

I'm yet to run into an add on that doesn't work with 64 bit and I have about 15 installed on my FSX right now. Planes, scenery, utilities.

are there any considerations to take in account?is there a better choice?

I am happy with Vista 32 bit, but would very much like to upgrade to the latest Intel processor and motherboard for running FSX. In doing this I feel that a 64 bit operating system is the smartest way to go, but Vista 64 bit drivers and software are still not available for a lot of older peripherals and applications. Since I use my computer for more than FSX and have peripherals and software not compatable with Vista 64 bit, the choice is to wait. Since I have not switched to a 64 bit operating system, I was not aware of FSX addons that are not compatible as mentioned in yankeeromeo's post. It would be nice to also know more about that before proceeding.

I'm yet to run into an add on that doesn't work with 64 bit and I have about 15 installed on my FSX right now. Planes, scenery, utilities.

Same here. I've been on my new (Vista 64) system for several months and haven't had any problems with add-ons. The main issue I'm aware of is that some of the Dreamfleet GA add-ons (like the Dakota) include Reality XP GPS units that aren't 64-bit compatible - but they can be replaced with the newer Reality XP GPS WAAS units, which are.I wouldn't hesitate to go the 64-bit route.Alan

Without question, go 64-bit. I have never ran into any add-on yet that did not work with it.The only reason not to, would be if you ran a piece of hardware that did not have a 64-bit driver, such as a throttle quadrant, avionics stack, etc. and there are some of those out there.

Same here. I've been on my new (Vista 64) system for several months and haven't had any problems with add-ons. The main issue I'm aware of is that some of the Dreamfleet GA add-ons (like the Dakota) include Reality XP GPS units that aren't 64-bit compatible - but they can be replaced with the newer Reality XP GPS WAAS units, which are.I wouldn't hesitate to go the 64-bit route.Alan

I've been on Vista 64 for eight months now and no issues at all with add-ons, other than I am buying too many of them (just bought Flight1's Pilatus). I never ran FSX on a 32 bit system so I cannot compare performance, but I know FS9 is like night and day compared to 32 bit. Imagine FS9 without EVER seeing the blurries. That's FS9 on my system. FSX runs great as well--in the Pilatus VC I am holding my 30 fps lock in most locations (drops to 27-28 or so at DFW if the terminals are in view).The only issue other than those noted above is driver support or unsigned drivers. For instance Tileproxy, which is giving me unbelievable VFR flight, uses an unsigned driver and the solution is to disable the signing requirement when Vista boots. That aside, I am quite content with Vista 64 and love the stability of all of my sim applications. As time goes on, with virtually all new systems coming with a 64 bit O/S, I think support for Vista 64 will be the standard. My system specs:Intel 8200 CPUNvidia 9500 graphics (1 GB Ram)8 GB MB RamRegards,John

first off, thank you all for the very positive input :(

I just built a new 64 bit rig (see sig) and while my rendering apps (Carrara, Max, Vue) are 20 X faster, the main benefit I see with FSX, is a more fluid sense of motion and much faster texture loading. So far I have no issues with Vista, but I have a free upgrade for Win 7, so I'll try it at one point since everyone I know seems to rave about it.

1mikel151,20X faster :( ? did you refer to animation rendering? or that 20X applies to static images too? [i mainly work with Vue (static images only)]or that 20X is also due to your new rig power ? :(

first off, thank you all for the very positive input :( 1mikel151,20X faster :( ? did you refer to animation rendering? or that 20X applies to static images too? [i mainly work with Vue (static images only)]or that 20X is also due to your new rig power ? :(

LOL< well I wouldn't say it's exactly 20X, but it is considerably faster on still images (don't do many animations), cuts my render times down by about 60-70% from my old system. Carrara is the fastest and it's probably due to both, the new PC/OS and the added high end memory. I only have an older Vue Espirt and don't use it as often as the others (to much time involved on reworking shaders on imported scenes). None of them are true 64 bit apps, so the true benefit of a 64 bit OS will only be truly seen on a true 64 bit app (Poser Pro 2010!). I haven't ran into any compatibility issues with running any 32 bit apps in 64 (knock on wood!). Hope that was some help.