Can he also hack FSX code?

100$? lol.. I think you're going to need a lot more than that.

 

Just wait for p3d 2.0.

I'm guessing, because I've not seen the code, the Assembly code was using C/C++ inline keyword asm and volatile.

I haven't coded a single line of C for over fifteen years and it is years since I fiddled with assembly on 808x series processors and my knowledge on programming otherwise is also quite poor (some Java, Ruby etc.). Programming really isn't my line of business (I'm in comms and networks line of work), but still that is something I suspect too: Assembly code in FSX is simply inline assm within C or C++ code, where assembler is used to limit inefficiences or constraints of the compiler. That is the way it is mostly used nowadays, but on the otherhand, LM team member said that it is old code and as such used in a way that is not that usual today. And for that I don't wonder that there may be some diffiulties in conversion to higher level language and/or to 64-bit may be daunting task.

 

And I agree with everything you said. There is usually a reason when asm is used nowadays. Performance yes by doing things in simpler and with more straight approach like I said to get away with compilier limitations. But as you said, assembly is very hardware specific and you easily may run into troubles and do stupid things with it too. Like you said, there is no "right" programming language.

Like you said, there is no "right" programming language.

 

Yeah, it's whatever gets the job done to meet a requirement.  The last time I coded Assembly (at any significant level) was back in the Motorola days (a long long long time ago).  Assembly allows the circumvention of safeguards that higher level language compilers do not ... less things to validate = faster code (and more dangerous code).  I suppose the real "macho" programmers are the ones that can use NotePad (or a binary editor) to produce an EXECUTABLE (not something I'd care to do). 

This has been a fun thread to read. Let's keep it going...

 

IF the code owners would be willing to reveal some "new" FSX parameters or secret code that could be tweaked or hooked into, what would you like to see revealed?

 

A great question, perhaps, for Pete Dowson and his FSUIPC product.

You're best scrapping FSX code base and starting again.

 

PS: $100 is nothing. Try $1,000,000 instead.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

 

 

I had a nice chat with Adam Zofran a few months ago while at the AVSIM Fancon. During said chat he mentioned that all of the assembly code was removed from FSX and replaced by C++. So, that bit of the legacy code is not at issue any longer.

 

This seems to have been overlooked

 

 

This seems to have been overlooked

 

Not overlooked, just not validated with another source so as with many bits of info, "it's noted but not confirmed as fact".  But I'm suggesting (assumption) the Assembly code present in FSX was most likely inline with the C/C++ code, so conversion probably isn't too difficult but the question is at what cost to performance (if any).  Now this doesn't imply the transition to 64bit is any easier.

 

Compilers and higher level language extensions have improved over the years so it's possible the Assembly code no longer performs any faster that what the C/C++ compiler produces ... but only way to know is to profile the code chunk and see, profiling is best done with debug symbol set and source code available (aka LM).

 

I think what many fear with moving to 64bit is that it will break compatibility ... it's a valid fear (because it will in most cases), folks have $1000's+ spent on FSX and don't want to see it go to waste.  So if compatibility is going to be broken, then it certainly is valid to consider starting FSX over from scratch (this is why LM focused on DX11 rather than 64bit, it will break less compatibility) ... but I don't think LM have the resources to start FSX from scratch even if they were able to leverage much of the existing FSX code?  They have the money but that doesn't mean they want to spend it producing a flight simulator ... maybe a military simulator with some flight elements to it

 

 

Posted Today, 01:11 PM

n4gix, on 08 Aug 2013 - 2:02 PM, said:


I had a nice chat with Adam Zofran a few months ago while at the AVSIM Fancon. During said chat he mentioned that all of the assembly code was removed from FSX and replaced by C++. So, that bit of the legacy code is not at issue any longer.



This seems to have been overlooked

 

I was thinking that as well... seems that post, do not even read previous posts in the SAME  thread.

 

If, with all asm removed,  it was just as simple as re-compiling for 64 bit, then don't you think, they would have done that by now.

 

Everyone seems to be "assuming" that LM got "everything" is  source code format.

I very much doubt that.  :rolleyes:

 

So, its not as simple as just pressing the BUILD button, and out pops a 64bit version of FSX. 

 

Even if it did "pop out", and work,  it  would require any addons with dll's  (most payware aircraft), to need to produce 64 bit version of their addons ..    as FREE updates, or face the wrath of many customers. !!

 

It's a MESS, that has been in the making for over 20 years ? ...  with no simple, overnight solution.  Certainly nothing that is going to be solved in a forum post.

 

 

I think what many fear with moving to 64bit is that it will break compatibility ... it's a valid fear (because it will in most cases), folks have $1000's+ spent on FSX and don't want to see it go to waste.  So if compatibility is going to be broken, then it certainly is valid to consider starting FSX over from scratch (this is why LM focused on DX11 rather than 64bit, it will break less compatibility)

 

Im brainless when it comes to programming, as my training was in hardware, but interesting nonetheless. That said I dont understand why XPX when it switched to 64bit, the 32 bit planes were broken but fixed with a patch. So why cant FSX addons be patched to work if and when p3d ever went 64bit? Im guessing the answer will be because FSX code is so screwed up, its just not that simple.  

Not overlooked, just not validated with another source so as with many bits of info, "it's noted but not confirmed as fact".

If "Father" Bill says, he talked (face to face) to Adam, and Adam told him so, then its more than good enough for me, and should be for anyone else as well.

Im brainless when it comes to programming, as my training was in hardware, but interesting nonetheless. That said I dont understand why XPX when it switched to 64bit, the 32 bit planes were broken but fixed with a patch. So why cant FSX addons be patched to work if and when p3d ever went 64bit? Im guessing the answer will be because FSX code is so screwed up, its just not that simple.

Nobody is saying that addon developers CANNOT recode/re-compile/build their addons to 64 bit. It just takes time & resources, that they could otherwise be devoting to developing new product.

 

Added to which, many of the developers of older addon, that work fine in FSX 32 bit, either do not exist anymore, or may no longer have the original source code, to convert.

Nobody is say that addon developers CANNOT recode/re-compile/build their addons to 64 bit. It just takes time & resources, that they could otherwise be devoting to developing new product.

 

Exactly.

 

 

 

If "Father" Bill says, he talked (face to face) to Adam, and Adam told him so, then its more than good enough for me, and should be for anyone else as well.

 

I guess I'm not anyone else ... I never have and never will trust a single source of information and it has served me well to NOT do so.  I find it's best to avoid the telling others what should be good for them.

64 bit is what it is. Its robust, and allows alot more possibilities. Its called advancing technology. So sooner or later if we want this hobby to advance, thats the way it will go, and devs will just have to accept the fact that a 64bit conversion is necessary. I dont too many people would have problem with paying a small upgrade fee to have a 64bit version of their aircraft since a 64bit simulator platform would be monumental to us. 

I guess I'm not anyone else ... I never have and never will trust a single source of information and it has served me well to NOT do so.  I find it's best to avoid the telling others what should be good for them.

I do understand one's need to be skeptical, but when the man who did the actual work tells me to my face that he has in fact done the work, that's sufficient for me to accept it as gospel so to speak... :ph34r:

 

Also it's usefull to keep in mind that even were a 64bit version of the existing FS code were to be done, unless a great deal of work was also put into proper use of multi-cores, and shifting much of the graphics computations to the GPU, there would quite likely not be that much of an improvement overall.

unless a great deal of work was also put into proper use of multi-cores, and shifting much of the graphics computations to the GPU, there would quite likely not be that much of an improvement overall.

In fact, it will probably run slower than now.

 

Because, instead of crashing with an OOM after 4-5 complex scenery+airplane are used together in the same area, users will be free to stuff it at ungodly unnatural levels, and will obviously complain about the collapsed fps...