Honestly, I'm with JSkorna. I am running FSX on Win 8.1 in DX10 and have never had an issue. If SE works for some people...awesome. I have no reason to find out if its any better, like I said...my FSX works fine. What I am wondering is, if these changes were made...

 

* Fix to particle emitter controllers which were not being updated properly.
* Fix to flush all levels of detail in terrain cache.
* Fix to Texture Composition preventing fail and crash.

 

...what files were modified? Will it be possible to replicate such "fixes" outside of SE in a standard FSX install, or is this truely modified source code? What if I have an install of both and can identify which files are effected by the "fixes" and copy and paste them into my FSX install and reap the "benifits" (or placebo...which ever you prefer)?

 

Like I said....I run with no issues....but this topic has had me "curious" since the whole thing was released.

 

~Justin

...what files were modified? Will it be possible to replicate such "fixes" outside of SE in a standard FSX install, or is this truely modified source code? What if I have an install of both and can identify which files are effected by the "fixes" and copy and paste them into my FSX install and reap the "benifits" (or placebo...which ever you prefer)?

 

 

~Justin

Valid question. Someone else posted a question like this the other day here about merging the new files with an existing FSX install to reap the same benefits.

 

I would be interested to know as well what the files are that have been recompiled or modified to enhance performance and see if they could be dropped into FSX:SE to gain the same improvements.

It is entirely possible that by purely recompiling with the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag, that they can grant FSX access to more memory on 64bit OSs, even though the code is still 32bit which would vastly reduce OoM errors.  Typically this can grant an increase from the default 2gb to 4gb, and in itself would be a worthwhile change - and if they haven't done so already, I'd be very surprised if it didn't follow as an early update.

 

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/bb613473(v=vs.85).aspx states:

On 64-bit editions of Windows, 32-bit applications marked with the IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWAREflag have 4 GB of address space available.

 

A similar technique has been used (by reverse engineering/3rd party patches) to patch games such as Fallout 3 which also suffer out of memory issues from large collections of add ons, and has worked very effectively there to improve stability with large amounts of add ons loaded.

 

 

 

Since it is Christmas Eve, and I assume some slack will be cut to meandering posts of old flight simmers, listening to songs from 30 years ago, and getting depressed about where youth went and how I should have asked that dorky girl who had big boobs to homecoming, and all the rest

 

I see Rise of Flight and Digital Combat Sim, and I think that the world has left FSX and it's revenenants behind.  The time has come. FSX is slowly fading away in the distance.   I love it, but it is getting to the point of being fond nostalgia now.

 

 

I see Rise of Flight and Digital Combat Sim, and I think that the world has left FSX and it's revenenants behind.  The time has come. FSX is slowly fading away in the distance.   I love it, but it is getting to the point of being fond nostalgia now.

 

Considering that people are still using FS9, FSX is probably going to take eons to be totally out of use.  :smile:

 

 

It is entirely possible that by purely recompiling with the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag, that they can grant FSX access to more memory on 64bit OSs, even though the code is still 32bit which would vastly reduce OoM errors.

 

 FSX has been /LARGEADDRESSAWARE since SP2 was released.

 

 

I see Rise of Flight and Digital Combat Sim, and I think that the world has left FSX and it's revenenants behind.

 

 

That's fine if combat sims are your thing.

Well, it's clearly smoother.

 

I'll be switching once all my addons work seamlessly with it, for 4.99 it's a no-brainer. Plus it might even get updates, thing we didn't have since 2006.

...what files were modified? Will it be possible to replicate such "fixes" outside of SE in a standard FSX install, or is this truely modified source code? What if I have an install of both and can identify which files are effected by the "fixes" and copy and paste them into my FSX install and reap the "benifits" (or placebo...which ever you prefer)?

 

ALL of the files are different. They have all been recompiled with the 2013 version of the compiler.  Apart from the "fixes", the main benefit of this is modern optimised code, with optimisations suiting the newer Intel processor architectures. I've been inside the code (I need to to fit many of FSUIPC's hooks), and a lot of it is quite different.

 

Microsoft's compilers have always produced more efficient code as they have been developed in line with PC development and as the programmers become more expert in working the optimisation techniques -- it gets mind-blowingly complex with pipe-lining and many alternative ways of doing the same things. I was originally a machine / assembly code programmer, and even with all my experience, dating back over 50 years, there's no way I could code assembly code to a more efficient level than these compilers -- and they get better year on year.

 

Happy Christmas!

 

Pete

.

 

Well, it's clearly smoother.

 

I'll be switching once all my addons work seamlessly with it, for 4.99 it's a no-brainer. Plus it might even get updates, thing we didn't have since 2006.

 

Agreed, it is so obviously smoother... 

Smoother here also with no fiddling.

There are two or three folks in this hobby..... when they speak, I listen. Mr. Dowson is one of them. The mad Michigander is not.

 

Merry Christmas to all.

 

 

The mad Michigander is not.

 

LOL, the mad Michigander has more believers than you would predict!!

ALL of the files are different. They have all been recompiled with the 2013 version of the compiler. Apart from the "fixes", the main benefit of this is modern optimised code, with optimisations suiting the newer Intel processor architectures. I've been inside the code (I need to to fit many of FSUIPC's hooks), and a lot of it is quite different.

 

Microsoft's compilers have always produced more efficient code as they have been developed in line with PC development and as the programmers become more expert in working the optimisation techniques -- it gets mind-blowingly complex with pipe-lining and many alternative ways of doing the same things. I was originally a machine / assembly code programmer, and even with all my experience, dating back over 50 years, there's no way I could code assembly code to a more efficient level than these compilers -- and they get better year on year.

 

Happy Christmas!

 

Pete

.

Thank you for this info. I'm sold and hope my GNS units work with a full clean install.

 

JOSE

People who didn't want to like it aren't going to be swayed any time soon. That is just the way it is. They will see what they want to see.  

 

People who wanted to love P3D v2 saw it as perfect when it came out even though it was riddled with ridiculous bugs. Now people who hate Dovetail will see all the faults of the SE. I just wish they wouldn't always jump in unless they have a specific bug to point out or complaint to make. At $4.99 no one can complain that they were ripped off!

I dont see anything in the article that indicates that it doesn't substantially reduce OOM's. In fact, look at the 2nd comment in the article. I failed at creating a OOM in FSX SE and I think you would be hard pressed to find a user who has.

I think one would be hard pressed to get an OOM with a 'virgin' FSX install with little or no addons too. Same goes with FSX-SE. In fact, FSX will run amazingly fast with default settings and textures. You throw in optimized textures, like GEX, and FSX runs even faster and smooother. When you add commercial airports and scenery with a lot of eye-candy, then I think you'll start seeing a whole lot more usage of the small amount of VAS that is allowed for 32 bit applications and stuttering and some blurries. I seem to remember we all thought P3D was great too until we started porting over the commercial eye-candy stuff (scenery and aircraft).

 

Best regards,