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

[greggerm 312]

 

 

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

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

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

[LAdamson 240]

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.

[JasonHarris 96]

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.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

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?

[LAdamson 240]

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.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

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. 

[Skiff 9]

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.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

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?

[LAdamson 240]

Mitch,

 

There isn't a major difference, as there is between 9 & 10.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Mitch,

 

There isn't a major difference, as there is between 9 & 10.

Really?  Thanks, was curious, as I had not truly been following XP as a franchise until I got bit by the XPX bug.  My wife has called me to say that XP10 did a 'kiss' landing at my front door today. Not bad (two days shipping!) The United States Postal Service must have ace pilots working for 'em!    United States Postal Service, you go guys 'n gals!  Thumb's up!

 

I'll have to wait until early next week to seriously get into the full version, but I already have some favorites in store.  Myrtle Beach, S.C., Phoenix, Arizona, San Diego, California, San Francisco, California, the Baha Peninsula ...the list goes on. I'm going to put on my 64 bit glasses, and have a flight or six.....

 

Cheers!

[JasonHarris 96]

When you get the full version installed have a look inside the custom scenery folder.  There are a lot of aerosoft airports installed there and they are named by their code so its easy to locate them in game.

 

     They will probably be more enjoyable looking around at the sim because the other ares you mention wont have any airport buildings etc.

[FIVE-BY-FIVE 453]

Remember the other threads young Jedi. :lol:  go hunting for awesome Payware and freeware.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

When you get the full version installed have a look inside the custom scenery folder.  There are a lot of aerosoft airports installed there and they are named by their code so its easy to locate them in game.

 

     They will probably be more enjoyable looking around at the sim because the other ares you mention wont have any airport buildings etc.

Thanks for the head's up from the XP10 newbie!  Again, thanks!

 

Remember the other threads young Jedi. :lol:  go hunting for awesome Payware and freeware.

You slay me, Five-By-Five....in fact, I think I'll call you HIGH FIVE!      You have great energy, and an obvious well developed sense of humor. The kind of personality I will always gravitate to,

 

So High Five!..er.....Five-By-Five....you bet......will be rolling down the 64 bit runway ASAP!   Cheers!

I welcome myself to the XP10 club.....

 

Mitch'er

[JasonHarris 96]

Sesquashtoo,  you went dark on the day your disks arrived?   What happened?  interested to hear your thoughts now you have the entire world loaded and have been flying?