32 bit fsx

[flyaway719 3]

Dear PMDG this is only a suggestion, I have notice as time go's by as Microsoft puts updates in for windows 7 or 8.  I am beginning to have more and more out of memory crashes. Basically Microsoft has left the flightsim  world to suffer. Being that we are in the most part running 64bit operating systems and fsx is a 32 bit game. And updating hardware' I would have to say that with out a doubt you have the greatest product, but as time go's on your product will become outdated because you have to design to fit an outdated fsx. Is it possible for your company to create A new flightsim. with your planes and combine different add on company's together for A game that could handle the memory issue. some ones going to do it.  Hopefully not Microsoft! Believe me when I say that I have $3000.00 in the tower Alone,  I would Have no problem spending $400 to $500 for A quality Flightsim from your company.      

[KriVa 307]

You're not the first to suggest this, and you will not be the last.

PMDG's core business is not developing flight sims, but developing adding for those simulators. Those are two very distinctly different processes.

Not to say they won't do it, but don't hold your breath.

[flyaway719 3]

We can dream wright,

[RWFeldman 159]

How about you make  a $750,000.00 investment to jump start PMDG's developement of a sim. :lol:

[xplanery 250]

 

 

A game that could handle the memory issue. some ones going to do it.  Hopefully not Microsoft!

It's already happening, Prepar3d by Lockheed Martin, a bit like updated version of FSX. 

 

 

Regards

 

Joona L

[hopskip 253]

It's already happening, Prepar3d by Lockheed Martin, a bit like updated version of FSX. 

 

 

Regards

 

Joona L

 

Till Prepar3d is a 64bit sim, It's just a tweaked FSX.

 

 

P3d isn't a 64bit sim. so it can only count to 4294967295 (4gb) like any other 32bit program.

 

4294967295 + 1 = 0 (Out of Memory error)

 

just like if you only had 1 base ten digit

 

1+1=2

2+2=4

4+4=8

8+2=0 (Out of memory Error)

 

9+1=10, but there's only 1 digit available, so the 'computer' in this instance can only make a maximum of number 9

9+1 = 9 plus one digit = 0

There's nowhere to put the 1 in 10 because there isn't enough slots available.

 

So P3d can solve this problem by removing addressed places... like

 

9+1 = We havn't used the number 4 and 5 for a while, so we will delete those to make 9+1(-2) = 8(+2)

 

So while it can limp along in 32 bit a bit more, the actual solution is to make a new sim in 64 bit.

 

This is like adding several extra orders of magnitude to the available count of the program

 

now 9+1=10 instead of 9+1=(one digit)

 

 

Of course to do this, you need to write a whole new program from literally the ground up. You are teaching the program to count differently.

A bit like deciding instead of having a kid learn a new song, to teach him a new language.

Today we won't be learning how to sing "filastrocche" - we will start to learn Italian.

 

 

Unfortunately, a project of such magnitude requires a lot of resources and very trained staff. Staff trained in base programming unlike anything PMDG has ever done.

 

you'd need loads of money to even consider it. We're talking "Rockstar's GTA 5 is way too small a scope, it only has 1 city, we need a whole planet" type of things here.

 

I'd put development costs in the tens of millions.

[xplanery 250]

Well isn't there X Plane 64 bit out there already? Making a new 64 bit version of FSX / Prepar3d would probably break a lot of the stuff made for FSX so we could as well move to a completely new simulator brand if 64 bit is what we want. 

 

If LM manages to provide us a simulator that doesn't have CTD problems, has some graphic improvements, doesn't suffer from OOM and yet still maintains compatibility with most FSX addons I will surely start to use it as my main simulator. I see it as a step similar to what moving from FS9 to FSX was.

 

Regards

 

Joona L

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

 

 

Till Prepar3d is a 64bit sim, It's just a tweaked FSX.

 

Not exactly. By rewriting P3d 2.0 so it uses DX11, the memory management will improve substantially. Most video games are still 32 bit, whether on consoles or the PC. 64 bit is certainly a nice improvement, but it isn't a necessity. I'll give you a concrete example, Battlefield 4 for the PC comes in both a 64 bit and a 32 bit version. I've benchmarked both at the maximum settings and I can't see one bit of difference. But my PC is not CPU-bound. If one had a slow CPU and a fast GPU, then they might see better performance with a 64 bit app.

[hopskip 253]

Not exactly. By rewriting P3d 2.0 so it uses DX11, the memory management will improve substantially. Most video games are still 32 bit, whether on consoles or the PC. 64 bit is certainly a nice improvement, but it isn't a necessity. I'll give you a concrete example, Battlefield 4 for the PC comes in both a 64 bit and a 32 bit version. I've benchmarked both at the maximum settings and I can't see one bit of difference. But my PC is not CPU-bound. If one had a slow CPU and a fast GPU, then they might see better performance with a 64 bit app.

 

If you are expecting a 64bit version of a program to have "Better looking graphics" or "Faster fps" or some silly "better performance", then you are missing the entire point of what a 64bit program is about.

 

The program can address more pieces of program.

 

The amount of Ram on a machine is irrelevant. The GPU and CPU is irrelevant.

 

1 Plus 1 = 2

This is true in both 32 bit and 64 bit.

 

4294967295 + 1 = 4294967296

This is true in 64bit but not in 32bit.

 

For a 32bit program 4294967295 + 1 = 0000000000

 

In the same was as 9 + 1 = 0 in the example where you can only have one character.

 

When a 32 bit program tries to address more than 4gb of data (ie "Big texture + models + physics model = 4.2GB) then it is out of memory. Doesn't matter if your PC has 8GB ram on board or 95 trillion exobytes.

 

Incidently a 62 bit program gets 8 exobytes before it runs out of addressing space, so will more likely run out of physical ram before it runs out of addressing space. This error is much easier to fix. (ie add more RAM) instead of the 32bit error (ie, rewrite the program from scratch in a different language).

 

Yes the above isn't 100% accurate, but I'm simplifying via analogy to make it easer to understand/demonstrate.

 

Now Battlefield 4 for PC is probably a program that doesn't have PMDG type modifications adding huge additions to the Virtual Addressing space of the program. A good programmer codes to the extent that the program can manage. FSX did this, but as you know FSX has yellow grass, and 737-800's without any FMS or systems simulated. It can also descend at about 4000ft/min, but doesn't have LVL-CHG, or autoland capability, or EGPWS Terrain on ND.

 

So Microsoft released a program that simulates a (rather ugly looking) world and very basic aircraft. Not a problem.

 

Orbx, FlyTampa, PMDG, Rex, Activesky, FSinn etc come along and add bits to the program. Now you can fly online with live ATC and see other pilots on the network out your window and on the TCAS of your PMDG 777 in real real time weather with modified clouds into amazing high detailed airports that look almost as real as a photo, over heavily modified worldwide textures and autogen... And suddenly that Virtual Addressing space is well up near the limits.

 

The 32bit simulator can count to 4GB... and suddenly you want it to count to 5? Can't do it. "Out of Memory" error insues.

 

"But 64bit doesn't make my CPU or Graphics Card go faster".

 

*FACE PALM*

[kevinh 409]

 

 

I would Have no problem spending $400 to $500 for A quality Flightsim from your company.

You might not have a problem, but plenty of others would. To sell sufficient numbers of copies to make such a development viable you would have to appeal to the low end user too, who certainly would not spend that kind of money on a flightsim.

 

Windows updates can't reduce FSX address space, which remains 4GB regardless. If you are having more OOM crashes recently it must be something else.  I don't understand your problem. I'm still using 32 bit XP so have more restrictions on what I can load in FSX than you do with 64 bit Windows, yet I still run the777 with no difficulty.

[ViperXBR 32]

Dear PMDG this is only a suggestion, I have notice as time go's by as Microsoft puts updates in for windows 7 or 8.  I am beginning to have more and more out of memory crashes. Basically Microsoft has left the flightsim  world to suffer. Being that we are in the most part running 64bit operating systems and fsx is a 32 bit game. And updating hardware' I would have to say that with out a doubt you have the greatest product, but as time go's on your product will become outdated because you have to design to fit an outdated fsx. Is it possible for your company to create A new flightsim. with your planes and combine different add on company's together for A game that could handle the memory issue. some ones going to do it.  Hopefully not Microsoft! Believe me when I say that I have $3000.00 in the tower Alone,  I would Have no problem spending $400 to $500 for A quality Flightsim from your company.      

 

I feel their time and energy would be better spent developing on one of the already fully supported and mature flight sim platforms that are currently out there.

 

It's only a matter of time this ancient sim called FSX will either no longer work as our hardware and OS life cycle continues to advance through the years OR we, the simmers, decide to take our heads out of the sand and move on to a sim platform from this decade!

 

As a consumer, you'd be surprised how much power we have over what platform these developers work on.  If we all decide to dump FSX for something from this era, they would have to follow suit.  Supply and demand!

[Tabs 2,790]

How about you make  a $750,000.00 investment to jump start PMDG's developement of a sim. :lol:

 

Try $10,000,0000 at least. (and probably a lot more - look at Star Citizen, almost $30 million in crowd funding for a space sim and still climbing - RSI aren't even making their own engine either, it's all built on Crytek's)

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

*FACE PALM*

 

 

Ha ha. That made me laugh, since you obviously are transfixed by the supposed superiority of the CPU in the world of the Windows desktop. What you are ignoring is that nVidia GPUs actually do GPGPU (General-purpose computing on the graphics processing unit). A high end, recent vintage nVidia card (with 3 or 4 GB of VRAM) is capable of not only doing all of the graphical manipulation that used to be done by the CPU, but also other types computation which were traditionally reserved for the CPU.

 

Although having an address space for the CPU that exceeds 4 GB makes life easier for people writing code, it isn't the great the advantage that it was 5 or 10 years ago, because modern GPUs are more versatile. The trade off is that once you go 64 bit, all your 3rd party add-ons either are worthless, or you have to write a helper app that allows communication between the primary 64 bit app and the 32 bit legacy add-ons.

 

Since P3d is heavily dependent on 3rd party add-ons, having a 64 bit version at this time is a far lower priority than backwards compatibility. Just switching from DX9 to DX11 will improve the overall memory management substantially. That's a given.

 

On the other hand, look at XP10. It's author had no concern for backwards compatibility and hence was free to create a 64 bit version. Note that XP10 also uses OGL, not DirectX, so it is almost completely independent of anything that MS, ATI and nVidia might be adding to either video drivers or the OS.

[E6BAV8R 88]

If LM manages to provide us a simulator that doesn't have CTD problems, has some graphic improvements, doesn't suffer from OOM and yet still maintains compatibility with most FSX addons I will surely start to use it as my main simulator. I see it as a step similar to what moving from FS9 to FSX was.

 

Except it isn't really possible to have a problem-free simulation with the infinite amounts of combinations available.  Problems arise in FSX because you are taking the base game (which runs just fine) and adding custom textures, files, configuration changes, scenery's', aircraft, external programs that pull data from FSX, etc.  The more customization you add to FSX is going to exponentially increase your risk of a crash and that won't change, regardless of the platform.  They can't possibly test or imagine all the differences and customizations that people can create or incorporate into the simulation.

 

I still think the absolute minimum of the next major popular platform is going to have to be 64bit.  Even if you can create a program that makes efficient use of VAS, developers will always, over time, be able to push the limits of 4GB.  I also think that, with the large investments people make and the choice of continuing to use FSX, XPlane or P3D, people are going to be more apprehensive in which platform they choose.

[hopskip 253]

Ha ha. That made me laugh, since you obviously are transfixed by the supposed superiority of the CPU in the world of the Windows desktop. What you are ignoring is that nVidia GPUs actually do GPGPU (General-purpose computing on the graphics processing unit). A high end, recent vintage nVidia card (with 3 or 4 GB of VRAM) is capable of not only doing all of the graphical manipulation that used to be done by the CPU, but also other types computation which were traditionally reserved for the CPU.

 

No, I'm not talking about Hardware at all.

If you have a not theoretically possible, but lets just pretend it's real, CPU with inifinity GHz, Inifinity ram, Infinity GPU ram and speed and infinity Vram. If you have a Software program that was coded in 32 bit, I repeat SOFTWARE PROGRAM with an InifinityGHZ CPU GPU RAM SLAM and PROPAM LAMB hardware, when the program requests to draw millions of objects with huge texture resolutions and some script coding, when there are 4294967296 bytes being called apon (in the programming + textures) there will be an out of memory error, because the PROGRAM which is made out of CODE (Software) cannot count past 4294967295. Even though there is still infinity Exobytes of Hardware ram left over, the Program Code doesn't know how to count past 4294967295 bits.

 

It's like the old Millennium bug. The date after 31/12/99 is 31/12/00 - The 8 bit date can't tell the difference between the year 2000 and the year 1900. 01/01/00 is the same as 01/01/00.

 

In the same way with a 32 bit PROGRAM CODE, which isn't hardware, the 4294967296th byte is the same as the 0000000000th byte.

Lets do it in 2 bit binary:

0=00 1=01 2=10 3=11 4=00

In that case the number "4" is an out of memory error. "4" is the same as "0" and is not a unique value. In 2 bit binary there is no such thing as the number 5. It doesn't matter if the system you are using is an i7 8950 with 72 Terrabytes of Ram with a 9001GHz GPU with 95GB of ram and an 800 Exobyte Harddrive.

2bit programs can only count 4 digits. If you want 5, you are Out of memory.

Even on the impossible "Infinity" PC I mentioned earlier.

 

00

01

10

11

That's all folks, no other numbers can exist. Out of memory error.

 

PROGRAM and SOFTWARE and CODE are the limitations... not physical hardware.

 

I repeat, the 4294967295 bit limitation in 32 bit applications is a limitation of the PROGRAM and SOFTWARE and CODE, and no amount of physical hardware can fix it.

 

Watch this video for more enlightenment:

 

So what the limit there is, a 32 bit Clock sees "The day after the 19th of January 2038 is "ERROR NO SUCH NUMBER"!"

 

 

Although having an address space for the CPU that exceeds 4 GB makes life easier for people writing code, it isn't the great the advantage that it was 5 or 10 years ago, because modern GPUs are more versatile. The trade off is that once you go 64 bit, all your 3rd party add-ons either are worthless, or you have to write a helper app that allows communication between the primary 64 bit app and the 32 bit legacy add-ons.

 

 

Having a modern GPU doesn't fix the problem that there are only 4 digits available in 2bit binary, or 4294967295 unique addresses in 32bit binary. Once again

In 2 bit binary: 3+1=OOM

in 32 bit binary: 4294967295 + 1 = OOM

 

Or to put it another way

 

2bit Binary:

00 = 0

01 = 1

10 = 2

11 = 3

 

4 = "Can not compute, no such value, 3 is the highest possible number, Out of memory error"

 

If you install REX, Orbx, FTXglobal, FTXregions, UK2000, NL2000, Huge areas of Photoreal Spain, America, etc, ActiveSky Next, PMDG777, Ultra high definition 4K UHD textures on a widescreen 12000x1080 multiple screen resolution?

 

All of those textures, objects, gauge files, Virtual Cocpits etc have to run through the Simulator engine so as to actually show up inside the presented scenery and world. All of those things cost bytes to address and process. "That blade of modelled grass at Really pretty but huge addon scenery will be there, and will have this 4K texture on it." Do that for a 100nm radius around the aircraft, and the PROGRAM runs out of bytes.

 

The program has to count to 4294967296 or more, and can't.

 

Out of memory error, even with the Infinity GHz Infinity Ram Infinity GPU ram & GHz, simply because a 32 bit program can't use 33 bits, and in 32 bits (32 bit binary), 4294967295+1 = 0000000000

 

as in

11111111111111111111111111111111 + 1 = 00000000000000000000000000000000 (and a carried 1 that can't go anywhere because there isn't a 33rd order of magnitude to place it into)