As a coder to a coder: you are right of course. I still think "voting with your purse" works the other way round though. I would really like some of those flaws ironed out, instead of a completely new product where all the misery starts afresh...

 

I'm sorry, I just get agitated every time people start reciting clever marketing gigs. Like "64 is double 32, so it has to be better. It just has to!!"

 

I hope you will agree, that recompiling to 64 bit will only change the game as far as memory / OOM is concerned, right? If nothing else is done, the game will run just the same FPS as before. You will only get your OOM some time later, because the same leak will fill it up eventually. 

64bit version with compatibility for existing addons. It has taken me years to get FSX/P3D updated right across the UK. I don't fancy the thought of having to start from scratch all over again <_<

 

Impossible. All add-ons will have to be recompiled to be compliant with 64-bit.

 

 

I don't fancy the thought of having to start from scratch all over again

 

Not many people do ... but if the 64bit pay-off is worth it, they will.  FSX and P3D were already into OOMs the day of release.  Without 64bit what are 3rd party devs going to do?  The more realistic their products the more VAS they use ... they were long ago fighting for end user VAS  ... I guess they can just keep asking end user to "dial it back" but that's getting old in this day and age of 64bit.  Just as the end user (most of whom don't code) can't keep saying "the code isn't optimized" ... that's get old after a while too - especially from people that have never seen the code.

 

People will complain, moan, groan, and do the things they usually do when it comes to spending more money (the real issue) and change (the other real issue).  Some will forever stay with 32bit, but I'm pretty sure the majority will embrace change so long as they no longer OOM and they see the benefits of the change.

 

But ultimately 64bit keeps 3rd party development alive and opens many more doors for them to improve reality (beyond just visuals) ... such as much more intelligent AI both on ground, in the air, etc. ... intelligent AI means more VAS as more code is required to implement the intelligence ... just one small example out of a world of possibilities.

 

There are MANY ways to implement 64bit ...  I would guess the BGL will most likely change, DLL for sure (no way around that), etc. etc.  ... but as those changes happen so will the tools eventually.  But some things to think about on the code side:

 

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa384198(v=vs.85).aspx

 

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa384264(v=vs.85).aspx

 

Point being everything doesn't need to change when moving to 64bit ... only some things need to change.  IMHO, I'd guess P3D v2.x has many of these "preparation for 64bit" issues already implemented.  Still by NO means a trivial task ... just perhaps not as daunting ... but all too often one has to get down and dirty with the code to see what issues may surface.

 

The migration to 64bit will probably be slow, but that's ok ... we'll still have a 32bit P3D that we can run while we wait for 3rd party to catch up to 64bit.  But not doubt that 64bit will be a solid foundation for growth in the Flight Simulator market (LR/Austin was aware of this and successfully made that transition, I see no reason why LM can't do the same).

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

Speaking as a coder,: Yes, elegant solutions are desired. Efficient base code can do wonders. If the code was tight and everything worked well, then I'd think you'd be correct in staying at 32 bits.
 
But...
 
We already know the base code is not 100% flawless. 

 

So please explain what is the "base code"?  Details please.  Sorry but I don't know any software engineer that has ever claimed their code is flawless -- this is something software engineers just don't do period -- me included.

 

 

 

Exactly, That is what I'm wary of, not necessarily poor coding skills but definitely lazy coding.

 

Show me LM's or ACE's lazy coding?  As in a real code sample from P3D.

 

Sorry folks, but if you are going to continue to attack LM/ACEs as lazy coders then you better be prepared to back that up with some real code samples from P3D v2.x.  Otherwise this is just unsubstantiated jibber jabber.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

 

I'm sorry, I just get agitated every time people start reciting clever marketing gigs. Like "64 is double 32, so it has to be better. It just has to!!"

 

Not as agitated as I get when people talk about code they've never seen.

Well, I'm not convinced. Not all changes are necessarily beneficial, especially when followed blindly.

 

The only glimmer of hope that I have is that LM has practically no business interest in mass selling this product. So they will hopefully only then present a 64 bit version, when they feel it is ready (as opposed to just boosting sales). Hopefully they are not bound to much by agreements with MS about the ESP code base. They will have to massively cannibalize this if they want a remote chance of staying compatible. If they go their separate way, it will certainly be a long one - it will take the 3PD years to catch up to the same standard as they already have.

 

I'm not really sure, but isn't X-Plane actually Java - based? If true, then moving to 64 bit was no great feat after all. But I'm probably wrong about this, I can't imagine getting that kind of performance out of a JRE.

 

But I digress again from the topic. My wish for P3D V3.0: fewer bugs, no new ones. I'm getting too old for that kind of excitement.

Damn, my editor is giving me a hard time.

 

Rob, please calm down.

 

Nobody said or inplied that LM or LR are lazy or dumb coders.

 

The topic at hand was, that seemingly unlimited hardware resources may well lead to these things though (generally speaking). On the other hand, limited resources force you to be  efficient) (generally speaking).

 

Bottom line of all the jabber: there is no magic bullet signed "64 bit".

I totally agree with Nuitkati. Going to 64 bit will set us back for years. Most people don't have OOMs I think. We just don't shout about it.

Exactly, That is what I'm wary of, not necessarily poor coding skills but definitely lazy coding.

 

And true enough, it wont consume that much data - so basically 64 bit isn't needed at all, right?

But how much memory is actually needed for a software like P3D that needs to keep an eye on HD/SSD latency too, just because of the size of the data chunks? Hard to tell, right? Maybe this could be done like in the good ol days too, with a swapfile that I can move to a Ramdisk if need be....

 

 

No offense my friend, but I think you need to study up a bit more.  Are you running a 32 bit OS?  Do you only have 3GB of RAM installed?  If that is the case, it's that time..... 

 

RAM disk, not needed. If you're running that low on HD space, it's time for a bigger drive.  Or if you have enough RAM where you can afford to take some of for RAM disk usage you should have no issues whatsoever. 

 

You do realize XP10 is 64-bit. It has yet to use more than 4-5 gigs of memory on my machine. Nowadays VRAM is becoming the limiting factor as resolutions increase.

 

 

Again, 64-bit allows the possibility of using more than 3GB of memory.  It's not going to run wild like a lion with it's first gazelle in 10 years and consume every facade your machine. 

 

 

So please explain what is the "base code"?  Details please.  Sorry but I don't know any software engineer that has ever claimed their code is flawless -- this is something software engineers just don't do period -- me included.

I was replying to Nuitkati. That conversation contains the context as to why I wrote what I did. Not sure what you're trying to get at.

For me, the graphics are already good enough. We all want infinite frame rates, but I can live with what I have now.

 

How about realistic ATC right out of the box? Nothing would add more to the program as a simulation than that. Then a better standard of flight modelling in the stock planes would be great. 

Hmmm ... this is starting sound like trolling ... 

 

 

My wish for P3D V3.0: fewer bugs, no new ones. I'm getting too old for that kind of excitement

 

What does that have to do with 64bit ... or 32bit?  Bugs will exist in both regardless ... if you are having a hard time accepting bugs then any software development will be a problem for you, including the very OS/platform these simulators run on.

 

The existence of "resources" (memory) does NOT change how efficiently one codes.  However, the lack of resources can force one into bad design decisions and produce extremely difficult to maintain code with very limited flexibility and a lot of hard dependencies in order to squeeze out that last ounce of performance.  For example, rather than load this data from a file (flexibility), I'll just hard code values ... no flexibility but faster.  

 

In fact, FSX has this, it's that chunk of assembler code -- this was convert in P3D to more traditional VC++ code.  Is assembler code faster, in most cases yes, and it's usually sprinkled in with higher level language code specifically for performance reasons.  It's also VERY hard to maintain and is often NOT thread safe and can trigger a lot of other issues. You want a faster P3D, toss out all that compatibility code and remove the SDK.

 

LM could spend 2 years optimizing P3D 32bit and maybe squeeze 10% performance gain and maybe 5% less VAS usage, with a less flexible product ... OR one can spend a year making P3D 64bit, open the door for 3rd party, then spend another year going to DX12 and have a product that is both incredibly flexible, OOM free, and gains 33% performance in 2 years.

 

 

 

Going to 64 bit will set us back for years. Most people don't have OOMs I think.

 

Many people know how to avoid OOMs ... however, anyone can generate an OOM (even with just a base P3D v2.x install).  Living in the past WILL set Flight Simulation back years ... it already has.

 

If these comments are really just about performance and the lack of desire to buy hardware to meet the demands ... fair enough  ... I can understand your financial concerns over the continued hardware requirements.  But there is no need to make all this other unsubstantiated stuff up -- lazy coders, LM's business plan, etc. etc..  Wait for the hardware to get cheap and come enjoy the show when you're ready.

 

I am calm, but when someone makes sweeping generalization about "lazy coders", "inefficient code", "LM's business plan" ... you triggered a response ... did you expect otherwise from a developer?

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

 

I'm not really sure, but isn't X-Plane actually Java - based? But I'm probably wrong about this...

 

You're not wrong at all, Laminar get their coffee beans from Blue Mountain in Jamaica. They drink tons of it!

I would be all in for the new tech.  64 bit, DXnext, plus third party developers that can create products that will compel people to get a new platform would be a good thing.

The day we see bug free software is the day we have to start running from the hardware running it. It will probably be something LM made.

Gimme 64 bit.... 

P3Dv3.0, let me dream about this. I am not a software guy so I do not know technical details.

• Non flat airports
• Better rain and snow  
• Rain on windshield (I know some payware aircrafts have.). 
• Better flight dynamics (l really like flight dynamics in DCS. I like the one of MJQ400, too)
• Better AI and ATC behavior, support for SID and STAR (at least make it easier for 3rd party to develop better ones)
• No sudden change of clouds (I am using Opus, is it solved in ASN?)
• Better AA (can LM do any more about this?)
• Better sound, especially environmental sound (here again, I really like the sound in DCS too)
• Modeling of pilot and copilot (is it possible even now? Only a framerate issue?)

I guess that not many are of LM’s interest. But I am still wishing....

No offense my friend, but I think you need to study up a bit more.  Are you running a 32 bit OS?  Do you only have 3GB of RAM installed?  If that is the case, it's that time..... 

 

RAM disk, not needed. If you're running that low on HD space, it's time for a bigger drive.  Or if you have enough RAM where you can afford to take some of for RAM disk usage you should have no issues whatsoever. 

 

You do realize XP10 is 64-bit. It has yet to use more than 4-5 gigs of memory on my machine. Nowadays VRAM is becoming the limiting factor as resolutions increase.

 

 

Again, 64-bit allows the possibility of using more than 3GB of memory.  It's not going to run wild like a lion with it's first gazelle in 10 years and consume every facade your machine. 

 

Well, no, I'm not running a 32 bit OS, and I actually have 16 Gig of RAM at my disposal. Just no application to use it, except maybe Ableton. Interesting read by the way, what Ableton has to say about their 32 and 64 bit versions of the very same software.

 

I just fail to see the point in the 64 bit shouting, that's all. And I'm not trying to bash anyone either, Rob. You completely misunderstood the gist of my post. I wasn't thinking of anyone specific, or maybe a little bit about the 3rd party gents who try to make the quick buck.

 

In my experience the simple truth is, that if hardware doesn't matter, there is no immideate urge to write efficient code, especially when on an deadline or a budget. Don't try to shout at me otherwise, I have been in this business for more than 30 years now, and I think I know what I know.

 

If it really is "64 bit or bust", even at the cost of backwards compatibility, then why doesn't everyone change over to X-Plane and be done with it? Or is it that backwards compatibility and a stable and mostly unchanging platform is actually a good thing for customers and developers alike? Only the market will tell.

 

BTW, I couldn't care less if P3D goes 64bit, but only if compatibility is maintained. If it is not, then it becomes even more of a niche product. If that happens, one 3PD or other may even decide that it is no longer economically viable to build fancy addons for a selected few, on a new and unknown platform no less. New goat-addons for the goat simulator seems like a much more promising option.