Hi guys,

 

Just found this post on the Orbx forums from their CEO John Venema; given the fact that we already know that Orbx have worked quite closely with LM throughout the P3Dv2 development I have no reason to doubt the accuracy or legitimacy of Johns statement...however much I wish it wasn't the case!

 

http://www.orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/94698-love-the-new-hd-trees-but/page-2

 

Quote:

"Despite the constant rumours around various forums, LM have absolutely no plans to go to 64-bit because it will effectively kill all third party compatibility not to mention create a huge retooling workload for their own internal scenery and file assets. 

Their approach is to constantly improve the efficiency of the 32-bit engine to use less and less resources, which allows them to add new features within the 4GB VAS limit. We are seeing proof of this work in the recent 2.x releases.
In any case, if a 64-bit sim platform emerges it would need to come with significant porting tools for Orbx to move our IP across to it and support it. Whoever makes a 64-bit sim would also need to have a lot of experience with the FSX core structure so they can write the tools needed to port third party content. 
No new sim will survive without third party content - MS Flight is the classic example of that."

wow.

This is shocking news. Thought it was pretty certain.....Still keeping hope! lol

 

I am curious as too why then PMDG was saying that they needed to work on things so that when P3D goes 64 bit they would be ready to make the jump....lol I guess it didn't sound 'official'

 

From PMDG Jan 8th 2015

"It is anticipated that P3D will be offered in an x64 variation at some point in the future.  PMDG will be monitoring development of the x64 version of P3D in order to manage the process by which we begin offering x64 compatible versions of our products for P3D users.

 

Based on our knowledge of the process at this time, we anticipate that x64 upgrades will be made available to licensed users of PMDG products at no cost.  This information is subject to change pending the development, testing and release of an x64 version of P3D."

 

I guess the words chosen where carefully placed in case there is no 64 bit lol

I am sure that John Venema knows more than I do but on this i think he is incorrect.  LM will have to move to 64-bit, there business customers will demand it, you can only make so many efficiency savings; as he correctly says "No sim will survive without 3rd party content", well it's that very same 3rd party content that causes OOM errors, i imagine that you can fly around in vanilla P3D without any memory issues, but (ironically enough) add in ORBX scenery along with complex airports and aircraft and bang, you are lucky it get 2 hrs of flight. 

The real question is, are the commercial customers of P3D using the detailed scenery that helps to bring about the OOM's. My guess is they're more interested in aircraft fidelity than they are with out of the windshield eye candy like we are. I just don't believe that we're their target customers. It's nice that they've decided to take us along for the ride, and I do believe that simmers provide a service as beta testers, but if their commercial customers don't require a 64bit program, we won't see it.

...  you are lucky it get 2 hrs of flight. 

 

Some say 2hrs, some 4hrs, etc .... but it is exactly that, the fact that the VAS usage goes up and up in time, maybe coming down occasionally, but never enough, that surely makes it possible to keep improving the memory management so that stuff no longer needed is freed up more readily.

 

DTG have done a bit of that already in FSX-SE. It is very noticeable that in that version VAS goes down now almost as much as it goes up. Still some way to go, but they've only tackled the easy bits so far. L-M have more experience in the FS code than DTG and I'm sure they could do this and more -- once it is higher on their priority list.

 

I just don't believe it is impossible to have a simulator with excellent graphics and versatility that will not all fit into 4 Gb. My first full blown word processor, written for the Commodore Pet 2001 back in the days, had to fit into 8 kb (8192 bytes!). There are always ways.

 

Not everything would be good in a 64-bit world. Potentially unlimited memory is a sure route to badly written bloatware and worsening performance. And 64-bit code is not intrinsically faster than 32-bit code, it could be slower -- it has larger amounts of data to shove around. Even similar data is larger because all the offsets and pointers need to be 64 bit.

 

Pete

This is an interesting one. John Venema surely wouldn't say something like this unless he had inside knowledge to back it up? I am curious what Rob Ainscough has to say about this, since he appears to be in bed with the LM guys

 

 

I just don't believe it is impossible to have a simulator with excellent graphics and versatility that will not all fit into 4 Gb.

 

I fully agree. A very easy proof of this is when you start a flight in a complex airliner from a VAS intensive airport. Take-off and go to cruise level and look at VAS. Then save the flight and reload it. Nothing has changed expect for the fact that the memory is cleared of all the stuff that was left from the first part of the flight but which is obviously not needed anymore. Often times the reloading leads to a couple of 100 Mb of additional free VAS. This means a lot of the stuff which occupies memory at the beginning of the flight stays in memory even though it is not needed anymore. I think that with better memory management the 4 Gb VAS is sufficient. But FSX was programmed at a time when nobody ever thought that 4 Gb was not enough so it has a very poor memory management and most of the stuff that is loaded into memore just stays there...

This is no big surprise since for months (Years?) now the Dev's and guys who really understand the code and enter workings of a flight sim have been telling us that 64 Bit may not be the big deal that some think. In looking at the next couple of new Graphics cards that Nvidia is going to release, There is going to be an amazing amount of  processing power turned loose in the graphics world. That may indeed give us more of what we want and not break all the addons we have.

 

With all due resepect, JV knows just about as much as we do. He is speculating BUT he does NOT make corporate policy decisions for LM.

 

I don't have time to find the post but Wes Bard stated that while 64bit is on their radar, their FIRST order of business was to get everything they could out of the 32bit platform.

 

In that, JV is correct - other than that he's just another fortune teller trying to predict the future.

 

Personally, I believe that LM *WILL* have a 64bit P3D but I doubt it will be V3 or even V4.

 

As to 3rd party add-ons - you better believe that if LM releases a 64bit platform that they will be available quickly.

 

FSX is essentially stagnant, if LM kills P3D 32bit - that doesn't leave much for the dev's to make $$ on. There will be plenty of add-ons available.

 

Vic

All these 64 bit discussions make it seem that the conversion is an insurmountable barrier. It is hardly that from a programming standpoint. Further, unless LM also decides to alter the FSX file formats like BGL, the incompatibility problems are vastly overstated too. Although I have sympathy for the companies that produce 3rd party flight sim apps (especially now with both DTG and LM constantly tinkering with their products), the 3rd party community will adapt and produce 64 bit versions. It happened with XPlane and it will happen with P3d also. Based on my observations over time of other software companies switching to 64 bit, my guess is that LM already has an internal alpha version of 64 bit P3d. They have a heck of a lot more resources at their disposal than Laminar Research does. Don't be surprised when the rumors of P3d 3.0 leak out.

 

BTW, Rob A. previously posted a nice overview of how the conversion to 64 bit takes place and how it isn't such a big deal. Maybe he can find the link to that post.

Aren't we all just making a bit too much of 64-bit anyway

Some interesting points here.  Funnily enough, I only ever got crashes in FSX after long flights in errm, PNW etc.  when it always seemed was on final approach . . i.e. complex scenery  Only after all the P3D kerfuffle with it did I realise was OOMs.

 

The point about whether business /professional users need complex scenery (and thus 64 bit arguments) is well made -  and could apply to add-on aircraft as well.  Those users sure aren't using the P3D default aircraft, but will use external control hardware running on separate PC hardware.   The recent views of LM's real F35 simulator are a case in point.  Equally, while eye candy scenery is not important in professional context, decent airports might be - but hardly need the eye candy trucks, fuellers, air-bridges and the like there either though decent runways, taxi-ways and mesh would be. but VAS much better without the toys. Same for AI unless you want to test the TCAS  ;-)

 

What the profis may well use is such as live weather,  where notably the good stuff already runs outside the 4 Gb.  The same goes for flight planners and the likes of GTN.  so certainly 64 bit may be less important for professional use.  That said, would say that 64 bit shouldn't be sneezed at - and 3PDs will likely come on board or go out of business - XP managed it after all.  Whether the big boys use much or any of the mass-market scenery and aircraft add-ons is a moot point.

 

Devil's advocate mode = OFF

From the standpoint of performance (frame rates, smoothness , etc.), yes, there is little advantage. But from the standpoint of memory usage, there is no question that 32 bit flight sims are a complete dead end. Eventually, companies like PMDG will be producing add-on aircraft that will only be able to work on a 64 bit platform like XPlane. The same will be true for complex airports. It's just a matter of time.

I suspect its a realization that Orbx may not be able to Port their addons to 64 bit P3D without lots of rework

 

But we need a 64 P3D even if we start with no addons. New addons would have to be developed from scratch. This is an opportunity for vendors. The fact there is no backward compatibility is always known..no surprise here.

Hope is eternal.. it may take further 5 years to have some amount of addons...but still this is future. 

 

In the meanwhile we chug along with the 32 bit.. 

 

So I forsee my self using the 32bit 90% of the time and 10% use the basic 64bit without addons to start with..and then slowly the percentage is oging to move

 

This is how it happened to me between FSX and P3D

 

the OOM is a FSim killer for me. At least when using airliners which is my current interest. For GA, its still ok

No offense to Orbx, but I will wait for official word from someone who actually works at LM before drawing any conclusions.

Afaik JV isn't their official spokesperson and while he works with them, he doesn't work for them.

 

Time will tell.