There are texture compression formats available for DX11 that just aren't available for FSX, one hopes PMDG use these to help reduce their VAS footprint.

 

Thats encouraging. So devs need to make some changes and "recompress" their current textures, aircraft and scenery devs. This will be a unified effort to help out LM, so a VAS solution can work in the interim until they get around to a 64 bit p3d. 

 

 

So devs need to make some changes and "recompress" their current textures, aircraft and scenery devs.

 

It's not a trivial task - hopefully I didn't present it as such.  But there are optimization available for DX11 that aren't available for DX9.  

 

The MJC Q400 ... is a very complex aircraft similar to the 777 (in terms of feature implementation) but has a lower VAS footprint than the QW BAe146 and the 777.  Bare in mind the MJC Q400 isn't designed for P3DV2.x but they are working on a version for P3D.

 

As far as I know, there aren't any Aircraft "designed for" P3DV2.x, most are updated to "work with" P3DV2.x with the focus being FSX.

 

That reminds me, I need to see how the MJC Q400 is working on my current beta build (it wasn't work so well in 2.1 but worked well in 2.0).

 

Cheers, Rob.

Thats encouraging. So devs need to make some changes and "recompress" their current textures, aircraft and scenery devs. This will be a unified effort to help out LM, so a VAS solution can work in the interim until they get around to a 64 bit p3d. 

 

Yes, the 64-bit solution is really what is needed.  Until LM does that (and let's face it, that's a MONSTEROUS task) the VAS issue is not going away, but will result in a lot of jiggling around to 'deal with it' and STILL make everything else function as well as possible.  I got tired of bumping my head on the 32-bit ceiling, and that was what drove me back to Xplane.  I must say in honesty the XPlane demo (which runs on a timer) is a true PITA.  To really give XPlane a fair chance, it requires actually buying it, so you then have time to play around with everything and get ready to fly it.  Even with its warts and blisters, XP runs great in 64 bits, and now the developers have by and large embraced 64 bits as the defacto standard.  So much so the 777 in XPlane is now only releasing in 64-bits (when it first came out it could run 32 or 64).  Laminar showed foresight and courage by facing up to 64 bits and 'making it happen'.  The good news for Laminar is the really god-awful hard part (64-bits) is over, so now the 3rd party devs can build their products with 64-bits and all that headroom in mind.  Then, the OTHER shoe drops, at Laminar, which is that VRAM (on the VIDEO CARD) becomes the issue.  I have video cards with 4GB and 6GB of VRAM just for graphics!  I remember when that was considered a TON of memory for the entire COMPUTER.

 

Much like FSX, XPlane requires building up your sim, with better airplanes / airport /scenery / and payware FMC.  The built-in FMC for XPlane, politely, is not the best.  The aftermarket offering is light years better.  Same with the airplanes.  There is a WEALTH of free stuff out there for xPlane as well.  For the Jet crowd the payware 777 is worth buying, not quite PMDG, but the closest thing I've found.

 

The chief difference though, in XPlane vs. FSX/3PD is scalability.  When you want to spread the view across 3 monitors - and 3 (or more pcs), this is EASILY done in XPlane, and it LOOKS right (not distorted).  Trying to spread the view across 3 monitors and use only 1 PC and video card?  That's simply never going to be as viable, because the video card has to work 3x harder all at the same moment, rendering three different angles of view 30 or more times PER SECOND.  Can it be done?  Yes.  Are the frame rates great when you do that?  Not so much.  So many FSX/3PD pilots are 'stuck' with single monitor view.  That's not 'bad' but what a difference it makes to be able to see around the corners on taxi or turning on visual approaches.

 

It's incredible that people like Rob go to the trouble and bother to SHARE THEIR HARD WORK with all of us.  When I flew FSX, I spent hours and hours trying to make the perfect cake (get things in perfect balance).  The OOM/VAS problem is so severe that it has created a cottage industry.  That is in the final analysis what shoved me permanently over to the dark side.  I was STUNNED to learn that Darth Vader was my uncle!

This thread is for discussion of Prepar3D 2.2, not for showing off X-Plane. If I want to know more about X-Plane I'll go to that sub-forum rather than having walls text touting superiority here.

Yes, the 64-bit solution is really what is needed.  Until LM does that (and let's face it, that's a MONSTEROUS task) the VAS issue is not going away, but will result in a lot of jiggling around to 'deal with it' and STILL make everything else function as well as possible.

Errrrrrrrrrr. Wrong answer old McDonald. The Xmen have their Xplane forum to forward their agenda.

Edited March 28, 201412 yr by RWFeldman
Removed the excessive quote, again!

@OP: Thanks Rob for your analysis, I found it most interesting and informative. When 2.2 is released I may very well dip my toes back in the P3D2 water!

 

 

 

 

This thread is for discussion of Prepar3D 2.2, not for showing off X-Plane. If I want to know more about X-Plane I'll go to that sub-forum rather than having walls text touting superiority here.

 

 

Errrrrrrrrrr. Wrong answer old McDonald. The Xmen have their Xplane forum to forward their agenda.

 

Nice to see such an open minded, welcoming and friendly atmosphere among flight simmers!

 

<_<

... sigh ...

 

 

I remember when that was considered a TON of memory for the entire COMPUTER.

 

My first PC was equipped w/ a 33Mhz CPU, and 8 megabytes of ram, the hard drive was huge, 120mb, and the bloody CD ROM drive cost $400 ;o)

 

Yeah, I'm surprised LM doesn't have a more compelling demo.  The PITA version was enough to steer me off the taxiway w/in about 30 min and jump back in the RA Turbine Duke in P3DV2.1.

 

As for 3 screens and the considerable cost to make that happen, who knows perhaps Oculus will help in that environment.  On the P3D forum Saul argues it's nigh impossible to cope w/ VR and external controllers, and I would argue that is not true, unless you have the full-blown home cockpit.  For my Cessna yoke/trim/throttle & mouse, I don't look at this parts when I use them currently--I use them by feel and for sure this is how they are designed to work in the RW.  So w/ hand on mouse I would be clicking on click-spots in the Oculus VC view just as I do on a flat screen now.   It would be nice to see them add a small video camera so that the other world, the real one, could be visualized as needed.  

 

I dare say, having a curved wide angle view, I'm assuming that is what Oculus employs but I don't really know, would be visually superior to 3+ flat screens, and would demand much less GPU processing strength to power.   Throw in 3D stereo and ouch, it may be even more difficult to pull myself away!   We'll see, pardon the pun ;o)

 

The real rub is the wrench-turning.  Since getting XPX up and running, I spend virtually no time under the hood, although I do play with the anti-aliasing from time to time just to see what effect it has on frames.  In XPX, the high-definition rendering (HDR) combined with high anti-aliasing runs butter smooth, but can take a hit when heavy clouds are present.

 

Robert, there is very little wrench turning once you've figured out what the turns will do.  I would bet the farm once you fully understand the implications the fiddling diminishes to the same level you find yourself doing.  Moreover, your comment betrays the other reality and that is that it is a simple matter to introduce scalability such that whatever hardware you're running you'll find you have to 'play with whatever' to make it work for your environment.  Right now, and in the foreseeable future, P3DV2 offers way more to the average user than XP64 does.  Rob's acid test of running veggie/autogen sliders at very dense is just another case of adding stress that is possible to add, but has to be respected, as w/ your comment re AA in clouds.  With the vast array of incredible scenery for P3DV2, the impressive optimizations already employed to address the VAS ceiling, I think it will be some time before XP64 catches up.  Take a quick look at these pics, done in FSX, but doable in P3D 2.1, let alone 2.2:

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/437720-more-and-more-and-more-shots-of-northern-california/#entry2950569

 

Sure, everyone by now fully understands the issue w/ restricted address space.  We hope LM implements 64-bit at some point, and by then it could be that XP64 will have improved in some of the basic deficiencies it has currently has, and they are substantial.  Also, I am not interested in researching freeware solutions to basics, like airport buildings, ATC, etc.  In reality, address space is just one hurdle.  Frame performance & visuals matter greatly, and even w/o 2.2 released yet, the exceedingly lovely flight I just took out of FB's KSFO > KPDX in FTX Global scenery w/ 3D light blazing, and NO WHERE NEAR an OOM at touchdown.  And this is 2.1, not 2.2.  My sense is the frame rate performance limits w/ a high level of detail, after 2.2, will be quite 'matched' to the limits of the 32-bit address space, modern hardware can manage.  This give LM & their 3PD supporters, time to tool up for 64bit, DX11 optimized add ons, and so forth.

Nice to see such an open minded, welcoming and friendly atmosphere among flight simmers!

 

I'll have to agree with them. X-Plane users advertising X-Plane in the FSX and Prepar3D forums is a very common phenomenon, and I'm getting sick of it. Yes, I know X-Plane has many advantages over ESP-based platforms, but I've tried it and I know it's not for me at the stage it is right now.

 

Besides, I come to this thread to read info about Prepar3D 2.2, not see another X-Plane advertisement.

 Robert has tried most if not all of the flight sim platforms so he speaks from experience.  He is not advertising, but is drawing from all of his experience and even compliments P3D multiple times.  I think people are hypersensitive and need to get over it.  If we want this hobby to continue to improve, then we need to step away from the childish finger pointing and just enjoy it.  

 Robert has tried most if not all of the flight sim platforms so he speaks from experience.  He is not advertising, but is drawing from all of his experience and even compliments P3D multiple times.  I think people are hypersensitive and need to get over it.  If we want this hobby to continue to improve, then we need to step away from the childish finger pointing and just enjoy it.  

 

It's not enjoyable to come in a FSX/P3D thread and see "X-Plane is the best", "X-Plane is the solution", "X-Plane is the future", "X-Plane does that a lot better", because that happens a lot. All of us are completely aware of where X-Plane is better and where it is worse, and we pick the platform that fulfils most of our needs. If X-Plane could fulfil everybody's needs, don't you think it would be the most popular platform? And also, the opposite (FSX/P3D advertising) doesn't happen in the X-Plane forum.

 

I know that the only simulator other than FSX that would provide me with all I want is Prepar3D, so I come in here to see progress and information on the 2.2 update. If someone has an experience with X-Plane, it shall go to the X-Plane forum.

Robert has tried most if not all of the flight sim platforms so he speaks from experience.

 

Indeed, it works best for Robert and his needs, his pocketbook, and so forth.  May XP 64 continue to evolve in a direction that users will enjoy.  I hope, quite frankly, it truly takes off in terms of ORBX & PMDG development.  I'll look again then and see.  I know the PITA demo did not perform very well, looked way inferior to those screenshots you see in the link posted above, etc.

 

 

 I think people are hypersensitive and need to get over it.

 

You too, hypersensitive to the responses of others ;o)

 

Robert, IMHO, is indeed a very experienced simmer and his comments are spot on IMHO in terms of accuracy where he has had the requisite experience needed.  That being said, he's also very skilled at promoting his agenda (call it the Gospel of 64-bit), while at the same time taking exquisite care to give due credit to the unfortunate souls still stuck under the glass ceiling of the 32-bit address space, TIC intended.  That's nice, but as mentioned in my prior post above, it's just another opinion coming out of his unique needs, budget, the current state of the game, and a healthy dose of speculation about the real future of XP64.

OMG I am so excited to hear about the wall of OOM being pushed a lot further.

Indeed, it works best for Robert and his needs, his pocketbook, and so forth.  May XP 64 continue to evolve in a direction that users will enjoy.  I hope, quite frankly, it truly takes off in terms of ORBX & PMDG development.  I'll look again then and see.  I know the PITA demo did not perform very well, looked way inferior to those screenshots you see in the link posted above, etc.

 

 

 

You too, hypersensitive to the responses of others ;o)

 

Robert, IMHO, is indeed a very experienced simmer and his comments are spot on IMHO in terms of accuracy where he has had the requisite experience needed.  That being said, he's also very skilled at promoting his agenda (call it the Gospel of 64-bit), while at the same time taking exquisite care to give due credit to the unfortunate souls still stuck under the glass ceiling of the 32-bit address space, TIC intended.  That's nice, but as mentioned in my prior post above, it's just another opinion coming out of his unique needs, budget, the current state of the game, and a healthy dose of speculation about the real future of XP64.

 

 

 

 

 

People are quick to forget that there are individuals such as myself that use multiple sims, and thus my contributions are not bashing either one, but I seek to advance the hobby rather than attempting to shoot down meaningful contributions by others just because they mentioned another sim... gasp! The whole reason why I follow Rob's posts are because he does excellent testing and because I am watching the progress of P3D hoping in fact that the VAS management issues are resolved.

 

The conversation will always naturally gravitate to all options.  If I am talking to a friend about my favorite sports team, how arrogant and ridiculous would I look and sound if I told him "You cannot try to tell me how good the pitcher is on the other team!  I shall not have it! We only discuss my team!"  I would be labeled a moron.  I talk about multiple sports teams because it is my passion and hobby, and I enjoy it.  So goes ANY hobby or passion, 

 

Rob, apologies for the sidetrack, I will sit back and continue to enjoy your posts.

 

-Phil