OOMs are gone in version 2.2. I am a developer. There are samples of some code I wrote in this forum. 64 bit? Try 64 processors.

64 = 32 * 2.   Not magic.

 

Well, that's the beauty of digital processing.

64 is so much more than 32 * 2.

32 * 2 equals 33

 

 

32 * 2 equals 33

  I needed.  I'm in a strange cranky / loopy mood. 

I can count up to 1048576 with my socks off.

 

 

OOMs are gone in version 2.2.

 

No, they can still happen and do happen especially if you have 4K monitors and/or multiple monitors and loaded with Add-ons.  

 

 

Try 64 processors.

 

This has nothing to do with memory address space.

 

 

Today, in 2014, we don't have Graphics Hardware that is truly capable of doing anything special with 64bit memory space.

.

 

This doesn't many any sense ... you appear to be missing a rather fundamental part of what a GPU does and how it interacts with application data via DX11.

 

Cheers, Rob.

You can only put so much into 32 bits. If you try to put more than that into it, then you OOM.

 

It's like being told that you only have a calculator with 2 digits.

 

0+0=00

1+1=02
10+10=20
50+49=99

99+1=not 00 = Error.

 

where P3D does better is it is able to successfully remove things that are no longer being used.

Took off from dense scenery at New York but are now an hour out over the Atlantic Ocean? FSX still 'remembers' New York, the scenery engine still is thinking about where New York is relative to you, and which areas had different textures and locations.

 

P3D is able to 'flush out' irrelevant information more efficiently than FSX seems to.

 

For a comparison, I'll point toward this article, which compares memory addressing space to physical land size area:

 

http://cnx.org/content/m13082/latest/

 

It compares a 16bit program to a post-it note, 32bit to a tennis court, and 64bit to western Europe. This is due to the exponential nature of the numbering.

....your mouth isn't getting any bigger, and you're gonna choke on it if you don't learn how to get it down...

 

Now that Like/Dislike/Agree/Disagree is gone, I think we better add G/PG/R/X ratings.

Somebody get Tom on the phone, quick! :>}

 

Mark

You can only put so much into 32 bits. If you try to put more than that into it, then you OOM.

 

It's like being told that you only have a calculator with 2 digits.

 

0+0=00

1+1=02

10+10=20

50+49=99

99+1=not 00 = Error.

 

where P3D does better is it is able to successfully remove things that are no longer being used.

Took off from dense scenery at New York but are now an hour out over the Atlantic Ocean? FSX still 'remembers' New York, the scenery engine still is thinking about where New York is relative to you, and which areas had different textures and locations.

 

P3D is able to 'flush out' irrelevant information more efficiently than FSX seems to.

 

For a comparison, I'll point toward this article, which compares memory addressing space to physical land size area:

 

http://cnx.org/content/m13082/latest/

 

It compares a 16bit program to a post-it note, 32bit to a tennis court, and 64bit to western Europe. This is due to the exponential nature of the numbering.

Ahhhhhh, so P3D flushed out memory whereby fsx did not....ok.

You can only put so much into 32 bits. If you try to put more than that into it, then you OOM.

 

It's like being told that you only have a calculator with 2 digits.

 

0+0=00

1+1=02

10+10=20

50+49=99

99+1=not 00 = Error.

 

where P3D does better is it is able to successfully remove things that are no longer being used.

Took off from dense scenery at New York but are now an hour out over the Atlantic Ocean? FSX still 'remembers' New York, the scenery engine still is thinking about where New York is relative to you, and which areas had different textures and locations.

 

P3D is able to 'flush out' irrelevant information more efficiently than FSX seems to.

 

For a comparison, I'll point toward this article, which compares memory addressing space to physical land size area:

 

http://cnx.org/content/m13082/latest/

 

It compares a 16bit program to a post-it note, 32bit to a tennis court, and 64bit to western Europe. This is due to the exponential nature of the numbering.

Ahhhhhh, so P3D flushed out memory whereby fsx did not....ok.

Ahhhhhh, so P3D flushed out memory whereby fsx did not....ok.

 

Ahhhhhh, so P3D flushed out memory whereby fsx did not....ok.

 P3D does 2 things

1. uses memory more efficiently. - basically can do more stuff with less memory
2. it is able to flush out memory to be re-used for other purposes better than FSX could. FSX *Does* flush out memory, but doesn't do it as well as P3D does. (and also actually uses memory on scenery that isn't even in use. especially with photographic photoreal scenery, which FSX loads even if it's on the other side of the world, because it has to keep track of where every tile of scenery is on earth, not just inside the horizon, or even same continent!)

So from using less memory in the first place, and being better at re-using the memory, instead of keeping it locked up on things that it need not keep, P3D utilizes the 32 bit addressing space it has better than FSX does.

 

That's fine, till all of it needs to be used.

 

64bit would exponentially increase the space available, so instead of "clearing out just enough to be ok", it'd have thousands of times more room to do stuff with.

 

But P3D without PMDG 777's flying around it is good enough not to see many OOM's for the time being.

 

once PMDG 777 for P3D comes out and people start flying it into Orbx YBBN and similar things... well we'll see.

Mitch, you aren't taking into account all the nice new features that could be done that weren't done because it's a 32bit platform.

 

LM have worked miracles and continue to work more miracles with the 32bit address space but you also need to consider the LOD Radius is capped at 6.5 in P3D ... compare this with FSX where I managed to hit LOD 15 once 10 seconds before I hit OOM.  The 6.5 LOD limitation is most notable in mountain regions ... but if LM allowed us to increase LOD levels beyond 6.5 we would most certainly be back in the land of OOM.  This is were 64bit is really needed.

 

But all in good time, I'm pretty confident LM will eventually get to 64bit.  What they are doing now, is getting us a nice stable (well performing) 32bit platform which I hope gives them the time they need to bring out a 64bit platform in the future ... keeping in mind that there would still be TWO viable platforms so the migration can be a slow and gradual one allowing for 3rd party content to catch up.

 

64bit would really open up the door for many 3rd party content providers (from airport services to you name it).

 

I enjoy your enthusiasm, but don't get too carried away

 

Cheers, Rob.

Actually Rob...I'm all for 64 bits...but I know that the main push in the FSX forum in that discussion was because so many simply could not run the sim the way they wanted to...with the add on's...and the VAS limit.  I'm just happy to see P3D chug along until we become free of the VAS limit....   At 2 1/2 hours...man that was a record for me....

Seems to me that going to 64 bits will introduce another limit: your installed RAM. Right now developers have to work hard in order to keep VAS usage down. When there is no limit anymore (right now I would call 18,446,744,073 GB almost limitless) developers may forget about optimizing stuff and we may run into problems because we don't have enough RAM installed... It will take a few years before you can plug 18,446,744,073 GB of RAM in a PC... And another problem obviously would be that things would get too heavy for our systems: all those GB's of data will have to be processed by the CPU and GPU. What do you think that adding all possible add ons to the sim will do to performance? I hope I am wrong... (which could well be because I am no expert in all this).

 

All in all I am quite happy right now with how well P3D 32 bits performs and I wonder if going to 64 bits is going to be the holy grail or simply one step forward and two steps back because of new problems we will encounter.

Seems to me that going to 64 bits will introduce another limit: your installed RAM. Right now developers have to work hard in order to keep VAS usage down. When there is no limit anymore (right now I would call 18,446,744,073 GB almost limitless) developers may forget about optimizing stuff and we may run into problems because we don't have enough RAM installed... It will take a few years before you can plug 18,446,744,073 GB of RAM in a PC... And another problem obviously would be that things would get too heavy for our systems: all those GB's of data will have to be processed by the CPU and GPU. What do you think that adding all possible add ons to the sim will do to performance? I hope I am wrong... (which could well be because I am no expert in all this).

 

All in all I am quite happy right now with how well P3D 32 bits performs and I wonder if going to 64 bits is going to be the holy grail or simply one step forward and two steps back because of new problems we will encounter.

 

The 18 exabytes of memory also includes available disk space.  Right now, most new gaming computers have about 8-16Gb which means that 32 bit game can reside entirely in memory.  Once they become 64-bit then the OS can shuffle what's in memory off to disk to make more RAM available.  Yes, bloat will happen.  It happened when OS's went from 16-bit to 32-bit.  But, there are games out there now that are 64-bit and they haven't gone crazy with bloat so I don't see much reason why P3D would.  It's not a magic bullet but it would make people able to load up an area with tons of scenery with a complex airplane and not worry about OOMs...though their hard drives would probably bog their systems down.

 

Gregg

Seems to me that going to 64 bits will introduce another limit: your installed RAM. Right now developers have to work hard in order to keep VAS usage down. When there is no limit anymore (right now I would call 18,446,744,073 GB almost limitless) developers may forget about optimizing stuff and we may run into problems because we don't have enough RAM installed... 

 

Well... in 1980s Bill Gates stated that 640kB of RAM limit in DOS should be enough for everyone  ^_^  Is it?  ^_^

 

Developers will always have to keep in mind to optimize their software for average available hardware at that time. So THIS is the limit that they would never brake. Not the "almost infinite" RAM. Free market will discipline them - if they would be too lazy - nobody would buy their 5FPS products.  ^_^

Well Microsoft say the User-mode virtual address space for each 64-bit process is 8TB, and 8TB is (I believe) 8,796,093,022,208 bytes or 8,192 GB ... so not quite so limitless...but effectively so :-)

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/windows/desktop/aa366778(v=vs.85).aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_7

 

On the other hand I had a lot more OOMs in 64-bit X-plane in 2 weeks of use than I have had in P3Dv2 since the day of its release.

So for sure, my 8GB PC works best with 32-bit P3D.

 

Cheers

Keith

How about writing 64bit modules wich willl interact trough simconnet with 32bit P3D?. Something like Majestic does allready (not 64bit, I know). Seems to work extremely well. For me at least. Its a cool way to overcome some of the limits. The module itself could address as much memoray as it needed. Maybe PMDG could as well "outscource" demanding things like FM or systems and just leave the eyecandy to be processed by the sim.

 

My experience with "another" sim is, that even with 64bit you will have to optimize the code as well or even better. With more memory you can load more things, but also have to compute and draw it. And that is right now the real bottelneck with my system even though a 64bit plattform.