A x64 version of P3D is useless, what would really be needed is a DX11, so you can actually get good framerates with modern hardware. People who keep getting crashes have bad setups, as I explained earlier. There is no reason for x64.

 

How the heck could it possibly be useless. Look at the extravagant scenery and aircraft. Most of the time they have to dumbed down just because they dont want to impose to much of a penalty to our stupid 4gb ram limit. Not to mention all the other addons that we use that use up memory. 

AI traffic is another. It uses up memory. I dont understand your statement. If this ever goes 64bit as xplane has, then Im buying 16gb or maybe even 32.  Then it can use all the memory it wants. 

 

People who keep getting crashes have bad setups, as I explained earlier. There is no reason for x64.

 

Are you joking?  I've posted this before but I will post it again:

 

Memory usage at the start of a flight with the following: UTX, REX, GSX, Real Duke B60, 2560 x 1600, 9.5 LOD, 4096 textures, 10% traffic, Traffic 360:

 

 

About to Taxi, 10 minutes into flight plan ... OOM, you can clearly see I've exceed 3GB/4GB limit of a 32bit application:

 

 

There is nothing "wrong" with my system, making a blanket statement that there is something wrong with everyone's system that encounters OOM makes no sense and you can't possibly prove anything without knowing each and everyone's system.  It's not an AFCADs issue either (assume you mean .bgl files).

 

If I try to load PMDG with my "preferred" FSX settings it will OOM within a minute at any moderately busy/complex airport.  I honestly can't understand how you have determine 64bit is NOT needed for FSX when there is hard evidence from more people than just myself, showing where they exceed 3GB/4GB limit of a 32bit FSX.

My VAS running FSX/P3D never gets over 2,000,000K. Running the same addons with 30% traffic. Why would that be?

Transferring to 64-bits will surely leave memory related problems behind and 4GB VAS limit is problem with addon-laden FSX/P3D and that is a fact. Still, DX11 will somewhat alleviate that problem, because with DX10/11 you don't have to map parts of VRAM into that VAS and it probably frees up roughly 200-400MBs of memory for the program depending of many other factors (Addons used, AI level). Everyone can test that by using DX10 preview with FSX.

 

There is no guarantee that DX11 improves performance to some other new level if there are no other optimizations made to the code by improve multithreading of the sim engine: FSX/P3D is still in many occasions CPU bound because of poor multicore support. I've also discussed with few game programmers who think that DX9 is still more effective and easier to program in many occasions compared to newer APIs. So all in all, even though transfer to DX11 is a positive thing and offers possibilities new gimmicks (tesselation etc.), there are no guarantees that performance would automatically jump to a new level.

 

LM is very silent about all the changes they are working on the code like everyone can see on their forums. That is their policy right now. Only time will tell what kind of new features P3D will get and where the performance will go. DX11 is the only revealed fact about V2.0 and also that x64 will follow sometimes later and is probably years away. In their forums they also stated sometimes last year that they are aiming V2.0 for 2013, but we'll see how it goes.

 

9.5 LOD, 4096 textures,

 

You don't think setting such a high LOD is a contributing factor?

 

You don't think setting such a high LOD is a contributing factor?

 

Sure it is, like I said earlier, I degrade visuals to avoid OOM which is a limit of 32bit address space.  If FSX were 64bit, I wouldn't have to degrade my visuals.  But this isn't a "problem with my system".

 

 

My VAS running FSX/P3D never gets over 2,000,000K. Running the same addons with 30% traffic. Why would that be?

 

Come on, hopefully you're not serious?  REX alone has about 40+ settings that will affect RAM usage.  Then there is the FSX.CFG which can also affect RAM usage.  Then UTX has settings that will affect RAM usage also.  So you'll need to provide a little more information than that ... like about 15 pages of information if you want to claim "your" system is the same as my system or anyone else that is running into OOM.  And even within that, there is the issue of what one does during flight.  I can easily get into OOM by just opening up new Views and I can see the direct results of RAM usage when I do so with Process Explorer.

 

Sure, system/FSX problem and produce OOMs, but to suggest that everyone who runs into a OOM "must have a system problem" is a huge assumption with no supporting evidence.

 

But honestly, I don't understand why anyone would NOT want a 64bit FSX??

 

DX11 will not improve performance over DX10 Preview ... DX11 offers more features, but those features are most likely going decrease performance as they offer even better visuals.

 

So if your debate is really about 64bit being coded before DX11, then you are going to be VERY VERY disappointed when/if you use DX11 FSX because your frame rates will not improve.  

 

My VAS running FSX/P3D never gets over 2,000,000K. Running the same addons with 30% traffic. Why would that be?

 

Bet you're not running 2560x1600 with an LOD of 9.5 and 4096 textures.  :unsure:

 

Scott

 

64bit will break backward compatibility, there just is NO OTHER way around this ... if you really love flight simulation and want it to move forward then you'll have to wait and hope 3rd party vendors make a 64bit version of your add-ons. You can't have it both ways, sorry, just NOT possible.

 

Yes this is pretty basic stuff in terms of breaking backwards compatibility.  And 64bit is only one issue.  I really love flight simulation, and will keep FSX on its own drive while nursing along the new kid on the block be it XP64 or P3D.  Despite my age, I have patience because I think the upside for this is big.  I really want 8 cores or more, SLI Titans, 32-64Gb of quad channel ram and the software to exploit it.  Overclocking to 5Ghz I could care less about--that is such an arcane way to handle the old code, but it's all you can do besides turn down sliders.  Yes, lets move forward.  I hope to heck LM uses FSX code if nothing else as the template for a new sim that fully exploits this.  When this occurs, you are right the flood gates are open for HUGE development for many many years to come, whereas as whipping the old mare is well, the best we can do for now.

64 bit isn't as important as DX11 at this point. DX11 is much more capable than DX9, especially considering that it supports tessellation. Moving to DX11 would allow for better performance sooner. That alone would allow for higher detailed scenery to be run without affecting performance as much. Just look at most modern games out there that use DX11. They have great performance with insane detail and are not 64 bit. Very few games are, it seems.

 because sooooo many people think the answer is 64bit anything!

If P3D goes 64 bit, it will break compatibility with all addons that use C++ gauges anyway.

 

 

Good developers make modular and portable code.

 

And all they have to do when the times comes, is just recompile with the 64-bit compiler.

 

Good developers make modular and portable code.

 

And all they have to do when the times comes, is just recompile with the 64-bit compiler.

 

Do you think these same developers thought about this 6 years ago?

 

Or how about today when there is NO OFFICIAL word from LM that 64bit will ever see the light of day? Fleetwood Mac had it right!

robains is absolutely right. It has nothing to do with bad setups and all to do with the memory address limit of 32bit software. I am exactly at the same place he is having to degrade visuals to avoid the OOM errors.

 

Bringing 64bit to the picture won't really help frames, but it will eliminate the OOM errors.

 

The move to DX11 will absolutely help frames though.

 

For me right now, my priority is the OOM errors.

This can be managed, in the dll.xml file. by adding the following line in each optional entry (The dll's that are used on every flight leave alone.)

 

<ManualLoad>True</ManualLoad>

I can see why this would help the OOM errors. I'm definitely going to try this out. Thanks for pointing this out.

How the heck could it possibly be useless. Look at the extravagant scenery and aircraft. Most of the time they have to dumbed down just because they dont want to impose to much of a penalty to our stupid 4gb ram limit. Not to mention all the other addons that we use that use up memory. 

AI traffic is another. It uses up memory. I dont understand your statement. If this ever goes 64bit as xplane has, then Im buying 16gb or maybe even 32.  Then it can use all the memory it wants.

Because the only reason you hit a limit is because the architecture of the graphics engine is ancient. If you could run proper DX10 or DX11 then you would never get close to the limit.

 

You should never be hitting the limit unless your setup is bad.

 

Bet you're not running 2560x1600 with an LOD of 9.5 and 4096 textures.  :unsure:

 

Scott

9.5 is ridiculous, why don't you also assign the PMDG 737NGX as Ai aircraft since all you want to do is crash the sim. I don't even think that was supported, I know P3D sets 6.5 to default.

 

But either way you don't seem to understand that all this proves that a proper graphics engine is what is needed. A DX10/11 engine could easily run 4096 textures and 6.5 radius on a high resolution.

 

What does x64 have to do with that??? Nothing!

 

Are you joking?  I've posted this before but I will post it again:

 

Memory usage at the start of a flight with the following: UTX, REX, GSX, Real Duke B60, 2560 x 1600, 9.5 LOD, 4096 textures, 10% traffic, Traffic 360:

 

 

About to Taxi, 10 minutes into flight plan ... OOM, you can clearly see I've exceed 3GB/4GB limit of a 32bit application:

 

 

There is nothing "wrong" with my system, making a blanket statement that there is something wrong with everyone's system that encounters OOM makes no sense and you can't possibly prove anything without knowing each and everyone's system.  It's not an AFCADs issue either (assume you mean .bgl files).

 

If I try to load PMDG with my "preferred" FSX settings it will OOM within a minute at any moderately busy/complex airport.  I honestly can't understand how you have determine 64bit is NOT needed for FSX when there is hard evidence from more people than just myself, showing where they exceed 3GB/4GB limit of a 32bit FSX.

Of course there's something wrong with your system. You have a memory leak somewhere. Either a duplicate afcad file, corrupted scenery, corrupted AI texture, or an empty texture folder.

 

You can live in denial all you want, but the simple fact is your setup is the problem.

 

The only thing an x64 version of P3D would do is let that memory leak multiply like crazy.

B,

 

Isn't this old news from a previous post?