Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Sesquashtoo

A weekend of eye-opening...64 bit---and NEVER going back....

Recommended Posts

What a weekend this has been, folks!  What an eye-opener for sure. For this guy....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

......I see that 64 bit is the way of the future.  The same XP10 rendering settings that I had been running with in your 64 bit mode and with smoothness, when firing up the sim under 32 bit mode, produced constant stutters from take off and up. 64 bit is the way to go for flight simming.....

 

Mitch'er

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shhhhhhhhhh! Not so loud, the others might hear you :lol:  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>Shhhhhhhhhh! Not so loud, the "others" might hear you</p> :He He: Five the cat is offically out of the bag :dance: Downloaded the demo version,I must say That I am impressed with what I see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

<p>Shhhhhhhhhh! Not so loud, the "others" might hear you</p> :He He: Five the cat is offically out of the bag :dance: Downloaded the demo version,I must say That I am impressed with what I see.

 

If you have a 64 bit system, run it in this mode.  Your 32 bit eyes will be opened too!  I'm not going back.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

64 bits does something, no argument there but primarily its a better graphics engine than FSX.   Run it in 32 bit mode and you will likely get exactly the same performance in the demo area you are trying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normally 64-bit will allow for more detail over a wider area.  It allows more memory to be used.  Performance wise i can't see it having a massive impact, as Jason states above it's likely to be a better Graphics engine and better / newer code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your enthusiasm inspired me to make a video of my new Carenado Centurion over the Grand Canyon. It rendered darker than when I captured the video but does show off the amazing HDR cockpit effects in the Carenado cockpit. I bought it on Friday, and man, it is awesome. The sounds are great and the HD textures crisp. I will make a daytime video soon.

 

 

Cheers

 

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That antenna (ELT I assume) blowing in the breeze out the rear window looked cool. Looking up towards the cloud cover looks good too. Just has that realistic effect of being there. It's that WOW factor that I mention!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a weekend this has been, folks!  What an eye-opener for sure. For this guy....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

......I see that 64 bit is the way of the future.  The same XP10 rendering settings that I had been running with in your 64 bit mode and with smoothness, when firing up the sim under 32 bit mode, produced constant stutters from take off and up. 64 bit is the way to go for flight simming.....

 

Mitch'er

 

Well, the opposite is true with me.. 32 bit is smooth and avg fps is higher while 64 has the micro stutters and with terrets on ocassion. For the life of me I cannot figure it. A couple of other simmers have the same experience.

 

Regards

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the opposite is true with me.. 32 bit is smooth and avg fps is higher while 64 has the micro stutters and with terrets on ocassion. For the life of me I cannot figure it. A couple of other simmers have the same experience.

 

Regards

Bob

 

I'm having the same experience, 32-bit is smother and the avg FPS are higher too. Before the last update 64bit was smooth as silc with no micro-stutters. I just cant figure it out also, I even deleted my preferences with no luck, go figure.

 

Carlos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having the same experience, 32-bit is smother and the avg FPS are higher too. Before the last update 64bit was smooth as silc with no micro-stutters. I just cant figure it out also, I even deleted my preferences with no luck, go figure.

 

Carlos

 

 

Well, maybe others have not tried going back to 32 to see if there is any difference for them.

 

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

64 bits does something, no argument there but primarily its a better graphics engine than FSX. Run it in 32 bit mode and you will likely get exactly the same performance in the demo area you are trying.

Oh, I have to absolutely disagree with you, sorry. When I downloaded the XP10 demo, I chose to execute the 64 bit version, and after a test of putting every RENDERING field at each of their highest settings, found that I had an absolutey stutter-free and smooth animated flight experience. Just yesterday, I thought that I would out of curiosity, fire up the 32 bit .exe, and did so. What a drop-in-the-toilet performance envelope. From the moment I started down the runway, the XP10 (at full bore every at max settings) CLUNKED and stuttered down the runway, and it was that way in the air, with banks, viewpoints...the whole shebang. I then went back to the 64 bit version, and the buttery smooth performance returned (again apples to apples with no different settings dumbed down other than full max on everything).

 

So, it has been my experience on my system (specs have been published in this forum on another one of my posts) that a native 64 bit application will kick serious a** over a 64 bit CPU, and its 64 bit O.S. having to translate down to 32 bit mode. For myself, I will never purchase another 32 bit piece of kit...whether it be a flight sim, or any supporting 3rd party ware. I am going to spend future dollars on 64 bit native coded software (flight sim, planes for it, weather programs, etc) I have seen the A/B difference and it is HUGE in performance, not as some would say....more capacity. No...it is where-the-rubber-meets-the road total system performance gain!!!

 

Each system is different, each system has less or more of another's in hardware capacity...and that probably makes more of a difference than everything combined when we all post 'our' results with 'x' software. So...on my system, as stated in posts...64 bit kicks performance enhancing a**! Never going back. 32 bit 'whatever's', is now retired to the barn......

 

I'm having the same experience, 32-bit is smother and the avg FPS are higher too. Before the last update 64bit was smooth as silc with no micro-stutters. I just cant figure it out also, I even deleted my preferences with no luck, go figure.

 

Carlos

Could it be that you might have something in your system overclocked, whether it be your CPU, or memory chips...and that with each session, there has been degradation and read/write errors to your system files....   Overclocking the above two items is a very well known source of corrupted system and software files when things are being read, and or written to the hard drive.  This happens over time....   You might want to check this angle out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

<p>Shhhhhhhhhh! Not so loud, the "others" might hear you</p> :He He: Five the cat is offically out of the bag :dance: Downloaded the demo version,I must say That I am impressed with what I see.

 

Hello Jamie,  yeah...on Friday evening I downloaded the demo of XP10...and 24 hours later, placed my order for the whole kit. :)  I found my sim!  Over the next few days, I will be checking out what Carenado has in 64 bit conversion..and see where I go with that.  Also, I'm going to saunder over to Tru-Scenery and check out some high-def airports.  I'm really looking forward to the 64 bit version maturing to a rock-solid RTM .  Also...the next 18-24 months should be kick-butt for the X-Plane franchise. I decided to get in on the 64 bit 'new world' and ground floor.  Other software producers can take their dangling 64 bit 'carrots'..and ah..er....well...you know....  Laminar Research coded and shipped a modern sim that recognizes today's mainstream 64 bit operating environment , while...others talk about vaporware and what they 'might' do.  Yeah..it's all blowing in the wind, but by the end of this week, I'll be blowing down my 64 bit runway...and never look back, but only ahead.

 

Ses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I have to absolutely disagree with you, sorry. When I downloaded the XP10 demo, I chose to execute the 64 bit version, and after a test of putting every RENDERING field at each of their highest settings, found that I had an absolutey stutter-free and smooth animated flight experience. Just yesterday, I thought that I would out of curiosity, fire up the 32 bit .exe, and did so. What a drop-in-the-toilet performance envelope. From the moment I started down the runway, the XP10 (at full bore every at max settings) CLUNKED and stuttered down the runway, and it was that way in the air, with banks, viewpoints...the whole shebang. I then went back to the 64 bit version, and the buttery smooth performance returned (again apples to apples with no different settings dumbed down other than full max on everything).

 

So, it has been my experience on my system (specs have been published in this forum on another one of my posts) that a native 64 bit application will kick serious a** over a 64 bit CPU, and its 64 bit O.S. having to translate down to 32 bit mode. 

 

 

     I dont know why 32 bit is so much worse for you, especially when you start in the cockpit.   In general it should not be a problem.

 

     But...    it is not the case that a 64 bit app will kick the &amp;@(&#036;* of a 32 bit one.   It very much depends what that app is doing and if it takes any advantage of what  64 bits has to offer it.

 

     I know you saw that to be true but it doesnt make it true across the board, just as others are seeing it the other way around ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know why 32 bit is so much worse for you, especially when you start in the cockpit. In general it should not be a problem.

 

But... it is not the case that a 64 bit app will kick the &amp;@(&#036;* of a 32 bit one. It very much depends what that app is doing and if it takes any advantage of what 64 bits has to offer it.

 

I know you saw that to be true but it doesnt make it true across the board, just as others are seeing it the other way around ;)

Yes, I agree with you that the app has to leverage the 64 bit advantage, and I have found that XP10 does just that. I believe that with more memory to saturate in pre writes, like sort of a RAM drive effect, what the sim needs to put out onto the screen is already resident in memory and that accounts much for the smooth performance over being choked down to a VAS of 4 GB. Just a possible scenario. What is self evident though, is that at XP10 at full max potentional....it chokes with the 32 bit exe in play. I'd be interested to ask anybody else to fully max out their settings...and I mean everything turned on..and up...and then go take a flight out of KSEA. See if there are no micro-stutters, or chunk of any kind. I can do this with no problem....but with having fired up the 64 bit execute. If I fire up in 32 bit mode...no joy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I quote Jason; 'I know you saw that to be true but it doesn't make it true across the board, just as others are seeing it the other way around ;)'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also Jason, you are right in that each system, with its unique components and capacities is going to affect the user's operating experience. That's why I feel that if someone decides to state "my system did this 'n that' with these setting of this 'n that software"...they should also let the reader know on what capacity system they are making the post about. That would be the only way for the reader to relate to the post....and make sense of it.

 

Mitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Just yesterday, I thought that I would out of curiosity, fire up the 32 bit .exe, and did so. What a drop-in-the-toilet performance envelope.

 

I think you're witnessing the benefits of extra RAM headroom here... that chop-chop-chop performance you're describing "feels" like a memory issue, short of a full on out of memory crash.

 

When you crank up the settings to high levels, the simulation does need to use a bunch of memory. Even with X-Plane's use of instancing and other "tricks" to make efficient use of memory, some of those settings do place a high load on memory. Under 32-bit, you do place a ceiling on what the game can use... Under 64-bit, your physical RAM is essentially the limit - a near 4x difference in your case.

 

Depending on the location of the flight, the details seen on the ground, AND the physical hardware someone is running, I think it's fair to say that each individual 32-vs.64 experience will be different.

 

Thankfully, that's why there's choices and options! Find the best that works for your computer and enjoy!

 

-Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're witnessing the benefits of extra RAM headroom here... that chop-chop-chop performance you're describing "feels" like a memory issue, short of a full on out of memory crash.

 

When you crank up the settings to high levels, the simulation does need to use a bunch of memory. Even with X-Plane's use of instancing and other "tricks" to make efficient use of memory, some of those settings do place a high load on memory. Under 32-bit, you do place a ceiling on what the game can use... Under 64-bit, your physical RAM is essentially the limit - a near 4x difference in your case.

 

Depending on the location of the flight, the details seen on the ground, AND the physical hardware someone is running, I think it's fair to say that each individual 32-vs.64 experience will be different.

 

Thankfully, that's why there's choices and options! Find the best that works for your computer and enjoy!

 

-Greg

Greg, I am in TOTAL agreement with your entire post. I think that this is what is in play or, this is in play as well as other enhancements with running a software package in native 64 bit. The difference is amazing, and so well appreciated by myself. To see XP10 at full rendering with HDR (amazing shadows...on terrain, buildings, water, and fuselage...wow!) is a thing of beauty. In fact, in my opinion, their stock auto-gen of building placements, suburbs, and other treatments of rural and urban settings seems to my unconscious 'eye' in passing over, that it is real. I have UTX, GEX, ORBX...all the x's......and while they do a fine job, if I compare how things have been placed, how the streets are, how the properties follow them...for myself, XP10 gives the best realism to what I see when I travel by air. It seems not congested, but most relaxed and NORMAL. This is how people would plan their houses, with amble countryside allowed. The HDR effect on the mountains, takes my breath away. I bought SHADE for FSX for this purpose, and it does a job with that...but this HDR is er..well...'liquid'...it seems so real, you forget you are flying over graphics. Water color? SUPERB! Mist upon the mountains...SUPERB! Sunset, to evening transitions, in this sim, are do die for.... Flying an approach at night HDR style...coming into KSEA...is as real looking as I have seen when upon business matters. I am hooked. This is the best flight simulator, with stock, out-of-the wrap features I have ever seen. To advance down a runway that you can CLEARLY see the dips and vales as you progress puts a 30 on a rating out of '10' for immersive capability. I have also noted an extreme sensitivity and 'control' to the airframe, if I compare it to FSX or FS9. You had better be on the yoke and pedals, because XP10 doesn't suffer fools....you'll go down....

 

In all, I can't wait for the mailman...and will probably give everybody a break with my blog'ging as I will be too busy setting up flights between San Diego, and San Francisco. From Phoenix, to Chicago....and anywhere else XP10 64 bit might lead me....

 

Lovin' the moment, Greg...

 

Regards,

 

Mitch'er

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch, I agree, those shading effects are great. I love mountains that appear to have real depth. As to the dips in the runways, sooner or later you'll see why " flattening" is sometimes beneficial. Some XP runways get nearly impossible to fly from, without a helicopter. It's a compromise, using either method. Not enough elevation points.

 

As to sensitivity, if I was test flying a real plane, that acted like that, I'd probably park it, until I found what's wrong. Sometimes, XP way over does it. And then some think that FSX was just too easy, and not real enough. A pilot shouldn't have to be making constant control movements, unless they're hovering a helicopter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, a lot of runways dont work following the contour.

 

    I am sure that 16L at ksea has had more data added then from the first releases.   It had a very steep dropoff because the data averaged from over towards the road which was a lot lower than the runway itself.

 

   Go to a nice airport like lukla, you have to turn off runway contour or you cant do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch, I agree, those shading effects are great. I love mountains that appear to have real depth. As to the dips in the runways, sooner or later you'll see why " flattening" is sometimes beneficial. Some XP runways get nearly impossible to fly from, without a helicopter. It's a compromise, using either method. Not enough elevation points.

 

As to sensitivity, if I was test flying a real plane, that acted like that, I'd probably park it, until I found what's wrong. Sometimes, XP way over does it. And then some think that FSX was just too easy, and not real enough. A pilot shouldn't have to be making constant control movements, unless they're hovering a helicopter.

Hi Larry,

 

What I actually meant regarding the sensitivity, Larry, is that I like the fact that there is not a huge null zone effect, even if when I closed that right down in FSX, it still had a noted lack of sensitivity and fast response.  I like the fact that I merely have to almost 'think' about rudder or aileron, and I get instantaneous output to the flight controls.  No, I didn't mean Kamikaze, regarding my comment that you could find yourself in the bushes...but that you had to put down the corn beef sandwich and fries...lol and handle the XP plane. :)  I can see what you mean about the contour and runways...still though, it does add to the realism that I found lacking in other sims to date.  :)

 

Mitch    BTW, do you own a copy of XPX?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch,

 

I never felt that FSX was too slow in response. Have felt that XP could be too sensitive, and toned it down. There is a sense of air moving over flight surfaces in real flight to keep things stable. Flattened runways was a MSFS decision, due to too many variables in terrain depiction. They thought about it.......I was a beta tester for three versions. I own XP 8 & 9, 10 demo only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch,

 

I never felt that FSX was too slow in response. Have felt that XP could be too sensitive, and toned it down. There is a sense of air moving over flight surfaces in real flight to keep things stable. Flattened runways was a MSFS decision, due to too many variables in terrain depiction. They thought about it.......I was a beta tester for three versions. I own XP 8 & 9, 10 demo only.

Cool info, Larry. I have XP 6 or 7 buried down in a drawer somewhere. I used it for a bit, but really didn't get taken with the product to have me devote serious time away from FS9.  XP has quite matured in version 10,  and I'm looking forward to using it. :)  The demo works very well on my particular specs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch,

 

I never felt that FSX was too slow in response. Have felt that XP could be too sensitive, and toned it down. There is a sense of air moving over flight surfaces in real flight to keep things stable. Flattened runways was a MSFS decision, due to too many variables in terrain depiction. They thought about it.......I was a beta tester for three versions. I own XP 8 & 9, 10 demo only.

 

That was always my reaction with XP as well. Very "twitchy" for lack of a better term. Flying a Cessna in real life is much easier than in FSX, due to the stability you can feel in the yoke, and flying it in FSX is much easier than in XP without turning XP's sensitivity way down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch,

 

I never felt that FSX was too slow in response. Have felt that XP could be too sensitive, and toned it down. There is a sense of air moving over flight surfaces in real flight to keep things stable. Flattened runways was a MSFS decision, due to too many variables in terrain depiction. They thought about it.......I was a beta tester for three versions. I own XP 8 & 9, 10 demo only.

Larry, what was the major difference between versions 8 and 9?  What was the 'upgrade' to 9, over 8?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...