Prepar3D x64 Confirmed! (Sort of)

[tyf 2]

64-bit is actually harder to debug.

 

Can you elaborate? What makes a 64 bit application harder to debug?

[Slayer 190]

The only thing 64 bit is going to fix is OOM  - 64 bit code for the most part runs a few % slower. If they can manage to offload more off the main CPU thread so that the program isn't just limited by single thread performance that would be nice.

 

I've often wondered why if some devs like Majestic can make their flight model run external to the sim then why can't LM peel that part of their code out and make it run in a separate thread, same for traffic and for gauges /displays  - Those are the biggest performance killers IMO.

[FlavioSSA 44]

Agree Slayer!

Something like UT2 do, manage it in another SO process. Or even a service. Some developers already do it, why the simulator itself can´t? The only answer to this, i think, is a huge re-work of the code witch they don´t want to face. And yes, 64bits will only fix OOM, that´s why i asked what is the OOM statistic for P3D.

[dgraham1284 92]

If 3rd party developers want to stay in business, I suspect they well start creating their products in 64-bit. That's my .02

[HighTowers 1,434]

Devin hit the nail on the head.  No need to fear compatibility.  The 32 bit will always be around as well as the addons. 

But to progress and innovate, things will break. When things break it leads to bigger and better things. 

We've been stuck at this foundation for a while now since FSX. Its now coming up on 2015. Its time for a change. 

If its feasible, then by all means bring it on!

[tf51d 284]

 

 

Providing a 64-bit .exe isn't *that* hard. Doing it without breaking 90% of all add-ons is a different story.

 

Actually that's not true in the case of P3D. P3d which contains FSX legacy code from decades ago, that can't simply be converted, as it is in lower level languages like assembler. This code needs to be located, stripped out and rewritten in a higher level language, without breaking any other part of the sim. This takes time and a lot of testing, to make sure nothing was missed. X-Plane 10 was able to convert more easily, because it's code was already written in higher level languages like C C++, which are much easier to convert.

[tyf 2]

64 bit code for the most part runs a few % slower. If they can manage to offload more off the main CPU thread so that the program isn't just limited by single thread performance that would be nice.

 

No it really doesn't does it? If you recompile something for 64 bit an run it on a 64 bit windows you will actually see a 5-15% increase in performance AFAIK.

 

But it is not that easy to just recompile such a software. They will need to clean up data type incompatibility and such.

 

But the OOM issues are actually a big deal and it is worth porting the platform to 64 bit. It will be vital for the platform to survive.

[Manny 1,293]

The only thing 64 bit is going to fix is OOM

 

Hmmm... Really? 

 

Let me use my imagination. Yes OOM would  be rare for the level of addons we now have.

 

But, Add on vendors would now add lots more details and autogens and buildings and moving trees and maybe even animated moving grass by the side of runways.... and shiny other objects... making it the 64 bit addons developed specifically for the new 64 bit sim even more gorgeous (assuming new faster chips to and video cards along with this).

 

Of course the dreaded OOM maybe back again in another 10-15 years,,, (or in 4 years).

 

In the mean time,,, its all good!

 

Go 64bit... forget about the 8bit naysayers I says.

[ETOPS3_TTV 35]

I agree lets move forward... I am just happy someone like "LM" is working on making our simulator experience better. Bring on the new year  

[CordoganAir 55]

I'm not a software expert but it appears to me as if LM is taking a systematic approach to weeding out the old junk buried deep in ESP and step by step bringing it on par. In my opinion we are sort of beta testers for them as they develop this to an unprecedented level of realism for commercial applications. Our academic and pro licenses keep the the studio in the black while they develop it to a level marketable to serious commercial end users. One of my hockey buddies is a SWA driver and came over and I showed him v2.4 w accusim 172 and he was thoroughly impressed with the visual immersiveness and the flight dynamics (he owns a 172 so that's saying something). He said the commercial sims they use at SWA are obviously better on the hardware side with the hydraulic motion and the full cockpit but that the visuals and immersion come nowhere close to V2.4 and that if they coupled the visuals of P3D w the motion based sim that they would really have something. We are the toughest critics on the visual and performance side because real world pilots are just in there for training and don't care as much but this is a win win LM gets a marketable commercial level sim and we get what we've always wanted in he process. Love it!

[Guest]

 

 

Actually that's not true in the case of P3D. P3d which contains FSX legacy code from decades ago, that can't simply be converted, as it is in lower level languages like assembler.

 

That code was removed some time ago by LM.

 

Cheers, Rob.

[Slayer 190]

No it really doesn't does it? If you recompile something for 64 bit an run it on a 64 bit windows you will actually see a 5-15% increase in performance AFAIK.

 

But it is not that easy to just recompile such a software. They will need to clean up data type incompatibility and such.

 

But the OOM issues are actually a big deal and it is worth porting the platform to 64 bit. It will be vital for the platform to survive.

 

My bad you are correct 64 bit is faster. I meant to say that 32 bit was slower but somewhere between brain and hands I typed it wrong

[Guest]

 

 

Of course the dreaded OOM maybe back again in another 10-15 years,,, (or in 4 years).

 

Highly unlikely even with a significant memory leak and/or lack of deallocation -- any memory leak large enough to consume that much RAM during a flight would be pretty easy to spot during alpha testing.  It will however require one's system have a min 16GB RAM to get the best leverage -- fortunately RAM is VERY cheap these days.

 

Cheers, Rob.

[FlyIce 354]

Paul, good analysis. I thought the same that we're the beta tester for LM but it's a win-win situation and everyone is happy.

 

The visuals in P3D are getting very very good, I have to say and it's really impressive flying in P3D environment. Of course there are rooms to improve but I'm constantly amazed that we have come such long way from FSX to P3D.

 

I'd say performance and OOM are the top issues to be improved. After that, I can fly P3D as it is for the next ten years (4K @ 90fps, please)

[WarpD 824]

Saul IS a part of the Prepar3D staff. He is their forum moderator which is stated in his signature, I will quote his post below:

 

 

 

I would think that if he posted something out of line or false about the product for which the forum he moderates serves, he would not be in that position anymore.

Saul is actually just another customer that was selected to be a moderator of their forums. To my knowledge he is not nor has he been an employee of Lockheed-Martin.

Highly unlikely even with a significant memory leak and/or lack of deallocation -- any memory leak large enough to consume that much RAM during a flight would be pretty easy to spot during alpha testing.  It will however require one's system have a min 16GB RAM to get the best leverage -- fortunately RAM is VERY cheap these days.

 

Cheers, Rob.

I've already seen a post in the X-Plane forum here that someone got an OOM in the 64-bit version of X-Plane... so... :wink: