feelThere ERJ 145 release... soon?

[Andydigital 93]

when did FSX become a 64bit program?

With a statement like that you will put off many enthusiasts becoming customers, well you put me off anyway. Not supporting someone just because they use a 64bit OS is like saying you wont support them just because their PC case is made by Coolermaster, i.e. it makes no sense at all.

[scoob 18]

With a statement like that you will put off many enthusiasts becoming customers, well you put me off anyway.

FSX (and 9) are 32 bit programs. a 64bit OS does nothing directly to help FS as FS doesn't 'understand' 64 bit. 64bit can help, a little, because of the OS understanding and using an increase above ~3MB of RAM. outcome is a slight increase in the never ending chase of 'higher FPS' because the OS has more room to work 'in other memory'; and FS gets a bit more room to work in the 3MG it understands.FS (both 9 and X) are CPU bound, not 'OS bound'. and FSers are lucky as FS9 seems to work on win7 ... and FSX wasn't a 'given' to work on win7.

Not supporting someone just because they use a 64bit OS is like saying you wont support them just because their PC case is made by Coolermaster, i.e. it makes no sense at all.

i have never asked a user the design of their computer case ... why ... in 99.99999999999999999% of of cases it has nothing to do with operation of FS. now in 0.000000000000000001% it could because of a poor design causing overheating of the CPU, GPU and/or PU.saying honestly that 64bit isn't supported (at this time) is a business telling the truth. upfront, no lies, and no guessing. how is being truthful wrong?--

[slait 169]

FSX (and 9) are 32 bit programs. a 64bit OS does nothing directly to help FS as FS doesn't 'understand' 64 bit. 64bit can help, a little, because of the OS understanding and using an increase above ~3MB of RAM. outcome is a slight increase in the never ending chase of 'higher FPS' because the OS has more room to work 'in other memory'; and FS gets a bit more room to work in the 3MG it understands.

So how is what you wrote above not helping FS? If I have a 32bit operating system, 6GB of RAM, and a 1GB video card my system has a grand total of 3GB of memory to operate FS and all the associated add-ons. This on top of the system itself. FS without the help of the /3GB switch is limited to 2GB and now I have 1GB for everything else. Whereas the same scenario in a 64bit OS I'm left with a full 4GB to run everything beyond just FS. That to me is worth the while given the ever increasing add-ons that run outside of the FS memory space. Radar Contact, Active Sky, screen capture programs, ACARS, etc, etc, etc.64bit helps whether it is direct or indirect, and not supporting that OS is going to end up shooting yourselves in the foot. As memory demands continue to increase, so will the conversion of home systems to 64bit.

[scoob 18]

not supporting that [64bit] OS [...]

... at this moment, honestly and truthfully stated.--

[Benjamin J 751]

when did FSX become a 64bit program?--if only it would be released for FS9 :( :(if only had 2D cockpit :( (and i may then use FSX for something besides testing)--

But it hasn't got it. Does it make the J41 a lesser plane? I don't think so. It's a pity you should be hooked to these features.

[scoob 18]

But it hasn't got it [2D panel]. Does it make the J41 a lesser plane?

for a simulation to be on my hard drive ... YES.

I don't think so.

you don't think so, I do.

It's a pity you should be hooked to these features.

my money, my time ... i can be 'hooked' to all the features i want :( now, does the PMDG J41 represent a leap forward in how it models a real-world aircraft 'air file' and engine simulation? yes, i agree. from what i have read an excellent A+ effort. but it's limitations in how the simulation is presented. no 2D; and on which FS platform, no FS9, means the product has no place within my 'hanger'.--

[n4gix 4,947]

Given that the odds are remote that your developer is NOT using Visual Studio (for things like gauges and libraries to support systems modeling), the facilities for compiling any custom DLLs for a both a 32-bit and 64-bit OS are simple to use. At any rate, there is no reason that 32-bit software can't run side by side with a 64-bit OS; If this were not so, then there would be many unhappy users of FSX.

Since FSX is a 32-bit application, it will be run in any Win 64-bit version under WOW64 (the 32-bit emulator).Compiling .dll files for x64 would accomplish precisely nothing, since all of the gauges and support modules have to run in the same 32-bit emulated environment as the parent program.Well, that's not quite true. Since they wouldn't load at all, that is actually quite a bit less than nothing. It is a case of completely useless.See: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa384249(VS.85).aspx (Note: emphasis mine)

WOW64 is the x86 emulator that allows 32-bit Windows-based applications to run seamlessly on 64-bit Windows. WOW64 is provided with the operating system and does not have to be explicitly enabled. For more information, see WOW64 Implementation Details.The system isolates 32-bit applications from 64-bit applications, which includes preventing file and registry collisions. Console, GUI, and service applications are supported. The system provides interoperability across the 32/64 boundary for scenarios such as cut and paste and COM. However, 32-bit processes cannot load 64-bit DLLs for execution, and 64-bit processes cannot load 32-bit DLLs for execution. This restriction does not apply to DLLs loaded as data files or image resource files; for more information, see LoadLibraryEx.

Perhaps it's a language thing, but I suspect that the choice of wording was/is unfortunate. Better it should have been something along the lines of "Untested on 64-bit OS." There is absolutely nothing wrong with being totally honest and upfront!As a gauge and systems developer, as well as a 3d modeler, I have FS9 and FSX installed on two machines, one with WinXP-32 and another with Vista-32. I test everything throughly under both OS's. But, I do not have a computer that supports 64-bit, so obviously can NOT test anything for compatibility with a 64-bit system.Just a few weeks ago, Ron invested in a new machine running W7-64, so only now are we able to begin the testing process. It made no sense whatever to attempt testing anything on the moving target that the W7-64 beta versions was.

[Benjamin J 751]

for a simulation to be on my hard drive ... YES.you don't think so, I do.my money, my time ... i can be 'hooked' to all the features i want :( now, does the PMDG J41 represent a leap forward in how it models a real-world aircraft 'air file' and engine simulation? yes, i agree. from what i have read an excellent A+ effort. but it's limitations in how the simulation is presented. no 2D; and on which FS platform, no FS9, means the product has no place within my 'hanger'.--

At least we agree to some extent :-P Do as you please, I do as I please. Now get that ERJ released :-P

[ahuimanu 50]

Since FSX is a 32-bit application, it will be run in any Win 64-bit version under WOW64 (the 32-bit emulator).Compiling .dll files for x64 would accomplish precisely nothing, since all of the gauges and support modules have to run in the same 32-bit emulated environment as the parent program.Well, that's not quite true. Since they wouldn't load at all, that is actually quite a bit less than nothing. It is a case of completely useless.See: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa384249(VS.85).aspx (Note: emphasis mine)Perhaps it's a language thing, but I suspect that the choice of wording was/is unfortunate. Better it should have been something along the lines of "Untested on 64-bit OS." There is absolutely nothing wrong with being totally honest and upfront!As a gauge and systems developer, as well as a 3d modeler, I have FS9 and FSX installed on two machines, one with WinXP-32 and another with Vista-32. I test everything throughly under both OS's. But, I do not have a computer that supports 64-bit, so obviously can NOT test anything for compatibility with a 64-bit system.Just a few weeks ago, Ron invested in a new machine running W7-64, so only now are we able to begin the testing process. It made no sense whatever to attempt testing anything on the moving target that the W7-64 beta versions was.

Fr. Bill,You are, of course, entirely correct. My introduction of 64-bit compilers is irrelevant to the discussion. The real discussion is testing on a 64-bit OS and scoob's feeling that the 64-bit OS' advantages when running FSX are negligible. In any case, scoob's outfit don't and won't test with 64-bit and thus discourage its use. It's his party. The real fool is me for handing over money, in a steady fashion, to an outfit whose approach does not sit well with me. It is not really scoob's fault, it's mine. Too bad, because I really like the promise of the V2 of the ERJ.In any case, this all reminds me of the good ol' 16-bit v. 32-bit days.I'll watch the FT forums for a few weeks and look for signs of sustainability of 64-bit. In the end, I *mostly* agree with another poster's assertion that this will be a non-issue. However, the FT history is hard to ignore...

[Tim_Capps 474]

I agree with you on every account, but I honestly think that PMDG's J41 is entirely in a class of its own. It is not just another PMDG plane, it is much more that that. It is greatness encompassed in a 170MB download. I really mean that. I did several flights with it, and every single one was enjoyment from beginning to end. Why? Because you actually fly the thing. This is not a plane wher you takeoff and afterwards have to press the right buttons at the right time. You constantly monitor the gauges and look for faults and possible problems. You have to plan your descent too, because the J41 hates to slow down while descending and you might risk coming down fast and you'll have to do a go-around.Tim, if there is one plane I would recommend you now, it is PMDG's J41. Turboprop or not. (Out of curiosity, what don't you like about turboprop aircaft?)

It isn't that I don't like turboprop airplanes per se. I have enjoyed the ATR, for example, in its day. It is just that you have to draw the line somewhere and that would mean ascending yet another learning curve.Besides, when I'm flying a 767 I can pretend to get paid more!

[N400QW 205]

Just an aside but I can tell you I'm very impressed with operations of our FS9 or FSX Products under Win7 64 Bit and wouldn't return to my Vista 32 Bit system except for testing. :(

[Benjamin J 751]

It isn't that I don't like turboprop airplanes per se. I have enjoyed the ATR, for example, in its day. It is just that you have to draw the line somewhere and that would mean ascending yet another learning curve.Besides, when I'm flying a 767 I can pretend to get paid more!

I think that's exactly one of the points I have made in the review I did of this plane (I have no idea when it will get published, I hope soon): this isn't a difficult plane. Sure, you might spend some time understanding the engines, autopilot and FMC< but when it comes down to it, I feel this is one of the easiest, yet realistic planes you can get your hands down. This is mostly, I think, because of the lack of buttons to press. Even I can do a full engine start procedure without error and without having to check checklists all the time. This is also why it makes the plane such an enjoyable experience: it's not only very realistic, a joy to fly, but also easy to operate. I say, wait for my review, read it, and tell me what you think of the plane afterwards.

[Tim_Capps 474]

I shall. I remember turboprops being particularly difficult due to condition levers and other odd things I don't know anything about.

[Guest Astradan]

I'm very much looking forward to this release. Although they've seen their fair share of issues and bugs in the past, feelThere are truly market leading when it comes to providing excellent configuration options for their aircraft, using their configurator.Of course, feelThere also offer comprehensive and full key assignability for all main MCP, EFIS, etc controls. (including key assignability for custom functions like FLC and VNAV!) :(

[chapstick 2,757]

likely not to become an official feature available in an SP. an option to overlay the HUD view, with some tweaks, will be posted in the ERJv2 support forum. --

That's disappointing but thanks for answering. -Alex