32bit vs 64 bit

[Daniel choen 23]

oh Jeez, i thought i could skip that one, thanks for the help, when i'll have the time to do it i'll do, i have one more problem for that, my code on the FSX finished his life, the previous time that i installed it on my new computer i needed to take a code from my friend, so I don't really sure if i can ask him twice..

[wanabflyer 53]

oh Jeez, i thought i could skip that one, thanks for the help, when i'll have the time to do it i'll do, i have one more problem for that, my code on the FSX finished his life, the previous time that i installed it on my new computer i needed to take a code from my friend, so I don't really sure if i can ask him twice..

 

Does FSX activation key run out ?

[MrKen 3]

You can activate it over the phone. I've installed the same copy many times using phone activation

[Cristiano Mueller 9]

I reinstalled my FSX about 8 months ago, and for my surprise, the activation key was still valid.

[Daniel choen 23]

You can activate it over the phone. I've installed the same copy many times using phone activation

thanks very much, will they accept it? i hope they do.

[Pilot267 2]

What about add-on's? I assume they can all go on a seperate drive with FSX, correct? I currently have Win7 - 64 bit, but I have everything installed to default locations on my main drive. I get great frame rates and no issues, but I wonder how much better installing to the empty D: ( physical drive ) would be.

 

Is it really worth it?

[Daniel choen 23]

What about add-on's? I assume they can all go on a seperate drive with FSX, correct? I currently have Win7 - 64 bit, but I have everything installed to default locations on my main drive. I get great frame rates and no issues, but I wonder how much better installing to the empty D: ( physical drive ) would be.

 

Is it really worth it?

did you get any fatal error, or fsx stopped working error or something like that? ever? thanks, i am running a very close system as you, and i made that change to D: i didn't notice any special things.

[Pilot267 2]

did you get any fatal error, or fsx stopped working error or something like that? ever? thanks, i am running a very close system as you, and i made that change to D: i didn't notice any special things.

 

I just recently re-installed everything ( Most everything) PMDG, GEX, UTX, AS2012, EZDOK , FSUIPC, etc..., and the only thing I did get initially was the crash on exit many others have spoken about, but I did get rid of that with the RegEdit fix.

 

Like I said, I get really great, smooth frames, and the only time that starts to drop is when I start adding in Ultimate Traffic and certain payware airports & scenery, specifically the NY area. So the only reason I would even contemplate re-installing everything on a seperate drive at this point would be if someone told me doing so would most definitely allow me to add that scenery and traffic wih better frames. I'm starting to think not, but I'd like to be wrong.

 

Regards,

[wanabflyer 53]

I just recently re-installed everything ( Most everything) PMDG, GEX, UTX, AS2012, EZDOK , FSUIPC, etc..., and the only thing I did get initially was the crash on exit many others have spoken about, but I did get rid of that with the RegEdit fix.

 

Like I said, I get really great, smooth frames, and the only time that starts to drop is when I start adding in Ultimate Traffic and certain payware airports & scenery, specifically the NY area. So the only reason I would even contemplate re-installing everything on a seperate drive at this point would be if someone told me doing so would most definitely allow me to add that scenery and traffic wih better frames. I'm starting to think not, but I'd like to be wrong.

 

Regards,

 

I don't think the reason for installing on a different drive or more to the point, a directory other than the default on a 64 bit O/S has to do with better frame rates. It has more to do with stability etc.

[FlyingAxx 2]

. I'm starting to think not, but I'd like to be wrong.

 

Regards,

 

If it runs smooth, don't touch it. I only moved FSX to an extra drive as I was tired to install it each time completely new after rebuilding my computer (new main board, new drivers etc.).

[Pilot267 2]

If it runs smooth, don't touch it. I only moved FSX to an extra drive as I was tired to install it each time completely new after rebuilding my computer (new main board, new drivers etc.).

 

I hear you. You know, i never thought of it that way. That might be reason enough to move it all to the seperate drive. Maybe one day when I'm feeling ambitous.

[tf51d 284]

One of the big advantages with the NGX is that it has its own Executable. Windows 7 x64 has the advantage here because setting all .exe's that you use (including such things as ActiveSkies, REX etc) to run as administrator allows them to operate in their own memory space, freeing up RAM for FSX...

 

That's assuming you've got at least 6GB RAM, which if you have Win7 x64 you'd be daft not to :D

 

Actually that's not the case, The NGX uses DLL's (Dynamic Link Libraries) These are loaded within FSX address space when you first load FSX, (In the case of the HUD) and as gauges when you load the aircraft.. If it used an external EXE like ASE, REX, or FSDT's Couatl then it would use it's own address space.

[FSMP 95]

One of the big advantages with the NGX is that it has its own Executable. Windows 7 x64 has the advantage here because setting all .exe's that you use (including such things as ActiveSkies, REX etc) to run as administrator allows them to operate in their own memory space, freeing up RAM for FSX...

 

That's assuming you've got at least 6GB RAM, which if you have Win7 x64 you'd be daft not to :D

 

"One of the big advantages with the NGX is that it has its own Executable"

 

The Configuration program to select Graphic size option, etc, is a "stand alone" exe, but the complex gauges are in BIG 32bit in-process dlls, and they shares the memory space with FSX.

 

However, Graphic are the biggest memory Hogs, so the more you can do to reduce their size, and still appear to have an acceptable image quality, the less likely you are to run out of memory address space, and crash the sim.

 

It's always going to be a compromise, untill XPlane goes 64 Bit .. then most limits will dissappear, and there should be some massive advances :Money Eyes:

[FlyingAxx 2]

It's always going to be a compromise, untill XPlane goes 64 Bit .. then most limits will dissappear, and there should be some massive advances :Money Eyes:

 

This was a good hint preventing me from jumping right now toward XPlane even it seems to handle resources quite carefully compared with MS products but I only can judge it from outdated versions.

[pfpeter 3]

Of course X-Plane 10 will handle things better. So did FSX when it was released back in 2006 and there was not tons of add-ons for FSX. It's all the add-ons we use for FSX that takes up the memory. Especially the nice looking airports and VFR sceneries. And then of course NGX. So the more add-ons you install for X-Plane 10, the closer you will be to exactly the same problem we have in FSX. There is a limit of 4 GB in the 32-bit universe. That will certainly change in a 64-bit universe. But that will also only be a matter ot time before 64-bit just isn't enough any more. Then it wil be 128-bit etc.