If you compare FSX/P3D to modern games, you will be publicly flogged...you have been warned...lol

FTX Iceland demo is not default scenery.

 

Perhaps it is just FSX then but mesh and ground texture files are hardly taxiing on virtual memory in a default airplane on a small island, or certainly not to the point of running over 4GB VAS.

 

Honestly people. Maxed out in Prepar3D is way, way, way, way beyond maxed out in FSX.

 

Rather irrelevant to compare a maxed out P3D to a maxed out FSX when a maxed out P3D is very close to or over OOM (and therefore unusable), no?  Who's to say he wouldn't have OOM'd without the demo installed anyway?  At least with FSX you can run maxed out settings and still fly around a PMDG aircraft into a FlyTampa airport.

 

That's all I'll add to this thread.  No point in continuing this discussion further (again).

Rather irrelevant to compare a maxed out P3D to a maxed out FSX when a maxed out P3D is very close to or over OOM (and therefore unusable), no?  Who's to say he wouldn't have OOM'd without the demo installed anyway?  At least with FSX you can run maxed out settings and still fly around a PMDG aircraft into a FlyTampa airport.

 

That's all I'll add to this thread.  No point in continuing this discussion further (again).

You've totally ignored the point being made. P3D is designed to offer 10x (or higher) than FSX, which is precisely what MS/ACES did with FSX vice FS9.

 

This is deliberately done to allow room for (up) scalability further down the road as code is further optimized and/or hardware is upgraded by the end user.

 

In simpler words, P3D with ~1/2 sliders should deliver about the same results as FSX maxed out.

Monitoring VAS, with addon aircraft and scenery, I have yet to see less than 2.4 remaining VAS with P3DV2. Was always around 1.5 with FSX and I've never had a OOM with FSX. So I have never understood those getting this error.

You've totally ignored the point being made. P3D is designed to offer 10x (or higher) than FSX, which is precisely what MS/ACES did with FSX vice FS9.

 

This is deliberately done to allow room for (up) scalability further down the road as code is further optimized and/or hardware is upgraded by the end user.

 

In simpler words, P3D with ~1/2 sliders should deliver about the same results as FSX maxed out.

I'm not ignoring the point at all.  Sure, P3D is certainly designed to offer more, but at the end of the day it is still restricted to 32-bit.  So, it doesn't really matter (at the current stage of P3D) how much more it can offer if it is unusable to the point where you OOM on every flight (because you turned on all those sliders that make it more visually appealing than FSX).  It's the same concept as: why would I buy a new car that can go 500MPH, as opposed to my current one that can drive 250MPH, when the speed limit is 60MPH?

 

In the current state of P3D than you can, most likely, max at all the sliders (assuming you have the hardware to do so) and fly around default airplanes without any payware add-on airport and not OOM and be good to go.  But honestly, how many people in this community will do that?  If you're currently flying around at 3GB VAS in P3D with sliders maxed what is going to happen when, as I reckon most people in this community will do, is fly a PMDG airplane into a payware airport with an advanced weather add-on?

 

Per your comment - "P3D with ~1/2 sliders should deliver about the same results as FSX maxed out" - than what is the advantage to switching if I need to lower the P3D sliders to half (and get the same visual appearance of FSX) so that I don't OOM?

 

FWIW, I really do hope P3D is the future.

I had my first OOM today.  But, I'm not about to blame the program nor my hardware - I decided to run through FTXG London at rooftop height with absolutely every slider to the right, including vsync and triple buffering, at about 700 knts in the F-22, just to see if I could.  Turn's out I couldn't. :lol:

The thing is we now can put all the sliders to the right, because we have good FPS.. but we cannot put them because we have OOM. Great! simply great.. we have a candy and we cannot use it.

The solution? Go to middle sliders as someone said, so we would have something like FSX... or the very professional one. The devs makes a 64bits OPTION. So.. people could choose between running 32 or 64bits P3D to let at the first moments, compatibility with addoms. That is the way xplane 10 did, and is going smoothly.

 

 

So.. people could choose between running 32 or 64bits P3D to let at the first moments, compatibility with addoms. That is the way xplane 10 did, and is going smoothly.

 

Ideally, yes.  However, P3D is the way LM designed it for a reason - P3D is not meant to be a personal consumer / hobbyist simulator.  The fact is that it is a commercial / professional use trainer and you don't need highly detailed ground textures and airports to deliver the type of training P3D is designed to deliver; hence why they only needed to go 32-bit.   Perhaps if demand is high enough and commercial parties push on LM to expand the scope of P3D's training envelope, requiring the need for advanced details and simulations, than that would push them to deliver a 64-bit platform.

I am very, very glad I started this thread and I thank all who have contributed. It was started quite intentionally to prove that even a high end rig does NOT allow everything to work at maximum. As the contributors have said, start in the middle. I set my sliders there and can not see the difference between maximum and middle. I am getting 30-49fps on both settings and all the Orbx Aus scenery is showing up beautifully. Enjoy.

Ideally, yes.  However, P3D is the way LM designed it for a reason - P3D is not meant to be a personal consumer / hobbyist simulator.  The fact is that it is a commercial / professional use trainer and you don't need highly detailed ground textures and airports to deliver the type of training P3D is designed to deliver; hence why they only needed to go 32-bit.   Perhaps if demand is high enough and commercial parties push on LM to expand the scope of P3D's training envelope, requiring the need for advanced details and simulations, than that would push them to deliver a 64-bit platform.

 

LM are completely dedicated to 3rd party development. They have an entire developer network and even have Addon developer "partners" advertised on their website. This is more involvement then MS ever dreamed of having with the addon community.

 

This idea that they really don't care about them and it's just all about "training" is false and backed by nothing but the same baseless assumptions that have plagued this forum for six months. 

 

They've given the reasons why they haven't gone 64 bit yet (but plan to in the future) and none of it has to do with them not needing it or commercial customers not wanting it. Ironically, their major stated holdup is exactly the opposite sentiment. They don't want to break backwards compatibility with 32 bit addons yet.

They don't want to break backwards compatibility with 32 bit addons yet.

Just guessing here...

 

If on Thursday L-M announced that they have gone 64 bit...

 

On Friday there would be 10,000 posts from users complaining about how all the existing addons no longer worked and what a rip-off it was, as they would now need to go and buy new addons.

 

Gotta be careful about those slices of bread that are buttered on both sides...

LM are completely dedicated to 3rd party development. They have an entire developer network and even have Addon developer "partners" advertised on their website. This is more involvement then MS ever dreamed of having with the addon community.

 

Of course they are - why wouldn't they be?  LM needs third party development if they want their product to enter the market with the least development overhead, providing a better chance for it to succeed in the commercial market (short of fronting all the overhead and development resources themselves - which doesn't make sense on a brand new start-up, as you can get it cheaper elsewhere).  Many companies already have their own simulation type products and use it frequently for personalized on-the-job training.  And yes, I would know - the company I work for does the same thing and does about $2 Billion a year in business doing it.

 

This idea that they really don't care about them and it's just all about "training" is false and backed by nothing but the same baseless assumptions that have plagued this forum for six months.

 

LM stated themselves, and does on their website, that it is a commercial training platform.  You can also read the many posts by PMDG that re-iterate that fact, and I think they would know given that they have been in negotiations with LM about commercial licenses for their products for P3D and that some past MS Flight Simulator developers have chosen not to port their products over to P3D due to the commercial licensing LM has set forth for P3D - given the fact that there is no entertainment license.

 

They've given the reasons why they haven't gone 64 bit yet (but plan to in the future) and none of it has to do with them not needing it or commercial customers not wanting it. Ironically, their major stated holdup is exactly the opposite sentiment. They don't want to break backwards compatibility with 32 bit addons yet.

 

Why would commercial customers not want it?  If they had legitimate plans to do it already they would have done it (pending market response).  What is the difference between doing it now and a year from now?  Development costs.  They're trying to justify it to the market before they invest more resources into a platform that may or may not serve its' intended market or purpose.  Market acceptance (or not) towards the intended market isn't reliant on the fact of whether it is 32 or 64 bit at this stage.

Of course they are - why wouldn't they be?  LM needs third party development if they want their product to enter the market with the least development overhead, providing a better chance for it to succeed in the commercial market (short of fronting all the overhead and development resources themselves - which doesn't make sense on a brand new start-up, as you can get it cheaper elsewhere).  Many companies already have their own simulation type products and use it frequently for personalized on-the-job training.  And yes, I would know - the company I work for does the same thing and does about $2 Billion a year in business doing it.

 

 

 

LM stated themselves, and does on their website, that it is a commercial training platform.  You can also read the many posts by PMDG that re-iterate that fact, and I think they would know given that they have been in negotiations with LM about commercial licenses for their products for P3D and that some past MS Flight Simulator developers have chosen not to port their products over to P3D due to the commercial licensing LM has set forth for P3D.  Also given the fact that there is no entertainment license.

 

This has all been hashed out for six months on these forums and most have just grown weary of talking about it. Not even going to bother anymore with that and I'm certainly not touching the stupid EULA arguments or PMDG stuff. LM opened up the platform to everyone under the guise of simulation use. Good enough for me.

 

Your other comments have all been said before. It's basically just an underhanded way of sticking your finger in people's eyes and asserting LM "doesn't really care about you." Maybe they don't, but they sure act like they do as they answer myriads of questions, give interviews to community websites, add features, troubleshoot issues, and work with addon developers who primarily service FSX users to ensure compatibility. That's again good enough for me. 

 

Why would commercial customers not want it?  If they had legitimate plans to do it already they would have done it (pending market response).  What is the difference between doing it now and a year from now?  Development costs.  They're trying to justify it to the market before they invest more resources into a platform that may or may not serve its' intended purpose.

 

 

I'll choose to take their word for it vs. speculation. They haven't gone 64bit yet to ensure backwards compatibility for customers who currently own add ons. 

Two exe files of P3D v2. One 32bits, one 64bits would solve the problem of compatibility. People could fly the old ones not converted in the 32bits version while waiting for conversion to 64bits of their favorite planes. Not need of the 10000 messages complaining in forums. All complains would go to the third party developers to convert their planes to 64 bits.

But still they could fly them in 32 executable.

As you say P3D is professional. Every professional program I have now is 64bits compatible. Don't know why they didn't work in a 64bits option.

 

2 executables! Not only one. As xplane has now. In time the 32 one would die when all is converted.

Sorry but turning sliders down to sensible levels that are matched to personal hardware, is not tweaking.

 

It's not about the hardware, it's about software limitations. You can have 32 gigs of RAM in your machine, yet a 32-bit application will only ever be able to use 4GB of it.