Sign in to follow this  
captain420

PMDG and X-Plane Development

Recommended Posts

Hi, I am curious to know when or if you guys have started developing for the X-Plane 64 bit platform yet? I am anxious to get to fly the 777/737/747. I really love your planes in FSX, but it's a dying platform to me and I have totally given up on that. I may feel the same way with P3D as well, since its a big mess leftover from FSX. 64 bit is really necessary and I'm sure your planes will behave much better and allow for more room to add other intensive features thats not possible in 32bit. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

PMDG work much better on FS platform! Good day!

Since it hasn't been done for the X-plane platform it's really hard to say.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you trying to set a record for duplicate posts? You have been around these forums long enough that you should know better. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a pinned thread in the forum about this by PMDG. Absolutely no need for this question.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just in case and as pointed out here in #7 above as well:

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/426981-pmdgs-xplane-10-development-fact-thread-updated-25nov13/

 

PMDG work much better on FS platform! Good day!

 

... sorry, but that's a statement that lacks of any proof.

Why not just wait and see how the first PMDG add on will perform in X-Plane once it will be available and make our judgements then?!

So far i see no reason at all why it should not work in a convincing manner - just as we are expecting any PMDG add on to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhm it was an error known with the forum, hence why the multiple posts. I'm not the only one that this has happened to. It's a server timeout issue. So relax. It's not like I intentionally meant to post 10x. Geez.

 

Anyways, I am looking forward to PMDG's development and hope that we will see something soon. I've about had it with FSX and P3D with the constant tweaking, OOM's and crashing. Leaves me no choice but to move onto X-Plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhm it was an error known with the forum, hence why the multiple posts. I'm not the only one that this has happened to. It's a server timeout issue. So relax. It's not like I intentionally meant to post 10x. Geez.

I've had forum thread posting errors happen to me but when I got the error a second time I looked in the forum to see if the thread was posted. Sure enough it was there, twice.

 

You must have tried to post this thread ten times. The forum errors are annoying but I would recommend that if anyone gets an error report starting a thread they should first check if their thread got started, not simply re-submit.

 

Anyways, I am looking forward to PMDG's development and hope that we will see something soon. I've about had it with FSX and P3D with the constant tweaking, OOM's and crashing. Leaves me no choice but to move onto X-Plane.

Your choice of course. I don't see it anywhere near as clear cut as you. The only thing a 64 bit simulator gives you is much more available memory, so no more OOMs. 32 bits is more than enough for computational accuracy, as long as you use double word accuracy for some parameters like lat/long. It's by no means a necessity, it's a "nice to have". Given the choice of 64 bit X Plane or FSX with PMDG products, I'll stick with FSX thanks.

 

I've just upgraded to Win 7 64 bit and I don't see FSX getting anywhere close to the 4GB VAS limit while flying the 777X. With 32 bit XP I had to compromise with FSX to avoid OOMs, though usually they only happened when I closed FSX. I haven't had a single instance of addressing errors since the upgrade (yet), but I don't use much photo scenery which would push the limits more.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your choice of course. I don't see it anywhere near as clear cut as you. The only thing a 64 bit simulator gives you is much more available memory, so no more OOMs. 32 bits is more than enough for computational accuracy, as long as you use double word accuracy for some parameters like lat/long. It's by no means a necessity, it's a "nice to have". Given the choice of 64 bit X Plane or FSX with PMDG products, I'll stick with FSX thanks.

 

Why is more available memory not important? I don't think anyone is talking about computational accuracy when discussing 64bit. With increasing monitor resolutions, triple-monitor setups, higher texture resolutions, more objects onscreen, 4Gb is really not very much anymore. LM's stumbling blocks with increasing autogen density shows just how close to the limit the ESP/FSX platform is already. Besides, FSX is a totally dead product. It's issues will never be fixed or extended. The future is either P3D or XP.

 

In my honest opinion, it's like choosing between two devils. LM is actively developing the sim that most people will be able to transfer easiest to, but I'm not sure LM is really in the casual user business as much as their "we won't look" attitude may indicate. Already after the 2.1 outcry the forums have become much more businesslike. The internet simmer as a group (and really a fairly vocal sect of gamers overall) are a terrible, whiny, entitled crowd that I think LM naively didn't expect. Don't expect 64bit from them this year or next.

 

On the other hand, you have Austin's hobby project XP, which receives bug fixes on a "if we feel like it" basis. Heck, I can't even fly a surround setup at night because the night sky renderer is hard coded to 4:3 resolutions, which means the stars are big lines and the moon is a pixellated egg. The answer on that bug? Next summer, if we have time. But, 64bit is fantastic, the engine overall is great, flying planes actually feels like flying planes. If devs ever show up and Laminar gets its dev support act together, it could really soar. But, I'm not really convinced that Austin and the crew are super interested in supporting the next big flight sim. They seem to like the business at the level that its at, which is really best evidenced by the complete lack of additional dev staff being added to Laminar. That's ok, that's totally their prerogative, I suppose.

 

Either way, I'm definitely very interested in PMDG's XP offerings, even though I fly less and less big iron these days.

 

-Matt

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is more available memory not important? I don't think anyone is talking about computational accuracy when discussing 64bit. With increasing monitor resolutions, triple-monitor setups, higher texture resolutions, more objects onscreen, 4Gb is really not very much anymore. LM's stumbling blocks with increasing autogen density shows just how close to the limit the ESP/FSX platform is already. Besides, FSX is a totally dead product. It's issues will never be fixed or extended. The future is either P3D or XP.

 

Matt,

 

I didn't say more memory wasn't important, I said that was what 64 bits gives you. The poster I was replying to talked about PMDG's planes behaving better, which I took to mean other improvements which don't exist. We don't all have multi monitor set ups and large high resolution displays so for me at least 4GB is plenty for the time being. If and when PMDG produce versions of their products which run on X Plane then I might consider switching. At the moment they don't so I see no reason to do as the OP says they are and abandoning FSX now. It may be a development dead end but it has a fantastic resource network which will take years to better.

 

If FSX could have its bugs fixed and be ported to 64 bits then it would be my preference moving forward. P3D is probably the best hope in that regard. X Plane is a much bigger step to take, representing a start from scratch. Yes X Plane fells more realistic because its flight model is more complete (FSX is lacking in asymmetric terms). But for airliner sims this is less of an issue than with light aircraft as mass and inertia dominate.

 

Unlike the OP, I think it's far too early to drop FSX. Developers like PMDG, Majestic and HiFi Simulation are still pushing the envelope of what is possible in this supposedly dead engine. When PMDG have something to announce about X Plane I'm sure they will tell us here, but even if PMDG add X Plane support other key developers will still need to join in to get even close to what we have with FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike the OP, I think it's far too early to drop FSX. Developers like PMDG, Majestic and HiFi Simulation are still pushing the envelope of what is possible in this supposedly dead engine. When PMDG have something to announce about X Plane I'm sure they will tell us here, but even if PMDG add X Plane support other key developers will still need to join in to get even close to what we have with FSX.

 

completely agree !!!!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

X plane is extremely resource heavy, a drain on most computers in my country. And its apperance is personally too far from fsx and even fs9. most of its airplanes are not very simulated and it's terrain is just... crap. 

 

they got their companies developing x plane only addons, so as for the fs, they should keep to this platform as it's much better and far more realistic apart from the flight dynamics.

 

and here, most real life pilots recommend fs9/fsx instead of x-plane. and i believe their opinion is right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tushka,

              Sure sounds like you have some kind of agenda. I've never been able to figure out why it has to be either or. BTW, XPX runs just fine on my computer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I said was the truth, that's it. If Xplane people don't like it, not my problem. (And yes, X plane runs very very poorly on computers in this country, we simply not have budget). (some have problems even with FSX but at least microsoft isn't claiming this simulator runs at the same frames as a previous version). the system requierements for modern game is too high and it's a fact. only benefits rich people.

 

 

And, it all comes to preference over which simulator is the "best". So there's no point in arguing over this further...

Edited by Tushka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tushka, X-Plane 10 is a modern simulator, first out in 2011 and still in active development.

 

Of course it run worse than a five-year-older software (on older PCs, that is - modern PCs will run it better, due to SW being able to make use of modern technology).

 

If you want to compare comparable, compare XPL9 with FSX (y. 2007 vs. 2006) or XPL8 vs. FS9 (y. 2003 vs 2004)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's like saying comparing prepar3d new version to xplane 10. but both simulators different, it make no sence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why, yes, it does make sense.

 

Incidentally, on my recently built PC, P3D v2 runs just as well as FSX, if not better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Of course it run worse than a five-year-older software (on older PCs, that is - modern PCs will run it better, due to SW being able to make use of modern technology).

I don't think it's because modern software can use modern technology on newer PCs. You can put a more modern 64-bit OS on an old PC and get the same improvement. My modest AMD Phenom II CPU has always had the technology to run 64-bit software, but only since I installed Win 7 64bit has it done so. Similarly with Windows XP I was stuck on DirectX 9c. Now I can run DirectX 11. Same old PC technology, but different OS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] Of course it run worse than a five-year-older software (on older PCs, that is - modern PCs will run it better, due to SW being able to make use of modern technology). [...]

 

I don't think it's because modern software can use modern technology on newer PCs [...]

 

I can't find a discrepance here.

The main thing outlined in post #17 is the fact that a better "interaction"/"performance" is often achieved/gained when all components (hard- and software) are - at least somewhat - up-to-date overall, as this may help to avoid potential "bottlenecks" for instance.

And - very simplified saying:

Flightsimming - no matter which platform - is always demanding in regards to hard- and software.

The question though may be:

How will any flightsim perform on a wide range of various soft- and hardware in use?

 

Anyways:

It sure ain't correct considering FSX to be a dying platform (at least not yet), as it was done here in this thread ...

but it sure ain't correct considering X-Plane to be a badly performing platform as it also happened here in this thread.

On the contrary - and in all due respect to all the many various flightsimming platforms available at the moment - X-Plane may in fact even have one of the most advanced engines "under the hood" currently available for flightsimming-purposes.

This does not make any other flightsimming platform better or worse now - or vice versa - for what flightsimmers may personally (!) demand or want/expect - but - pragmatically speaking, and also getting back a bit on topic now again:

When keeping the potential of X-Plane's engine in mind and remembering the fact that X-Plane on the contrary to FSX (and any other MS flightsim) is still continuously developed, it is just natural that people interested in flightsimming will also ask for potential future plans of PMDG for X-Plane (At least when enjoying to fly PMDG planes which i assume to be the case here).

Sure: Everything to everyones personal choices - so no missunderstandings here please.

 

Overall though - but also true in regards to flightsimming - my two cents here now:

I think it is great to at least have many choices and therefore not being dependend on only one platform.

No more, but also no less.

Edited by wolke85
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

X plane is extremely resource heavy, a drain on most computers in my country. And its apperance is personally too far from fsx and even fs9. most of its airplanes are not very simulated and it's terrain is just... crap. 

 

they got their companies developing x plane only addons, so as for the fs, they should keep to this platform as it's much better and far more realistic apart from the flight dynamics.

 

and here, most real life pilots recommend fs9/fsx instead of x-plane. and i believe their opinion is right.

 

X-plane runs far better than FSX on my system. And the terrain is far better. Sloped runways, water that looks amazing, the roads are accurate and not going through farmland and lakes, realistic transitions from different types of landclass, lots of variety, night lighting looks incredible, trains!, beautiful cities, the list goes on.

 

Not to mention, it runs after you install it. No need to tweak, no need for HIGHMEM fixes, or uiautomationcore.dll, no VC rain bug, no registry fix (x-plane doesn't use it). Not too many people can fly into an FS dreamteam, or flytampa airport with Active Sky and Rex textures and not get a slide show. There is absolutely no reason that developers shouldn't move to X-plane.

 

For anyone that thinks 64bit isn't important, well, I'm biting my tongue right now. I'll assume you're joking since that's the only logical explanation. Haha..good one!

 

I still use FSX, and love some of the addons, but X-plane is growing and there are some nice addons for it now. And I can still use a lot of my FS addons with it by using XPUIPC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

X plane 9 runs good, but if your X plane 10 works better, are you sure your settings aren't lower and maybe antialiasing or something is turned off?

 

 

I don't use X plane for it's lack of AI traffic, non complex airliners, lack of addons (will change), performance issues, and just the general "feel" to it. It lacks a lot that FSX has... even though it's mainly addons.

 

Personally I just stick to FS9, but I use FSX in special occasions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this