Maybe a little more news on Dovetail Games's plans for FSX . . . .

[WotanUK 289]

And don't get me wrong, I would love 64 bit; I just think that you can still do great things with 32 bit, too.

 

I think that the problem is Devon we have already done 'great things' with 32-bit, we are bumping up against the limit now.  The PMDG 777 is a masterpiece, but I rarely fly it, partially because i find it quite boring, but mostly because you cannot use it with a highly modified FSX, you end up turning off pretty much everything to (hopefully) stay under the VAS limit; even then when landing i find myself nervous, not because of the weather conditions, or complexity of the approach, but because i am worried that little box will appear telling me it's out of memory.

 

For simulators 32-bit has had it's day.

[HiFlyer 9,363]

I think that the problem is Devon we have already done 'great things' with 32-bit, we are bumping up against the limit now.  The PMDG 777 is a masterpiece, but I rarely fly it, partially because i find it quite boring, but mostly because you cannot use it with a highly modified FSX, you end up turning off pretty much everything to (hopefully) stay under the VAS limit; even then when landing i find myself nervous, not because of the weather conditions, or complexity of the approach, but because i am worried that little box will appear telling me it's out of memory.

 

For simulators 32-bit has had it's day.

 

I don't really disagree for traditional sim technology. (even though I think there is room for improvement)

 

But we may be in kind of perceptual rut, where it seems there is just one way of doing things. I would ask for instance, do the huge textures and other things we are accustomed to have replacements that work other ways?

 

For example, what does a volumetric cloud system need with memory-gulping gigs of super-high resolution textures? Or a water engine using shaders rather than textures? What about a procedural engine, or one using Megatextures and or partially resident textures? (which the card companies are looking at implementing in-hardware) What about advanced GPU accelerated compression-decompression schemes?

 

Outerra, with just about everything maxed takes up about 1-1/2 gigs of memory while leaving 50% of the CPU free........ Do we know the memory requirements of a procedural world yet?  :unsure:

 

FSX, and even P3D are hardly the end point of 32bit technologies. 64bit is sexy, and preferred, but I don't think 32bit is quite the tired old nag waiting to be put out to pasture its sometimes portrayed as....... yet.

 

I would go as far as to say the problem is less P3D (for instance) than it is our penchant for piling stuff on until things break.

[WotanUK 289]

I would go as far as to say the problem is less P3D (for instance) than it is our penchant for piling stuff on until things break.

 

I don't disagree Devon, i think that the FSX engine could be more efficient with it's use of memory, using DX10 proves this point; but and this is a big 'BUT', Outerra doesn't have the complex aircraft, weather, ground services or traffic that FSX has to content with.  

 

I asked the chaps over at the X-Plane forum how much memory that sim uses, they came back with around 10Gb obviously dependant on aircraft etc...

 

In truth i am almost dreading the PMDG 747v2, i love the aircraft but if the VAS trend continues i just won't be able to use it.

 

I completely agree with you that the problem comes from the simmer "pilling stuff on", stock FSX would probably never reach the VAS limit, trouble is, nobody flies stock FSX for long, they want the more accurate aircraft, the better weather, the realistic airports.

 

I would love to have seen the Flight engine, moved to 64-bit and simulating the Globe, alas we will never see what MS could have given us.

Edited October 10, 2014 by n4gix
Deleted excessive quote.

[HiFlyer 9,363]

I would love to have seen the Flight engine, moved to 64-bit and simulating the Globe, alas we will never see what MS could have given us.

 

Maybe some company or group (with more patience than a 4 year old needing to go to the bathroom) will step in and show us, one day. 

[Heimi 91]

We are in contact with DoveTail and will publish what we have, when we have it. Their stated position to us right now is that there is no news beyond that of the initial announcement regarding the License deal. However, I can also state that we have had a number of DoveTail members join our community since the release of the license story, presumably to stay in touch and abreast of our interests and concerns. When the time is right we hope to have an in-depth interview.

 

Maybe the time has come to do an in-depth interview?

[HiFlyer 9,363]

Maybe the time has come to do an in-depth interview?

 

I would be pretty wary of speaking to the various flightsim communities if I were Dovetail. Its too easy to incite a lynch mob.  :ph34r:

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

I would be pretty wary of speaking to the various flightsim communities if I were Dovetail. Its too easy to incite a lynch mob.  :ph34r:

 

I think I am pretty safe in saying that there would not be anything new revealed beyond what was in the recent press release.

[CrownCityMisfits 58]

Maybe the time has come to do an in-depth interview?

 

Frooglesim has one coming

 

Watch his Facebook for more, I suppose.

[n4gix 4,947]

Frooglesim has one coming

 

Watch his Facebook for more, I suppose.

That would be an "out of his depth interview" then, I suspect... :blink: