Doesn't 64-bit allow massively more texture pre-loading into memory as far as that might relate to LOD for example?  While the core engine can only handle so much texture processing it seems it would be useful to have a larger cache of pre-loaded textures as it were, higher density textures as well, and so may enhance smoothness for example.  It seems intuitive but I'm not privy to the actual processing strategy involved.

 

If 64 bit code is so important, why do most PC video games still use 32 bits? What most games rely on is that you have a high end video card with a lot of VRAM.

If 64 bit code is so important, why do most PC video games still use 32 bits? What most games rely on is that you have a high end video card with a lot of VRAM.

Im not a programmer, but most games dont have a real world map to contend with, nor are they loading in constant dynamic fashion everything into memory. Thats why there is chapters. Its a contained world. 

 

In flight simulator you have cockpit, which is constantly being updated, external model with moving animations, while there is streaming flow of data below and on the horizon of terrain, with a ton of info, like landclass, vectors, cars, mountains, coasts, forests, etc.

Then there is other AI, airport textures, even more detailed. Weather dynamically streamed loading even more textures. Then all the other extras addons that get loaded directly connected with FSX. Its why FSX can hit the 4gb limit in an instant and other games are not even close. Even HD ones. Its contained and controlled, and one area even if large is loaded at a time. 

 

Not many games i dont think would have use for 64 bit to access more than 4gb of memory , because it doesnt really have a bearing on performance that much. 

If that list is a fake, someone's wasting a major talent on a minor scam.

That was my thought.

 

Way too much technical speak to be fake. If you are making a fake list you don't go through that much trouble and probably don't have that much knowledge.

 

^{If you want to take the time, translate all the posts from the German and working back you'll find that the original "leaked" list was on a Russian site - translate those posts and determine for yourself whether it was leaked by a beta tester or not. IMHO, it was. IAC, why speculate? It should be released within a month or so.}

 

^Vic

And the first leak that the beta was even going on came from a polish developer. It all kinda fits together.

If 64 bit code is so important, why do most PC video games still use 32 bits? What most games rely on is that you have a high end video card with a lot of VRAM.

 

A valid point, though Battlefield 4 will be released with a specific 64 bit version. This is one of the few games I have ever seen created for both architectures.

A valid point, though Battlefield 4 will be released with a specific 64 bit version. This is one of the few games I have ever seen created for both architectures.

When Crysis 1 first came out, it had a 64 bit version, but since then, nVidia GPUs have gravitated from "just doing graphics" to usurping a lot of what the CPU does. That made VG programmers decide to stay with 32 bits until it becomes completely intractable. The other reason is that the XBox 360 is 32 bits and many PC games are just ported. It's a matter of time before P3d is also 64 bits, but it just wasn't going to happen with version 2.0.

If 64 bit code is so important, why do most PC video games still use 32 bits? What most games rely on is that you have a high end video card with a lot of VRAM.

 

Probably most old ones do because most old PCs didn't have 64-bit proc/OS.  It appears at least some new games--and even my 6 y/o Crysis 64-bit--have 64 bit versions.  Even this new console & XBox One both utilize 64-bit processors--though I had trouble finding more about the OS' these devices use:

 

The Piston console is just Xi3’s first step in what we believe will be a transformative technology revolution for the living room ... Xi3 designed the Piston specifically for gaming, with 8GB RAM, 128GB of solid-state drive storage, and a quad-core x86-based 64-bit 3.2 GHz AMD Trinity processor. Xi3 also announced today that the Piston will launch with unspecified games.

 

I think there may be some merit too to the argument that a flight simulator has different issues to cope w/ that may bring 64-bit into play and so the applicability to what other modern games might require may be fundamentally different.  Also, I'm not sure just how much mileage 2 or even 4GB of VRAM can provide.  You have to have the CPU and memory to load up VRAM as well, and if we think in terms of much higher resolutions and pixel density the argument only gets stronger I think.  With the current state of resolution though you're probably quite right that 64 bit memory address won't add to much for a sim optimized to use DirectX 10 or 11 better.

If p3d currently runs 32 bit, fixes a number of issues that fsx has, eg blurries etc then p3d v2 will enhance the graphical environment a lot while adding in new features - none that I recall say they are crying for lots of ram then what immediate requirement do we have for 64 bit?

 

    If we have a 32bit version of fsx essentially with a graphics reboot + extras...   what am I missing.   What specifically is crying out for 64 bit in this version?

 

    FSX to fix its issues doesnt require 64 bit, it requires some rework that LM have been doing.   Now I do understand that some of you get OOM, most don't though.

Based on?  Your a beta tester? The NDA permits you to publicly list the features?

 

 

As well as a leaked list there is a lot of screenshots that have been leaked as well, while i wont say where they are posted and what the contents of the screenshots are, if you see them then it would confirm the list from my point of view ( based on the screenshots being real ).

Did you see this news? : http://news.dice.com/2013/10/04/shutdown-forces-lockheed-furlough-001-3000-monday/

Hope it doesn't affect release. :-(

Im not a programmer, but most games dont have a real world map to contend with, nor are they loading in constant dynamic fashion everything into memory. Thats why there is chapters. Its a contained world. 

 

In flight simulator you have cockpit, which is constantly being updated, external model with moving animations, while there is streaming flow of data below and on the horizon of terrain, with a ton of info, like landclass, vectors, cars, mountains, coasts, forests, etc.

Then there is other AI, airport textures, even more detailed. Weather dynamically streamed loading even more textures. Then all the other extras addons that get loaded directly connected with FSX. Its why FSX can hit the 4gb limit in an instant and other games are not even close. Even HD ones. Its contained and controlled, and one area even if large is loaded at a time. 

 

Not many games i dont think would have use for 64 bit to access more than 4gb of memory , because it doesnt really have a bearing on performance that much. 

 

It's not that Battlefield 4 is "doing less." There's a reason that game and others destroy top of the line GPUs. They are demanding a lot out of hardware. They have much more detailed physics to do, much more detailed textures, much heavier lighting, much heavier shadowing, particle effects, calculations for weapons, more complicated AI, etc.

 

Also, go look at the ARMA series or even GTA5. You think those games aren't doing as much as FSX? Massive open worlds with millions of variables being calculated and presented at once along with much higher graphical demands then something like FSX. The world, just like FSX, is being dynamically loaded as you travel except their world is loading a hell of a lot more then some repeating texture tiles.

 

It's not that those games wouldn't need 64 bit. If they were coded like FSX (relying heavily on the CPU) they'd probably be out of memory in no time. The key is that 32 bit games today are coded to offload most of the work to the GPU making total physical memory rather secondary. If (and I'll leave it at if) P3D does the same as they are claiming, 32 bit vs. 64 bit is going to become much less important.

Did you see this news? : http://news.dice.com/2013/10/04/shutdown-forces-lockheed-furlough-001-3000-monday/

Hope it doesn't affect release. :-(

 

I highly doubt it.

 

LM employess almost 130,000 people. The 3,000 going home are likely low level maintence staff and the like. LM is also heavy into external beta testing right now, which will no doubt continue.

I am not sure the 64Bit wont be an obligation soon, if P3D wants further developpment. I can just speak for my own experiences with another sim (X-Plane 10): even with a GTX Titan (6GB VRAM) it's pretty easy to fill it when using high-resolution textures. And the rest will have to be handled by the CPU and the RAM. Most of the time i have a RAM-usage of 5-6 or more GB (Windows OS also needs more and more memory).

 

So even if FSX/P3D is better RAM-optimised, i really doubt that it wont be soon very demanded if users doesn't want to have memory-crashes, when using complex scenerys and complex aircrafts with high renderings.

I am not sure the 64Bit wont be an obligation soon, if P3D wants further developpment. I can just speak for my own experiences with another sim (X-Plane 10): even with a GTX Titan (6GB VRAM) it's pretty easy to fill it when using high-resolution textures. And the rest will have to be handled by the CPU and the RAM. Most of the time i have a RAM-usage of 5-6 or more GB (Windows OS also needs more and more memory).

 

So even if FSX/P3D is better RAM-optimised, i really doubt that it wont be soon very demanded if users doesn't want to have memory-crashes, when using complex scenerys and complex aircrafts with high renderings.

 

Eventually, it will be, just like it will for every piece of software.

 

But right now you have people running DX10 successfully with no OOM errors with Orbx scenery, live weather, PMDG aircraft, AI programs, and ATC programs all going on at once.

 

I think there's still head room to be utilized here if they offload much of the rendering to the GPU like they say they are.

But right now you have people running DX10 successfully with no OOM errors with Orbx scenery, live weather, PMDG aircraft, AI programs, and ATC programs all going on at once.

 

 

 

I run in dx9 the same way, only ever had 1 oom since i got fsx but it was my own fault i had the oom. Balance is the key, with out it anyone could be asking for trouble.

 

I will be buying v2.0 for the enhanced features it offers with directx 11 but it will be up to addon developers to make use of all the enhancements dx11 offers through p3d v2.0 and 90% of developers wont and never will as it will be quicker and easier to make things for fsx like normal and add compatibilty to p3d or they would have to create a special p3d version with enhanced feautres.

 

 

But right now you have people running DX10 successfully with no OOM errors with Orbx scenery, live weather, PMDG aircraft, AI programs, and ATC programs all going on at once.

 

I think the key phrase in your comment is, 'right now'.  I think we have to look out into the future when LOD & pixel density is much higher.  I see the architecture as CPU & ram preloading into available VRAM so the more that can be cached into RAM the better, and to maximize that you need larger address space to cache to.  Think future-proofing.

Eventually, it will be, just like it will for every piece of software.

 

But right now you have people running DX10 successfully with no OOM errors with Orbx scenery, live weather, PMDG aircraft, AI programs, and ATC programs all going on at once.

 

I think there's still head room to be utilized here if they offload much of the rendering to the GPU like they say they are.

OK, so yes, it seems that for the moment everything is fine indeed.