In fact, it will probably run slower than now.

 

As Microsoft said:

 

When you compile applications as 64-bit, the calculations get more complicated. A 64-bit program uses 64-bit pointers, and its instructions are slightly larger, so the memory requirement is slightly increased. This can cause a slight drop in performance. On the other hand, having twice as many registers and having the ability to do 64-bit integer calculations in a single instruction will often more than compensate. The net result is that a 64-bit application might run slightly slower than the same application compiled as 32-bit, but it will often run slightly faster.

 

 

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ee418798(v=vs.85).aspx#performance_implications_of_running_a_64-bit_operating_system

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...

 

Along with the complaints about having to upgrade to 16gb or 32gb or 64gb of ram and how the mobos will need to be upgraded, along with the GPUs need to be upgraded. So the cycle would continue... :ph34r:

As Microsoft said:

That's not what I've meant, of course.

 

FSX, by itself, is not slow at all and it won't change much if it was a 64 bit app, surely not enough to see a difference that will impact playability.

 

What makes FSX slow are the addons, and while now there's a built-in cap to how much can be realistically used together, because of the hard 4GB limitation, if FSX was a 64 bit app, nothing will stop users to load it with add-ons so much, that it will run MUCH slower than now, and not because of the 64 bit code.

 

If someone really believes that 64 bit would give any "performance headroom", so that all that stuff that will then be possible to install, will run any better than now, should be prepared to a big disappointment: all that stuff that previously wouldn't fit in 4GB might then run without crashes, but it will probably kill the fps in any case.

The net result is that a 64-bit application might run slightly slower than the same application compiled as 32-bit, but it will often run slightly faster.

 

Indeed, when Adobe first offered 32 and 64 bit versions of Photoshop, in practice this is exactly what happened.  Overall, there was a very, very slight performance gain over the equivalent 32-bit app, but even Adobe cautioned its users that 64-bit was NOT about performance.

 

Nevertheless, I think Umberto's and Bill's points are good ones.  Absent a complete re architecture of the product, the limiting factors would simply shift - from OOM's to performance issues as the system was overwhelmed with add-ons.  64-bit in and of itself is not a magic wand.

 

Scott

That's not what I've meant, of course.

 

FSX, by itself, is not slow at all and it won't change much if it was a 64 bit app, surely not enough to see a difference that will impact playability.

 

What makes FSX slow are the addons, and while now there's a built-in cap to how much can be realistically used together, because of the hard 4GB limitation, if FSX was a 64 bit app, nothing will stop users to load it with add-ons so much, that it will run MUCH slower than now, and not because of the 64 bit code.

 

If someone really believes that 64 bit would give any "performance headroom", so that all that stuff that will then be possible to install, will run any better than now, should be prepared to a big disappointment: all that stuff that previously wouldn't fit in 4GB might then run without crashes, but it will probably kill the fps in any case.

That's fine, but with a 64 bit 'NEW' sim from the ground up that cap can be raised.  I know the arguments, we'll just put more in until we reach the cap, but at least a new sim would, 'theoretically' be able to be not locked down with new hardware, to an extent. 

 

It's like building a new computer...you can upgrade the RAM but if your motherboard can't support it, then there's no use if it just downsamples to a legacy version.  It's like USB and USB2. 

 

All this talk about taking the existing sim and enhancing it is ridiculous at best...lol

 

 

All this talk about taking the existing sim and enhancing it is ridiculous at best...lol

 

I dont think so. Its not hardware, so its not just about mb and ram upgrade differences.  Its a monumental task, but I dont think its impossible. There isnt much hope right now for any other brand new sim from the ground up. Seems Aerofly and Flightgear are kinda at a standstill perhaps due to financial resources which any brand new ground up sim would be up against. 

Its this reason why LM are working to take bottlenecks out of the FSX code first and ONLY THEN worry about 64bit. That was my understanding as their goal right now. Especially with DX11 and some of the other areas where FSX just has a brain fart with.  More efficient use of the GPU and less load on the CPU. etc etc. 

If they didnt think all that was possible, they wouldnt have started in the first place. At best its better to be optimistic.  If it doesnt work out, then we are stuck with FSX and XPX. We live with it. 

 

 

 Its a monumental task, but I dont think its impossible.

 

How much are you offering MS for the source code?

How much are you offering MS for the source code?

Not one single cent. They dissed me after being a loyal flight simulator follower since its beginnings. 

 

Hopes lie with LM. They clearly know more than we do , so no point in speculating what they have or dont have. 

So it really is ridiculous then......

So it really is ridiculous then......

No its not. Dont be such a pessimist.  :rolleyes:

Jim's on a mission - 8bit for all.

 

64bit address space is only as good as the application (game or simulation) that to uses it.  I think any team/project that was planning to code a "World" encompassing flight simulator and is thinking they can somehow squeeze it in a 32bit address space is going to have to make MANY compromises ... and they did, FSX.  

 

A world encompassing simulator that has to emulate ground objects (traffic, boats, other aircraft), ground traffic patterns, air traffic patterns, ATC, weather systems, micro climates, FMC, flight physics, seasons, nighty, day, dawn, dusk, etc. etc. is a very complex piece of software that requires vast amounts of processing power (lots of very expensive hardware).  The more "real" you want something to be, the more hardware your going to need ... laptops aren't going to hack it for realism.  It'll depend on one's expectations.

 

64bit address space is a MUST for any type of multi-core threaded processing, when you have 4,6,8,12,16 CPUs or more those allocated threads could burn through a 64bit address space pretty quickly ... being able to move around that much data in 64bit chunks via multiple CPUs will be a significant benefit to performance ... toss all the add-ons you want at it.

 

I'm amazed at what FSX is able to accomplish within a 32bit address space (after many many many months or careful tuning to find that compromise/balance).  Sure FSX has got issues and it's very limited use multi-CPU and multi-GPU processing (ok, zero multi-GPU processing).  The trend for video cards is to increase performance and RAM ... we have video cards able to use 6GB, 8GB, 12GB, 16GB (SLI/Crossfire) it becomes even more important to have 64bit address space to leverage that.

 

LM, LR, or some other company will eventually be everything we want it to be -- 64bit address space is a far better place to secure a future for 3rd party developers (look at the interest and growth of XPlane).  But one thing is for certain, people continue to want more "realism" (not just visual candy) out of flight simulation ... 32bit isn't going to hack it.

No its not. Dont be such a pessimist.  :rolleyes:

 

I also read on the Internet that FSX won't activate any longer.

 

Jim's on a mission - 8bit for all.

 

He just knows that 64 bit FSX will never happen.

Going into 64 bit is a big issue and probably not going to happen soon.

I wish someone could fix the basic behaviour of FSX (or P3d which behaves same). Instead of going to shut down when something went wrong, isn't there really any option such as decreasing graphic detail automatically or shut down one or two features at background but not the whole program. This is the biggest source of frustration for FSX users.

FSX antiquated and Xplane is the future, but I doubt 64 bit upgrade will fix the issues fsx has. Think new approach is needed to make something that can run more features than fsx. The problem is costs and return on investment trying to create a more modern fsx.

Never say never Jim

 

LM are currently the ONLY folks that could do the move to 64bit but they have indicated V2.0 is all about DX11 and other fixes - no 64bit.

 

However, there is a community of software engineers who are also FS enthusiasts that would be more than willing to move FSX to 64bit using their limited spare time ... IF access were provided to the source code via TFS (Team Foundation Server - Visual Studio source code version control tool).  A large community of volunteer developers could probably get the job done in < 1 year vs. the small team at LM.  Of course we'd all sign various legal documents and LM may have to actually pay us $10/mo so we can be listed as employed consultants to satisfy Microsoft's terms ... but we pay them $9.95/mo back in return for developer license so it's a wash for them.

 

So there ya have the challenge LM, you folks up to it?  Heck, even cut off source from 1.4 version  (or go way back to original ESP set) keeping your latest DX11 work unavailable and free from developer "harm".  I'm very familiar with SlimDX (which BTW is open source) which is what P3D v1.4 uses.