Thanks for the constand reminder to keep LOD at 4.5 and textures at 1024.

 

I keep being reminded to run using DX10 compatability, but most of my airports don't support DX10. Too bad!

 

P3D is a commercial product and this makes all the speculation even more interesting.

The purpose of going 64bit is to expand those limitations.

 

If you had a car and went camping each weekend but the camping gear wouldn't fit in the car so had to have some trailing out of the window, some lying across the passengers, some tied to the bonnet etc eventually you'd either

 

a downsize the amount of camping gear - reduce FSX addons

b give up camping - uninstall FSX

c buy a bigger car - move to 64bit

 

I did option a and I am happy with it and am currently waiting for the possibility of option c

 

 

Or D. Run the car as it was intended.

 

It's not the number of add-ons. It's how FSX is set up.

 

There's no need for a 64-bit version of FSX. All Prepar3D 2.0 needs to do is learn how to clear the VAS when you fly to another area, so there won't be any OOM errors after a long flight.

 

My sense is that OOM errors are only one are that will improve w/ 64bit.  To me if the engine is designed to load into as much physical memory as possible then other aspects such as .wav files can also be loaded into memory and this and similar maneuvers will all work towards a much smoother experience.  Good thought thought though about clearing VAS.    

Trust me, give them 64bit and they'll (meaning all of us), just fill that up as well until OOM's start appearing again.  Then we'll start screaming for 128bit!  Endless cycle.

Some clarifications, OOM is not a "error".  It simply means you have exceed the available RAM.

 

 

Trust me, give them 64bit and they'll (meaning all of us), just fill that up as well until OOM's start appearing again.  Then we'll start screaming for 128bit!  Endless cycle.

 

You could apply this logic to just about anything in life, not really meaningful.  But hey, we don't live in caves any more, maybe we should go back to living in caves because progress is futile?  Is that your basic suggestion here?

 

 

It's not the number of add-ons. It's how FSX is set up.

 

So REX uses 4096 textures and even suggests the setting during install/setup -- REX is an Add-On.  UTX does the same, so does GSX, so does PMDG ... so I don't understand how you can say it's not the number of add-ons?  They ALL push the envelop and want that precious small amount of RAM that a 32bit process is limited to ... this is why they sell well and continue to develop.

 

I think what some here really want is more frame rates out of DX11 without spending a dime to do so ... what I'm trying to convey is that is NOT going to happen.  Just as 64bit will not increase frame rates either.  What 64bit will do is solve a real problem of running out of address space.  What DX11 will do is improve visual quality a little (not a lot).  But out of the two, which is more important to address?  OOM (which stops you dead) or minor improvements to visual quality aka DX11?  The visual difference from DX10 to DX11 are next to nothing other than support for tessellation.

 

What "I think" (for those that don't want a 64bit platform) they want to see is multi-GPU support.  That IS going to require significant work and like I said before may need to address that Assembler code that lives in FSX that no one seems to want to touch/change (including the Aces crew).  But again, multi-GPU support is NOT A FEATURE OF DX11 ... multi-GPU support works with DX9c, DX10, and DX11 ... it's in the implementation of code, not in the feature sets of DX9c, DX10, or DX11.

 

I'd like to see both 64bit and DX11 and multi-GPU support -- I honestly don't understand why anyone wouldn't want both??  Maybe we should go back to 16bit or 8bit code so everyone can have great frame rates ....

 

 

So REX uses 4096 textures and even suggests the setting during install/setup -- REX is an Add-On. UTX does the same, so does GSX,

 

Neither UTX, GEX (I assume that's what you meant!), or GSX use 4096x4096 graphics.

LOL, Tom. So much for the experts!

 

Robbains,

 

Set all your FSX super settings back within the parameters of FSX and see if you get OOMs. Bet you don't.

 

Set all your FSX super settings back within the parameters of FSX and see if you get OOMs. Bet you don't.

 

Jim, respectfully - he KNOWS that.  The topic is about P3D moving to 64 bits and WHY that's desirable.

 

Scott

Trust me, give them 64bit and they'll (meaning all of us), just fill that up as well until OOM's start appearing again.  Then we'll start screaming for 128bit!  Endless cycle.

Yes, I sure hope so, i.e. that we get to the point we are screaming for 128bit since there are miles between 32bit and 64bit in accessible memory.   Can you imagine the depth, the realism, etc that the hobby would have achieved to max out 64bit?  That's probably a bit oversimplified since developers have to use 'tricks' to get around limitations even in that world.  It's not a stretch to imagine we could load the entire sim into 128Gb of ram (the physical limit in my old Vista64 OS), or nearly so, and how potentially fluid things might become at that point, where we can decrease the amount of work arounds to cope w/ limits.

 

 

 Maybe we should go back to 16bit or 8bit code so everyone can have great frame rates ....

 

Well summarized ;o)

Since DX-11 will only improve visual quality a bit, and FPS do not improve, why would P3D bother updating? That manpower could be spent on more useful areas of the sim that need to be addressed. 

 

Some clarifications, OOM is not a "error". It simply means you have exceed the available RAM.

 

It means you have exceeded the allowable Virtual Address Space (VAS). This is not the same as exceeding the available RAM

 

Neither UTX, GEX (I assume that's what you meant!), or GSX use 4096x4096 graphics.

 

True, not all use 4096 some 2048 but all use above FSX 1024 and UTX increases poly count with roads, rivers, etc. etc. etc..

 

 

Set all your FSX super settings back within the parameters of FSX and see if you get OOMs. Bet you don't.

 

Yes, that's exactly what I do and the visuals are degraded ... not sure what your point is?  Again, this is good how?  And this is good for 3rd party how?  Not sure where you're going with this Jim ... you seem to think I'm attacking FSX.  Your "Experts" comment seems pretty childish ... no one is claiming to be an expert but I am passing on what I know from 30+ years of doing software engineering ... take it or leave, that's fine, the side jabs just aren't necessary.

 

 

It means you have exceeded the allowable Virtual Address Space (VAS). This is not the same as exceeding the available RAM

 

Yes, correct and thank you for the clarification ... but my point still remains valid, OOM doesn't imply it's an error.

 

 

 

Since DX-11 will only improve visual quality a bit, and FPS do not improve, why would P3D bother updating?

 

One reason is there is something in DX-11 that will enhance the military aspect of the the simulation ... pretty sure they don't care about OOM issues and they have no obligation to anyone other than LM.

It seems some do not like progress and change and no matter how you explain it, it doesnt fly.

 

If Microsoft ever did upgrade FSX to a 64bit sim with DX11, these ones who say its unnecessary  useless, and only a setup problem with fsx, would still be flying FSX while the rest of us enjoy the benefits of 64bit. I just dont see what the negative is if FSX/P3D were to have a 16GB or even 32GB Virtual address space. That is huge. No need to scale back the settings. I want to run it at max resolutions within the capabilities of my hardware. Saying you just have to scale back and 64bit is worthless just doesnt make sense plain and simple no matter how you look at it. The hardware is capable, so yes, move on from the 1024 texture rut and not worry about OOMs in the least. Even a 8gb VAS would take a long time to fill up with todays addons. But the possibilities would be tremendous. 

 

Why is LM concentrating on DX11? Because DX9 is old news. Again its called progress. Gaming software today uses the latest DirectX. If you dont like it then go back to Windows XP 32bit. If you use 64bit windows then you have the 4gb VAS to use for FSX. If you use windows 7 32bit you are stuck with 3gbVAS  because the OS and Bios needs to use at least 1GB of the 4GB limit to run in the background. So again how is 64bit useless. 

MS isn't doing a darn thing and LM hasn't said it is doing anything. That is why this is unnecessary and useless.

As Jim and Tom said, if you use FSX with full sliders to the right without any add-ons, you don't get OOM and CTD issue....  the thing is that developers are creating amazing add-ons, pushing FSX to its limit and when you install 1, 2, 3 and 4 of these add-ons, at a time, the core program can't handle it. This is in no way surprising.

 

I feel lucky enough to be able to fly aircraft like PMDG NGX over a nice Fly Tampa HKG scenery at 30 fps....   this is far away from the default FSX.