*sigh* againThey keep criticizing and I keep justifying. Why do I bother...Taken from x-plane.comNote the very first sentence."Of course, a computer with 4 GB of RAM, a quad-core processor, and 2 GB of VRAM can be used and X-Plane will take full advantage of it. CPUs with multiple cores are useful because X-Plane will use that second core to load scenery while flying. This eliminates the tenth of a second stutter usually associated with transitioning from one scenery file to another (which is still experienced when using a single-core processor)."It DOES run on a 64 bit Windows OS. It's in the system specs. Many people are running it on 64 bit OS. Veeray, you can keep trying to negate these points with your assumptions but I will keep posting facts that cancel your assumptions with links to back them up.

Look this is the reason why PC users don't want to buy anything from MAC users. First of all we've gone through 4 APIs already in the windows familly. As far as I know you MAC users started over from scratch 5 years ago...... So I'm not surprised you don't know the difference between the windows APIs.

It DOES run on a 64 bit Windows OS. It's in the system specs. Many people are running it on 64 bit OS. Veeray, you can keep trying to negate these points with your assumptions but I will keep posting facts that cancel your assumptions with links to back them up.

Veeray is right that XP could be a 32bit app running on a 64bit O/S. Yes it will run without problem BUT it will be limited to about 2GB of ram.But presumably if Austin is talking about using 4GB of ram then he must be planning to compile a 64bit version (in addition to the 32bit version).

PM sent. I want to continue this in private.XP9 takes advantage of 4GB of RAM. It has for a while.

Pilotman22: nope try again this time with Task Manager not My Computer... find the x-plane.exe process and note the "*32" beside it. That means the Kernel can only assign 2 gigs of ram to that application, and only within the lower memory range. I said the application is 32bit.. doesn't matter about the OS version at all.

Edit: well Greg sent a PM, no point arguing anymore on my end.

 post deleted....

Hi Guys,X-Plane 9 is a 32-bit application.X-Plane 10 will be a 32-bit application for a while.Both will run on a 32 or 64-bit OS.This is the last thing I posted about going 64-bit:http://xplanescenery.blogspot.com/2010/07/64-bit-its-on-radar.htmlI have no idea how much physical RAM X-Plane can actually use in real life for this reason: we share our address space with an OpenGL driver. That driver may consume physical RAM, and it may consume address space. Those things aren't always 1:1. Furthermore our address space is partitioned in different ways on different operating systems (with some held for the OS) and the driver may do its allocations on our side or the OSes side. These days, OpenGL will be using enough memory for graphic resources that it matters in the equation.cheersBen

It's actually a really simple matter to see if any application is native 64bit or 32bit: just look at where in ..\Program Files the .exe is installed!If the .exe is in the ..\Program Files(x86) folder, it is a 32bit application! :(

nevermind

New awesome X-Plane 10 previews here:http://www.x-plane.com/pg_news.html :(

My personal favorite is the night road shot. I cant see any reason to ever fly during the day after some of these lighting shots! My only complaint is that the grass up close looks a bit like a solid green.The buildings up close look really good too.

The Cardboard trees look awfull... Lighting looks great !

The Cardboard trees look awfull... Lighting looks great !

If you are flying over them I am sure the trees would look fine. Can you imagine the power it would take to do 3D trees, instead of upright 2D images?

Look this is the reason why PC users don't want to buy anything from MAC users. First of all we've gone through 4 APIs already in the windows familly. As far as I know you MAC users started over from scratch 5 years ago...... So I'm not surprised you don't know the difference between the windows APIs.

Nope, not 5 years ago, probably close to 11/12 years ago (they started with building OSX even before OS 9 was introduced). They did it, and I'm glad they did. They chucked out an OS that resembled an overflying bucket, and started with a new "bucket" that could hold three times the amount of water the previous could. OS X is far superior to OS 9 in just about every way. To be blatantly honest, I wish Microsoft would have done sort of the same thing to Windows. Do note I think both OSs have their merits and so I do not wish to start a flame war over which OS is better. I merely comment on why Apple's move was so significant for the Mac OS platform.

Nope, not 5 years ago, probably close to 11/12 years ago (they started with building OSX even before OS 9 was introduced). They did it, and I'm glad they did. They chucked out an OS that resembled an overflying bucket, and started with a new "bucket" that could hold three times the amount of water the previous could. OS X is far superior to OS 9 in just about every way. To be blatantly honest, I wish Microsoft would have done sort of the same thing to Windows. Do note I think both OSs have their merits and so I do not wish to start a flame war over which OS is better. I merely comment on why Apple's move was so significant for the Mac OS platform.

I was referring to the switch to Intel processors. Which really helped drive MAC developers to Microsoft or at least made them vendor neutral. I love XP and I think the team does great work, I just wish they'd focus more on the high end Windows 7 user base which is all 64-bit at this point. We can all live with the 32bit version as loon as there is zero chance of an Out of Memory error.