Yeah.  64bit is a must do.  No doubt about it.  But OOMs are not because of too little memory, just as performance problems are not solely because of inefficient P3D code.  DX12 (Microsoft, FINALLY!  Good riddens Ballmer!) is going to fix a lot, hopefully some without LM needing to do anything.  And I love eye candy and won't stop until it looks exactly like being there just as much as the next partaker of our collective insanity.  There is plenty of "blame" to go around, all are sinners, including the users!  lol!  (I have saying from being in a military family... 6 uncles and an aunt that served, "Blame Stalin!")  Now that Rob has confirmed LM is not packing up the P3D team and flying off into the stratosphere I'm going to relax and just enjoy.  This is an awesome time to be simming.

John should know better than to open a can of worms with a statement like that!

 

Can you imagine his reaction if a developer from an organisation outside of Orbx made comments about Orbx's future business milestones and strategies! :smile:

Sorry, but that's like saying 'my house is too small for 20 people' and then someone else saying 'I know! just have 10 people in your house, and we'll send in the other 10 from the outside'

Or like saying you have two houses, each with 10 people, and you move quickly back and forth to keep everyone happy.

 

 

Vic

 

 

Rob, what do you make of Aerosoft's claim to load Airports outside of FSX / P3D and inject them in...i can see that might make a slight difference?

 

Sounds good, but I will have to see it in action before I can make a judgement.   Did Aerosoft commit an airport release date using this new method?

 

Cheers, Rob.

Can you imagine his reaction if a developer from an organisation outside of Orbx made comments about Orbx's future business milestones and strategies!

OMG! Now THAT is an hilarious thought! Would not want to be around when THAT hit the fan!!

 

Vic

Hmmm the way things sound to me possibly is that 64 bit P3D will happen.  As others have stated LM is in this to make money and we aren't talking chump change money from people who paid MS for a $60 sim back when Vista was being released.  I think as software developers they know they need to move to 64 bitas things do get more complex and as customer software demands increase. 

 

Is it possible that LM used this engine to get a foothold into the space and as a low cost way to see if there was a market and determining that there is a professional demand for this type of product has taken it as far as they can and in order to go further essentially needs to do what amounts to what is possible a massive re-write to the core engine to do what they want it to do on the scale they need it to do?  I mean this is a sim that has a submersible component to it which it was never initially designed to do.  What they may be working on their end goal may be large enough that a massive overhaul is required and what used to work as far as 3rd party add-ons go will not work on it without substantial overhaul on their own.

 

The ESP framework has been great but it is old and it is dated and it is limited (Potentially I am speculating on a whole).  There is eventually a point when it needs to be redone.  As an example at work we used a simulator platform for training.  The company sold the technology to LM and they maintained it for us.  But eventually it became apparent that in the age the sim was written in it would not support the technology we needed to get it to do (In this case work on wide screen and multiple display set ups and sometime multiple machines)  So LM ended up re-writing the core.  The software and its assets were the same but the code and core is completely different.  As a result a lot of the training things we used were incompatible and had to be converted to a new format.

 

So personally I think that could be a scenario that occurs and it would fit with what the post from the ORBX people said and what we know the LM Developer team to be working on.

 

 

This is nonsense, I guess what is being said is that a plain vanilla system cannot be used, I will use it as is in a stock form and I am sure many others would too. P3d scenery may not be the best but it is by far better than none and or waiting until vendors come up to speed with a 64bit package.....

How long will you fly with just the default?  In fact, if I would stick with all default right now, I would not have any of these non sense OOM problem or stutters etc.  64 bit conversion is not a few months process, it's years.  ASN has not even released an official update yet for 2.5 and it's been two months, just saying. 

How long will you fly with just the default?  In fact, if I would stick with all default right now, I would not have any of these non sense OOM problem or stutters etc.  64 bit conversion is not a few months process, it's years.  ASN has not even released an official update yet for 2.5 and it's been two months, just saying. 

What exact part of a 64 bit conversion do you think would take years? If the API doesn't structurally change where do you see the work that would take that long? Or is that your time estimate until every last vendor has ported? 

 

Also, ASN runs just fine on 2.5, official update or not. At least it does for me.

What exact part of a 64 bit conversion do you think would take years? If the API doesn't structurally change where do you see the work that would take that long? Or is that your time estimate until every last vendor has ported?

 

Also, ASN runs just fine on 2.5, official update or not. At least it does for me.

I don't know about programming but if you think how long it took LM to release p3d v2.0 after the release of p3d v1.4, it makes sense to assume it'll take another 3 years at least.

I agree, No offence to Orbx, But you really do not know how bad we need x64 bit of Prepar 3D. It's only important to orbx so they don't have to re-do their beautiful work. But orbx will also be making a lot more money if Lockheed decide to go x64 bit because people will be looking at their products and will probably buy it because with x64 version, nothing can go wrong!!

I don't know about programming but if you think how long it took LM to release p3d v2.0 after the release of p3d v1.4, it makes sense to assume it'll take another 3 years at least.

 

For one, v2.0 was a rewrite of the graphics engine so that involved actual coding and debugging. I'm just saying that just porting source code from 32 bit to 64 bit is generally not such a big deal if all rules of clean programming have been observed during writing of the original code. Address size should be opaque. If it isn't then it's either due to unclean coding, use of assembler or a very specific problem that can't be handled in another way - and that should be very carefully documented.

 

But of course saying that it shouldn't take years doesn't mean it won't.  I'm sure address size won't be the only thing that'll change for a new major version.

JV is no fool, he is first and foremost a business man. If the future is with 64bit and that is where all of us will migrate to then guess what?

 

He recently flew out to meet with Dove tail to hammer out a road map. In another brash statement he declared Steam to be the future of flight simming. That one slipped through the net and wasn't posted on Avsim..

 

 

He recently flew out to meet with Dove tail to hammer out a road map. In another brash statement he declared Steam to be the future of flight simming. That one slipped through the net and wasn't posted on Avsim..

   I think this tells us a lot.  Is it possible that he is drawing a line in the sand to the P3D team?  That he has met someone new?  That if they move forward with 64bit, leaving him behind, he has another place to go and he will go there?   After all P3D has done for him? 

Thats because you only have a 17" screen with that laptop. Once you start getting to higher resolutions the sim is required to draw a larger area which means more autogen, more memory to show the larger area which then in turn requires stronger CPU and GPU etc. It goes up exponentially especially if you try to use a 4k monitor.  

I always use an external 27 inch full HD screen with my setup.....it just seems for some strange reason some systems are more prone to OOM's than others..

I think this tells us a lot. Is it possible that he is drawing a line in the sand to the P3D team? That he has met someone new? That if they move forward with 64bit, leaving him behind, he has another place to go and he will go there? After all P3D has done for him?

That could make sense as a reason for JV's stupid comment on P3D 64 bit. And it is a reason for me to reevaluate any future Orbx purchases as I am 100% committed to P3D. FSX Steam as the future of flightsim? Oh what a dark future that would be...