Just by xplane 64bit..... Problem solved

Mhazy

How many people moved from FS9 to FSX demanding backwards compatibility? How many had to buy add ons all over again and did it without so much argument?

If P3D V2.0 comes out and is a whole new sim, then consider it would have been FS11 or FS12, and if you buy it, you are big enough and ugly enough to know that add ons on the new platform will need new features that may render the old add ons useless.

 

It is all speculation, nobody knows what is in store, but getting worked up over a new sim with new features yet demanding compatibility to add ons that do not carry these features is a wonderful excercise in futility.

All this P3D backwards compatibility talk. I bet the 3PD's are suffering right now. Everyone spends there FSX $ very carefully. Backwards compatibility is yet another consideration when buying Add-on's. If I never heard of P3D V2 a few months ago I would have spent a lot more on FSX add-on's than I have. Heck I would have built a new dedicated FSX system by now. I have turned my nose up to great add-on's that I would love to have and I have only bought when I see a sale like in those reported in the Bargain section of the web-site. There must be a lot of simmers who are being cagey like me for the very same reason and that means that 3PD sales must be down. I know my FSX spending will be kept to the absolute minimum until something concrete happens

 

My point exactly, if I was in Orbx's shoes I would not to tell you anything regarding my addons be compatible or not with V2.0,....why loosing sales of existing addons until V2.0 is released??? If P3D V2.0 is DX11 you WILL need a patch for all addons you already have if you want to see the beauty of DX11 over DX9, the question is...will the patch be free or will you have to pay for it OR will you have to buy new sceneries as they may not (Orbx) make patches at all for the existing sceneries... they are not answering that either are they?

Of course the reality is that no one is going to state that existing add-ons won't be compatible with V2.0 in order to protect their sales.

 

But for the same reason  they would state that existing add-ons will be compatible with V2.0 if that were the case. They'd have nothing to gain by not doing so.

 

The conclusion I draw from this is that either they won't be compatible or that the decision's not yet been made. either way, I'm still going to wait for V2.0.

 

 

 

^{How many people moved from FS9 to FSX demanding backwards compatibility? How many had to buy add ons all over again and did it without so much argument?}

If P3D V2.0 comes out and is a whole new sim, then consider it would have been FS11 or FS12, and if you buy it, you are big enough and ugly enough to know that add ons on the new platform will need new features that may render the old add ons useless.

 

It is all speculation, nobody knows what is in store, but getting worked up over a new sim with new features yet demanding compatibility to add ons that do not carry these features is a wonderful excercise in futility.

 

 

^{Will, the point is not that some peoples will not buy new add-ons if they have to, they just don't want to invest now in add-on for FSX/P3D not knowing if they can use them with V2.0, and if not, having to buy them again for V2.0... in what...12 to 24 months?} 

 

^{By the way, V2.0 is not a new sim, at this point it is just the same big cow with lips stick on.}

 

Keep in mind that it is relatively straightforward to write a 64 bit app that can interface with 32 bit DLLS and add-ons. Adobe did this for its CS 5 suite, because it needed to access 32 bit audio and video codecs. By the CS6 revision, most of the legacy 3rd party 32 bit stuff had been upgraded.

 

^{By the way, V2.0 is not a new sim, at this point it is just the same big cow with lips stick on.}

 

 

Bigger font next time please, I am having difficulty in reading these tiny tiny words :lol:

Keep in mind that it is relatively straightforward to write a 64 bit app that can interface with 32 bit DLLS and add-ons

But it's even more straightforward to re-compile the DLLs if their source code is available.

My point was not about what LM needs to do, but rather how they can accommodate 3rd party legacy 32 bit add-ons. For example, some aircraft also use DLLS for their gauges.

The only way I know to do that is to create a separate 32-bit application and load the 32-bit DLLs into that and then use some form of Inter Process Communication to transfer information between them. That is not particularly  straightforward even if the DLLs are known at compile time and even less straightforward if they are not known until run time. there can be problems with alignment, data types, initialisation, and particularly performance. Although gauge DLLs have a known interface, how would other DLLs (SimConnect) with unknown interfaces be dealt with?

 

Anyway this begs the question whether Lockheed Martin sees any need to maintain backwards compatibility with a range of FSX add-ons of variable quality and standards.

That is exactly how Adobe did it. SimConnect is in essence, part of FSX and P3D, so I would assume that those would have to be re-written. Adobe's concern was the same as many people have expressed in this thread, that 3rd party 32 bit add-ons not be completely abandoned.

Developers (and users) can write their own Simconnect DLLs, each of which is unique. I don't believe there is any way a 64-bit P3D could handle such 32-bit DLLs so backward compatibility wouldn't be possible.

I think what you are pointing out as that it better on the programming side to make a clean break and have a "pure" 64 bit sim (ala X-Plane). My point is that there is also a transitional path to 64 bit and Adobe has already demonstrated that it is feasible. Not every legacy 32 bit add-on will work. But it is possible to accommodate most of them during the transition period.

 

 

But why should Lockheed Martin want to spend resources on maintaining backwards compatibility with a range of FSX add-ons of variable standards and quality? Its primary interest is in commercial/military training

Flight Simulation is at a point where it can't progress and keep compatibility ... it's something people need to start to accept (actually probably should have accepted this concept 7 years ago) as "the future" and stop getting stuck in the past.

 

Moving to the future does NOT mean you have to abandon what you have or stop buying products for "today" ... it just means what you currently have can't be moved forward.  Maybe those products will get updated and maybe not, pretty sure PMDG products will not get updated.

 

If you care at all about the future of flight simulation, this is something you will easily accept.  If you are only concerned about money/cost, then what you currently (or plan to get) have will still live on for many years.

 

As far as LM's implications, there are none ... "before 2016 is V2.0"  speculation at this point futile.

 

LM is under NO obligation to accommodate any 3rd party products -- that's how I read LM's statement. 

 

Rob

 

 

My point is that there is also a transitional path to 64 bit and Adobe has already demonstrated that it is feasible.

 

It is feasible, but comparing to Adobe's products is not apples to apples.  It would be very difficult to support 32bit within a 64bit main thread ... an investment in programming resources that would show little to no ROI for LM.  It would be FAR FAR easier to produce a 32bit version and a 64bit version ... which is what Austin has done with X-Plane.