I have to ask, how do people actually know the FSX source code contains large portions in assembly, has anyone actually seen it?

LM team member told about it in their forum or in interview, can't remember which. He didn't say anything about the amount of lines in it but you don't need to have "large portions" of it to run into big work with conversion.

 

About the programming language effectiveness. IMO it is pretty much bullcrap, when some claim that low level languages are somehow noticable faster in essence. True, assembly is practically symbolic machine code and very close to what processor understands, that is zeros and ones. With higher languages it comes to the compiler, but also very much to how you code it. You can make performance lowering mistakes with assembly too, perhaps even more because it is far less intuitive than C/C++/Java for example. Only thing you remove is the possible inefficiences of the compiler. Main point is that there is no practical difference if you know your code and have the skills.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my Lumia 800 using Board Express

Surely, everyone wants and would enjoy FSX with DX11 and 64-bit. It's what most of us are used to now and sticking with it is the most comfortable option for most.

 

But realistically, currently the future doesn't look so bright for that, and I've given hope for fsx. Surely it will do for now, with NGX and other airliners that can't be beat in xplane yet, but X-plane is already where we want fsx to be... 64-bit. X-plane has a lot higher chances to fix the little quirks in its software to make it more enjoyable and realistic (most recently irritating thing is the high-altitude earth orbit textures visibility range... Blurry mess that you can't change!) but those are lot easier to fix, and  devs are still working on it with their own sourcecode that they have developed from the ground-up. Same can't be said for FSX and its ancient code, that's locked away from flight sim enthusiasts to fix. 

 

So... While I still fly FSX for the airliners i've already bought, I don't intend to support FSX any more and have my sights in X-plane; which has the brightest future of all current sims.

I also think XPlane 64 bit is just great, but having said that...with the release of FSXG, I think that I have the most realistic landscape I have ever seen on a computer screen. It even got better when I turned off Hybrid, not knowing that running in this mode did not fully display either FSX Global, or FSX Regional to its full advantage.  That one add-on, has me frankly running FSX as much as I jump into the cockpit in XPX. I'll tell you what, though....you only have to have one CTD on a flight you get robbed of the approach, to appreciate that much more, XPX in 64 bit 'will get you there' mode....   I will hope for FSX 64 bit and that's all we can do, I guess....

IMO it is pretty much bullcrap, when some claim that low level languages are somehow noticable faster in essence.

 

Assembly Language is just another step in the process, it isn't any faster but it does let you do things you can NOT do in C/C++ and other high level languages ... this is where you can pick up some overall execution speed.  For example C/C++ compiler might translate the C/C++ code to  less efficient object code whereas Assembly when compiled would produce more efficient object code. It all boils down to the compiler and the coder.  Not many people code Assembly these days so when it is done/used, it's usually exclusively done for performance and nothing more.

 

But the "unrestricted" nature of Assembly has the higher potential for many more bugs/problems and is very OS/Hardware specific.

 

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

Mitch, I'll give you $1 to lower your settings and to stop dreaming. LOL

Mitch, I'll give you $1 to lower your settings and to stop dreaming. LOL

Pipe dream, you think? (Large Smile!) It's good to dream...

Guys, assembly language isn't that big a deal. You should be able to find all the programmers you need. Now, x86 assembly is a pain compared to most others, but that part of the project isn't any more difficult than the rest.

 

Personally, I'd rather someone take the time to fix about a thousand bugs before looking at a conversion that would take way too long to complete and not provide much improvement. It'll actually run slower than the 32 bit (according to sources I've seen, although I can't confirm it from hardware manuals, depends on if a 64 bit access takes an extra machine cycle), and if the memory leaks and spurious pointers aren't fixed you'll still get memory errors of all sorts.

 

Hook

Ok I've had a bit mess about tonight, and I've managed to do it.  FSX is now read as fully 64 bit. I'm getting 70 FPS in Mega Airport Heathrow, in the NGX, with maxed settings and 100% traffic, so yes I think something's worked.

 

I don't think it's right (or perhaps legal) that I share the mod though.

 

But if you want to PayPal me the money for doing it anyway, feel free.

 

:smile:

......joking apart, has anyone ever tried opening the FSX.EXE in CFF Explorer Suite and unticking the "32 bit Word Machine" check box, in the File Header field?

 

Well, the presence of assembly code being an additional hurdle for a possible 64 bit port was confirmed by LM, that surely has the FSX source code

They actually received ESP1 (not even the then still being worked on ESP2), which was a fork from the earliest FSX builds. Adam stated that he had removed the last bit of assembly in time for FSX SP1.

We're starting to see more and more posts regarding trying to fix FS and/or trying to use LMs P3d or X-Plane as a hopeful happy medium just to keep the hobby on life support. 

 

I once flew with an orthopedic surgeon who had a Piper Navajo.  I think we flew from FAT-SAC-FAT, and I remember him telling me that a lot of doctors try and treat the symptoms rather then the disease itself thus just putting off the inevitable. 

 

Now, I understand the emotions from everyone, but we really need to realize that we need a NEW sim, not just some 10 year old product patched up and put on a life support machine.  We'd just be at the same point we started out at, if not several steps behind by the time the job got done.       

 

Just my 2 cents.

when running TileProxy, it has its own independent allotment of 4G, such that FSX can go to higher RAM usages while TileProxy is taking care of the photoscenery cacheing.

Cannot FSX be made to use a proxy of sorts for scenery?

 

I think I often exceeded 6G toal usage of TileProxy + FSX added.

I no longer use TP I use FTXG for now, I like autogen trees and such when landing and takeoff

 

A proxy for FTXG then>

 

Also, Studio One, a music production software written in 32 bit, uses a proxy to store audio files that are "just ready" for use. Making the whole Studio One activities able to use much more than 4G RAM that its core is limited to by 32 bit design

 

I realise though that such a proxy would have to have access to the code of FSX in order to know when and where to give and  take data streams of upcoming scenery files

........ I'm thinking I will, correct?  They are all 32 bit based, and the developer of each (some no longer are out there...) will have to port each  and every software application.... ......

Again, an example from the music production software(s) I use:

Cubase this time. I always work in its 64-bit version as I often load up more than 12G at a time. This app though can include 32-bit versions of "legacy add-ons" called VST for virtual instruments. Works fine most of the time with the occasional but increasingly rare freeze-up . Called VST-connect...

 

FSX 64 bit could prob be made to allow all 32-bit add-ons?

I will pay $100 dollars if threads like this and a similar thread about FSX activations, would go away forever. 

might as well go back to paper airplanes then....

Could I fly to the moon on one?

Only Frank Sinatra can fly to the moon for real on paper....

 

 

 

 

 

Sheetmusic paper that is....