An Interesting Future for Outerra

[wolke85 150]

I can't understand why everyone thinks that a flight simulator HAS to be 64 bit to be successful or good. It's all about resource management. If the engine does not dispose of unneeded resources quickly enough, or doesn't ever dispose of some, [...]

 

 

 

The reason is simple. Future proofing.

 

If they don't make a step towards 64bit early then everything they do from now on is subject to the limitations of the engine at a 32 bit level. This means that any point in the future where they want to make the step forward will create a situation where they either dump a lot of the things they've incorporated into it and start again with a more bare product or they spend an inordinate amount of time updating what they have added. Whats more products built based on it will need to themselves be independently updated.

 

Looking backwards towards what FSX [...]

 

+1

"Future proofing"

That's the point!

64bit is teh way to go on a longer distance, but the earlier it happens the better!

Because:

Why limiting such a promising looking engine under development such as Outerra certainly is, yet again into the boundaries of the more and more dated 32bit architecture?

Outerra does not have to deal with issues such as "backward-compatibility" or similar, so why not from the very beginning or at least as early as possible, make it all 64bit-ready?.

There is lots of advantage in doing so and it certainly helps a lot to be certainly "future proof"!

[HiFlyer 9,360]

As long as its Understood that its not some magical solution to everything. As its been pointed out, anything can OOM if its not using resources efficiently.

 

Outerra seems very efficient. Memory usage on my machine went from 1.80 GB in use to 2.64 GB in use with Outerra running maxed. At the same time, Cpu usage was at 30%, leaving plenty of resources for other things. The thing to keep in mind is that even with that, the developers seem unhappy with the current CPU usage, and want to lower it even more.........

 

Going back to what I said earlier in the thread, Outerra just doesn't allocate resources the same way as other programs we have become accustomed too do. I suspect with Outerra, if anything, you might be wanting a GPU with more memory.

[wolke85 150]

 

 

As long as its Understood that its not some magical solution to everything. As its been pointed out, anything can OOM if its not using resources efficiently.

 

... understood perfectly and sure anything "can OOM", but then again:

Not going 64bit just does not make real sense i think, because:

Why staying with 32bit - or in other words:

What is it that obviously makes 32bit still attractive somehow even for a new and currently under development simming platform such as Outerra, which may sooner or later host something as complex as flightsims and maybe even much, much more?

Now i am totally aware of the fact that Outerra handles resources quite different than other engines do, but - can't this be done so as well within a 64bit architecture but by then having the advantages 64bit has to offer?

I mean in a longer distance when dedicated 3rd party add-ons become involved and start to interact and all that - wouldn't it therefore make lots of sense to go 64bit in advance, to offer all that future stuff as much room as possible already at a point now where this can be done comperatively easy (sure it still requires work, but far less i dare to say than later on).

Again saying:

As You have pointed out - everything "can OOM", but - maybe and simply less often under 64bit.

[HughesMDflyer4 470]

As long as its Understood that its not some magical solution to everything. As its been pointed out, anything can OOM if its not using resources efficiently.

 

Agreed. This was exactly my point more than anything.    It seems to be waved around that 64 bit will make some insane flight simulator, when in all reality, it prevents an OOM you probably won't get anyway on such a modern engine, but the wiggle room is sure nice to have. ^_^

[HiFlyer 9,360]

Actually they mentioned a while ago that they hoped to be 64bit by the end of the year........

[P*Funk 9]

Agreed. This was exactly my point more than anything.    It seems to be waved around that 64 bit will make some insane flight simulator, when in all reality, it prevents an OOM you probably won't get anyway on such a modern engine, but the wiggle room is sure nice to have. ^_^

Oh because a program that can take full advantage of your on board hardware is such a minor thing to consider.

 

It would be impossible to play DCS World without 64 bit architecture. Without that the texture sizes would have to be smaller and everything would have to look crummier. In any future where we want good looking sims you have to believe that we're going to see them start to use more than 4 gigs of memory. You can't expect texture sizes to just remain what they are, not while people start to get larger and larger monitors, and more powerful video cards. As it is DCS World's other major bottleneck is its 2 CPU core limitation.

 

So really in the future simulators that don't make full use of multi-core processors or all available system memory will perpetually be holding themselves back. Its not a small thing to have the kind of headroom that prevents OOMs. FSX was designed never to have to deal with that issue because when they built it 32 bit probably seemed more than sufficient.

 

I simply do not understand this lack of enthusiasm for modern architecture. You're basically demure about having your flight sim as modern as your PC. Why?

[JSkorna 137]

 

 

I simply do not understand this lack of enthusiasm for modern architecture.

 

Because it is not the huge saving grace you are making it out to be.

[P*Funk 9]

It would allow a future where the one thing most average PC users need their gobs of RAM for wouldn't be limited and unable to use it. What does 64bit architecture allow me to do with DCS World? Crank up a pre-load radius that uses more RAM than FSX can access. Thats what 64 bit can do.

 

Drop 64 bit onto FSX/P3D and most people would call it a saving grace, but with new software I see it only as the natural way forward.

[StoreyedTrain 13]

About 64 bit, simply put.

 

I have about 300+ games on my PC (thru Steam) wherefrom only 2 or 3 are 64 bit, and the only game that ever crashed because OOM is FSX, EVER.

 

No other program based on Unreal, Source, IDTech, enzzz has ever crashed because OOM.

 

FSX OOMs because it is crappy programming/ideology, not because it is 32 bit. (it is actually so bad (inefficient) programming i would not be surprised it even OOMs with 64bit)

 

64 bit can however increase bandwidth between CPU and GPU which can lower FPS dips, which have been proven by the games that are 64bit already.

[JSkorna 137]

 

 

64 bit can however increase bandwidth between CPU and GPU which can lower FPS dips, which have been proven by the games that are 64bit already.

 

Any hard data on this?

[nathanpinard 0]

About 64 bit, simply put.

 

I have about 300+ games on my PC (thru Steam) wherefrom only 2 or 3 are 64 bit, and the only game that ever crashed because OOM is FSX, EVER.

 

No other program based on Unreal, Source, IDTech, enzzz has ever crashed because OOM.

 

FSX OOMs because it is crappy programming/ideology, not because it is 32 bit. (it is actually so bad (inefficient) programming i would not be surprised it even OOMs with 64bit)

 

64 bit can however increase bandwidth between CPU and GPU which can lower FPS dips, which have been proven by the games that are 64bit already.

 

I'm not sure this is a fair comparison. FSX has many addon developers that add to that memory footprint. PDMG actually recommends a 64bit system just so their addons run properly.

 

A comparison of your example would be Skyrim. Skyrim has LOADS of addons where you can install hundreds of them. Textures, models, etc you name it. Skyrim was built with the addon community in mind, so it generally runs ok.

 

Remember that most games that are still 32bit have to develop that game with that limitation in mind. 

 

However, FSX isn't entirely optimized for the loads of addons people cram into it. And while it may have been in 2006, the size and memory footprint of those addons has increase.

 

+ 1 to "Future Proofing"

 

In the music industry, we use samples and virtual instrument. In around 2006, 4-6 gigabytes of memory was considered a lot. Plugin developers had to develop instances of the application to spread the load between those instances to take advantage of the 4-6gigs we had.

 

However, samples got so big that some libraries require 16gigs at minimum.

 

Now, even 32gigs in my system isn't always enough. And it's only going to increase as the tecnology will increase.

 

Gaming wise you see this happen in the video card memory as well.

[P*Funk 9]

About 64 bit, simply put.

 

I have about 300+ games on my PC (thru Steam) wherefrom only 2 or 3 are 64 bit, and the only game that ever crashed because OOM is FSX, EVER.

 

No other program based on Unreal, Source, IDTech, enzzz has ever crashed because OOM.

 

FSX OOMs because it is crappy programming/ideology, not because it is 32 bit. (it is actually so bad (inefficient) programming i would not be surprised it even OOMs with 64bit)

 

64 bit can however increase bandwidth between CPU and GPU which can lower FPS dips, which have been proven by the games that are 64bit already.

Your logic is flawed. Most games on steam do not render a world larger than a shoe box compared to FSX. Use of memory is rarely as big of a deal to games which are not on a vast scale. Games are both designed with this limit in mid and the design itself doesn't seek to break from it. Simulators are inherently different. I cited DCS World already. It renders a game world that makes Arma 3 map makers blush. A single server instance of DCS World can host hundreds of units on a map hundreds of thousands of square kilometers in size. This isn't like FSX where its mostly empty, it can be populated with military units that do things like have active radars or moving waypoints. A single server is coordinating these units against human players all at once. A single client connected to this server could easily break 6GB of memory loaded if he has things turned up enough and the game has enough units in it.

 

Compared to CoD's tiny maps its not even the same. Its sloppy to make such casual conclusions. "I have hundreds of games, only one OOMs" and yet you ignore all the features of it that are inherently different. If ANYTHING needs to be 64 bit its a simulator. In the future perhaps we could see more ambitious games that take what Planetside  2 is doing and make it look small buts its clear that today with what they're doing now 32 bit isn't sufficient and that is with FSX's inherent inefficiencies in mind.

 

This is a silly conversation. 64 bit is the future. Making do without it is no reason to not embrace it, particularly when we're talking about a new engine that hasn't even left the very early development stages yet. This is specifically the point when that kind of change has the most benefit long term and the least to lose. What do we lose with having new 3d engines made 64 bit ready? Nothing, but a bunch of people on the internet will still make some middling argument about how its no big deal something something still happy with FSX something something resist change something something *grumble grumble* etc.

 

 

 

+1 to nathanpinard's post as well.

[wolke85 150]

... but the wiggle room is sure nice to have

 

... and that's the main point why i'd also support a full 64bit Outerra from the very beginning - no more no less.

Sure there will always be "more and more and more ..." and even by then it will most likely never ever be enough for our wishes and demands, but at least going 64bit from almost the very beginning will make it all more reliable for the future (future-proof).

64bit is not some magic which once applied generates the "perfect sim", no one ever said so - but - having the opportunity to take full advantage of it when having the chance to do so, simply makes perfect sense to me and it is somehow hard for me to understand why such a rather "pragmatic approach" to this issue and fact, almost always turns into some kind of ideological debate within the flightsimmer's community.

We all want the most versatile, reliable, perfectly fluent ... and so on flightsim one day in the future - don't we?

So why not simply supporting (and implementing) the better or even best available options at hand as soon as they become a reliable option just waiting to be chosen?

I therefore think it is good to have a 64bit-ready Outerra engine available some time in the future, which will most likely be the case and which was also already mentioned in #545 here.

:smile2:

[HughesMDflyer4 470]

Your logic is flawed. Most games on steam do not render a world larger than a shoe box compared to FSX.

 

For the record, the entire world is not rendered all at once. Sure, the basic globe is always there, but if you're in London, the landclasses, weather, AI traffic, and autogen/scenery objects in California aren't even rendered. The game renders what is close to you as you go there, so while there's still quite a decent amount to render, it's not THAT much different considering the insane amounts of detail other games render closely to the player (these games also load/unload textures/resources constantly as you move, as the LOD radius is much smaller).

[P*Funk 9]

For the record, the entire world is not rendered all at once. Sure, the basic globe is always there, but if you're in London, the landclasses, weather, AI traffic, and autogen/scenery objects in California aren't even rendered. The game renders what is close to you as you go there, so while there's still quite a decent amount to render, it's not THAT much different considering the insane amounts of detail other games render closely to the player (these games also load/unload textures/resources constantly as you move, as the LOD radius is much smaller).

No it really is. The vast vast majority of most games don't render anything larger than perhaps half the size of your regular international airport. If we're dealing with a dungeon shooter (which CoD is a lot of the time depending on the level) then you get things where the player doens't have to see anything more than a hundred meters away at best. There is no rendering of clouds at multiple levels over several dozen miles. The rendering of an ORBX scenery on top of an FSDT airport ontop of something like a PMDG VC is quite significant compared to most steam games that exist, like I said, in a shoebox. Its a very nice shoebox but its still small and most of those games pre-load everything and you can't load anything new without restarting the game's instance.

 

It doesn't even matter how demanding the shoebox game is, it can't scale like FSX does, or DCS, or any other large scale simulation. Sims are doing things on a scale that is different from the vast vast majority of mainstream games. Whats more if we want our sims to look as good as traditional 32 bit mainstream AAA games one day then we're going to want to let them use more than 4 Gb of memory and all the other trimmings. FSX is a 32 bit game being pushed to a level that most 32 bit games dont' get pushed to because its different. Most console games for instance have extremely narrow FOVs in order to limit how much of the environment needs to be rendered at any one time in order to allow for the stunning visuals at 60FPS. They use tricks to get those games to look that good.

 

The point is that you just can't compare sims to most other games. They're trying to achieve radically different things.