PMDG and X-Plane Development

[captain420 3,099]

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. 

[pcubine 143]

One click on the post button is enough.

 

Michael Cubine

[Tushka 0]

PMDG work much better on FS platform! Good day!

[mwilk 1,106]

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.

[johnsturm 22]

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

[dmbusmc 46]

Seriously? After 10 clicks?

[kevinh 409]

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

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wolke85 150]

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.

[captain420 3,099]

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.

[kevinh 409]

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.

[MattNischan 3,778]

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

[kevinh 409]

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.

[uragano 1]

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 !!!!

[Tushka 0]

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.

[mwilk 1,106]

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.