Seems John V. stands by his comments.

 

 

I fly to Orlando each year and meet with the LM P3D team. My comment is based on a conversation I had with Wes Bard last November. At that time there were no plans for 64-bit but plenty of plans for other tech for the 32-bit engine, none of which I can discuss.

It may pain you to hear it but we're not their target market; 99% of what leads their development is what their internal LM departments are asking for, and I doubt whether 64-bit is very high in the agenda.

Of course, things can and often do change in software development so who knows what their code path is for the future.

As for Orbx supposedly not supporting 64-bit I have no idea why folks would think that. We'll go where the customers are, simple as that. We run a business to make money.

 

 

What a lot of nonsense! Too many keyboard warriors at AVSIM seem to view 64-but as some holy grail (it isn't) and that Orbx has a dependency on LM (we don't).

We don't have a fading customer base, it's growing rapidly, and across three versions of the core sim engine.

We are entirely capable of porting to almost any platform, be it 32-bit, 64-bit or another OS entirely, so it's not a logistics or capability issue either.

Rather the issue is some folks are just in hysterics over the fact that a 64-bit P3D isn't imminent and now seem to be forecasting the end of Orbx's commitment to the platform over a few of my comments, including AVSIM users registering here and reposting dribble from those forums.

Let's be clear on one thing: Orbx helps LM sell a lot of copies of P3D purely by virtue of our support and association. The benefits are mutual and that won't change anytime soon.

Now, please let me continue to run my company without giving me lectures on NDA compliance ok?

 

Doesn't seem to be backing down whatsoever from his comments, and he seems a little annoyed that people are questioning his motives.

He gets annoyed if ANYONE questions ANYTHING he or his company says. It's his company and his right but doesn't create a friendly image, IMHO.

 

He's simply stating that based upon HIS knowledge, he doesn't see a 64bit in LM's future but then goes further to say that things can change.

 

So, back to square one - we'll se a 64bit P3D when LM decides they are ready to release it. Until then, only thing speculation is good for is increasing the thread count.

 

Vic

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.

I disagree.. What does processing power have to do woth anything? CPUs today are leaps and bounds ahead of the ones from 2006-2008 and you still gett OOMs, CTDs, etc. Same goes for graphics crads. You can process all you want, but if it doesn't fit in the available address space, you're just as screwed. and if you think about "swapping stuff out" that still won't be solved with better processing, as todays CPUs and GPUs are more than capable, but without code re-write/optimization, it just won't work.. (And if code has to be rewritten, it just makes sense to start over in 64 bit...)

Paul,

 

 

 

You call that an agenda as per your response to him in order to label his opinion as forbidden or at least wrong. Is he not allowed to doubt the future of LM based on *his experience*?

 

I and other moderators have NOT done anything to warn or note or suppress Engine Room's opinion?  He has stayed within the AVSIM ToS.

 

Engine Room initiated a technical discussion about P3D without providing anything technical.

 

His agenda is the repetition of the same incorrect information across multiple threads.

 

But it sounds like you have other issues about Flight Simulation in general on any platform?  Fair enough, I've never made any claims about running maximum graphics settings?  I know the results if I did run maximum graphics settings regardless of hardware used ... I can apply those same results to FSX, XP10, DCS, P3D, etc. etc.

 

Every flight simulator I've used to date I can't max everything out using highly detailed airports with highly detail aircraft, etc. etc.  Who can?

 

 

 

You see engine may not know the tech details like you, but generally this conclusion is correct: until there is a fundamental change in the simulator program, hardware will not matter.

 

You lost me here, how can you not know the tech involved and yet also say their needs to be a fundamental change?  That would be like me telling a Doctor his operating procedures need a fundamental change even though I know nothing about medical procedures.  That's a rather blanket sweeping statement with no specific details at all ... so yes, I'm going counter such statements with "show me".

 

I disagree, hardware does matter (pretty sure if you've seen my videos that it's clear hardware does indeed matter).  Hardware will always matter today and 20 years from now as flight simulators evolve and continue to push the envelope of processing power and the virtual world.  It mattered when FSX was released (think I was running along at 2 fps in FSX if I tried to max everything out and OOM shortly -- this was back in 2007) and it'll continue to matter for all flight simulation platforms.

 

 

 

Just remember that MS Aces crashed and burned when nobody ever would have guessed that were possible in the FS9 days.

 

Sorry, but I thought it was possible ... even predicted it.  But LM is not Microsoft ... entirely different company with different resource allocations and different customers.  

 

 

There is no proof at the present time that P3D is on its way to becoming the "go-to" simulator for us, maybe it will be.

 

I never indicated there was proof as "go-to" but I do know P3D user base has grown substantially in a very short period of time.  Regardless, I've made it clear several times that P3D is not for everyone. 

 

I have seen repeated "the end is near" for P3D when nobody sees a new update or comment from LM within a few weeks ... and yet here we are v2.5 and another hotfix 12945.  Eventually people have stopped playing that "end is near" angle as I guess they got tired of being wrong.

 

As far as JV's comments, I don't know what motivated him to make such comments, but things have changed at LM since Nov 2014.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

 

may not know the tech details like you, but generally this conclusion is correct: until there is a fundamental change in the simulator program, hardware will not matter.

 This is generally INCORRECT.  LM has pushed to the edge of what they can do. Can they do more, yes, but with dimishing returns. However, other actors have not: Both NVidia and Microsoft are owners of issues that prevent P3D from getting every corner of the CPU and GPU used efficiently.  This is already set to change with Windows 10 and DX12.  (More MS than NV at "blame" here).  

Seems John V. stands by his comments.

 

 

 

Doesn't seem to be backing down whatsoever from his comments, and he seems a little annoyed that people are questioning his motives.

 

 

This is the real breath of fresh air here.  All John has said is that He personally is not aware of any plans at LM to switch to 64bit.  Which probably DOES mean that, balancing in LM's statements to the contrary that there will be a 64bit release, that it's not any time soon.  I believe that LM would respect John and tell him if there were changes that are coming up that he needs to adjust for for that 1/3 or so of his business model that is P3D.   Based on this still maybe more than  1 1/2 to 2 years, from this information.  Nothing new here.   That's all that's happened here, nothing to see, move along now.

That's all that's happened here, nothing to see, move along now.

Oh, I wish!!

 

 

Vic

Seems John V. stands by his comments.

Well, I cannot say I'm the least bit surprised... although anyone with at least two functional neurons was already aware of this less than surprising revelation:

 

It may pain you to hear it but we're not their target market; 99% of what leads their development is what their internal LM departments are asking for...

 

 

as todays CPUs and GPUs are more than capable

 

If they were more than capable, why can't they handle the view distances we see in Flight Simulators (250mi +)?  

 

Why do all 3D shooters with high textures blur out the background in just a few 100 ft or less? ... some might push it to 1-2 miles and FPS drops considerably.  

 

Take a 4K or even 8K texture 3D shooter and extend it's view distances to even just 20 miles and you'll be measuring performance if seconds per single frame not frames per second and you'll need minimum 16GB-32GB RAM and a GPU with 12GB VRAM or more.

 

You can do the same with Flight Simulators if you like ... 

 

Seems to me most of the "fundamental change" debates are really more about NOT wanting to buy hardware and the hope for some miracle performance enhancing code that will solve all issues?

 

I recall someone telling me the "proof" that the code is bad is because the FPS are low?  Sorta like saying the proof a car is fast is because it's red ... it's about view distance, that's what makes the FPS low, that's what stresses out the CPU and GPU ... toss in some additional processing such as shadows, tessellation, HDR, etc. etc. ... that's what makes FPS low.  

 

Reduce a flight simulators draw distance to a couple of miles and you'll see 200+ FPS at any graphics setting and no OOMs (would fit easily in 32bit address space) ... but who would want to fly that 2 mile world?  I wouldn't.

 

Are there areas in P3D that can be optimized even further ... I would guess there might be (being able to disable AA on clouds would be benefit) but I have no concrete evidence to prove that ... does anyone outside of LM and maybe Dovetail have such evidence?

 

Re-writing P3D (or any flight sim) from scratch is definitely NOT what anyone would want ... XP10 is a classic example of doing exactly that ... XP 1 was release 1993 ... some 22 years later it still hasn't caught up ... so do you really really want a new "From scratch" flight simulator??

 

Cheers, Rob.

From a purely business aspect, if LM were to move to a 64-bit platform and John was in the know about it, perhaps it makes good business sense to say "no 64-bit coming" to keep people purchasing his current software.  Yes, he can be a bit rough around the edges, but for general and specific scenery packages, ORBX is basically the cat's meow in that area.

I and other moderators have NOT done anything to warn or note or suppress Engine Room's opinion?  He has stayed within the AVSIM ToS.

 

Rob,

 

I will leave the agenda thing alone, very few people will know what I mean on that topic.

 

Who can maxed out every thing? (and I never said anything about add-ons).  Nobody can in P3D v 2.5--- Even without add-ons, run full max settings from the likes of an EDDF,EHAM,KATL, to the likes of a KSFO, KLAX, EGL,L and not get an OOM  crash. It would be a flat out lie if they said they can....default scenery and any default plane. However, in FSX-SE I can do just that (full max settings) and I had that last beta run 95+ hours. So to answer your question, I could in FSX-SE beta 62610.... we'll see what happens with the final release.

 

On the subject of what I know, I don't need deep tech knowledge to have common sense and experience with all flight sims from the very 1st version (FS1) to this very moment. I have had 17 separate PC's (most of them at the cutting edge) just to run flight sims. When I got ongoing crashes about out of memory in FS9, before anybody even considered VAS limits I knew I was pushing the envelope with lots of add-ons, but I also knew that it was not my PC that was the problem. That 3 GB switch was the solution way back then for us all. Then we had the 64 bit OS available and I switched over to that from the very start, because I knew it was the way to go. I had no idea about the tech details but I knew I was correct. While some were getting OOM's in FS9 and FSX I was not, until I was going to review orbx global and that was the cause of my first oom in FSX ever. Well I dropped that review when I was told I needed to cut back on the settings. We are now at the point that P3D is pushing way past that envelope with out add-ons and this has to change or it will die just like MS Flight died. Holding on to that old ESP code and being subject to MS terms has got to stop for LM sake or DTG *may* ( I did not say will) bury LM in the dust. 

 

Speaking of blanket statements Rob, we all make them all the time. For example you have said "its cold outside" but you would be totally wrong by making that blanket statement, right? Since we are on the subject of accusing me of making blanket statements, are you able to be where you are and say its cold and prove its cold everywhere else? No you cant but you say it anyway and you are correct for *you* alone. My same logic applies in this case, since you do it, then you must allow me to do it too and you have to use some common sense to understand that nobody except God has total knowledge. Getting all scientific and asking for proof can backfire quickly, but to be understanding and sympathetic to a point of view is always a better way to go. I saw this first hand during the final FSX beta stage; a man named Phil Taylor came along and did all he could to help with what he knew, rather than the silence we were getting in the beginning. Phil made a huge difference in a short period of time and kept the FSX flame from going out (it would have believe me). All because of some care and attention others concerns and it worked; he just believed us about the terrible performance w/o asking for proof and much was accomplished. We have no reason to lie about terrible performance; if simmers are getting good performance they will be simming and praising the fabulous performance they are getting.  

 

Hardware does not matter if you have terrible programming. The above is a perfect case in point. FSX-MS and FSX-SE

are essentially the same yet I get double performance and zero stutters in SE with the exact same PC full max sliders. Hardware can matter but here lately until SE came along it has not mattered. If P3D was worked over like FSX was by DTG then we may have something. But with all the DX11 stuff and shadows and extra autogen, the core of P3D needs an overhaul and until it gets overhauled, hardware is not going to matter....you will continue to have to reduce your sliders and I will eventually predict the fall of P3D, this is not what I want, hence my position of calling for an overhaul of the old and into the new. 64 bit has not seemed to harm XP10. I know for sure it has not harmed Euro Truck Simulator II because I run the 64bit and the 32bit versions alternating and I have no trouble at all. Sure there is going to be some growing pains, but so what?

 

You personally can choose to tolerate cutting back on the settings but that does not mean anybody else has to tolerate it. But anyway why would anybody tolerate this?  I know why, its called being politically correct and being a good little boy or girl. Doing what you are told no matter what.

 

Rob, I appreciate you being a leader in the community. I just want you to be on the side of progress and of all simmers, pushing LM to burst open innovation and fresh ideas, rather than tolerating the stagnation and extremely slow progress P3D is currently exhibiting in my view. I suppose the slow progress is due to a new innovative project taking up the time, if so then LM should just say so and all will be well.

 

No flight sim company is or ever has been or ever will be greater than the simmers that support them, not even Lockheed Martin or Microsoft, its been a proven fact in the past and I need no technical or economical degree to know this. To compare, there have been a lot of very stupid decisions made in the world lately by people who have tech knowledge/ advanced degrees. So all the tech knowledge means nothing anymore to me compared to common sense and care.

 

I tend to lose people in what I say/claim mainly because I don't sugar coat and I say things that don't seem to be true but they are. When its all said and done, I can say that I truly do care about the future of flight simming, so please understand, if you care too, then we are on the same side. 

 

I wish you well Rob in your fight for simmers.

 

Edited March 31, 201511 yr by n4gix
Remove rediculously excessive quote.

 

 

Take a 4K or even 8K texture 3D shooter and extend it's view distances to even just 20 miles and you'll be measuring performance if seconds per single frame not frames per second and you'll need minimum 16GB-32GB RAM and a GPU with 12GB VRAM or more.

 Battlefield 4 multiplayer has one of the largest boxes to play in, but it's not more than 20x20 miles, and you can't see much more than a few miles out in any detail.

 

 

Re-writing P3D (or any flight sim) from scratch is definitely NOT what anyone would want ... XP10 is a classic example of doing exactly that ... XP 1 was release 1993 ... some 22 years later it still hasn't caught up ... so do you really really want a new "From scratch" flight simulator??

 

But if I were to make a list of companies that have proven experience again and again taking a product from conception to near flawless performance it would have Lockheed Martin at the top.  That culture isn't by chance, it's deliberate and as planned as any of their products.  

 

 

I just want you to be on the side of progress and of all simmers, pushing LM to burst open innovation and fresh ideas

 You are indeed saying that to the flagholder and point man on the very issue.  The first chair in the choir.  Rob is in the trenches popping his head up into the fire.  He has thrown himself into the breach about pushing P3D forward.  There isn't anyone that has done more here.  That's like telling Oprah Winfrey she doesn't pay enough attention to her live audiences.

From a purely business aspect, if LM were to move to a 64-bit platform and John was in the know about it, perhaps it makes good business sense to say "no 64-bit coming" to keep people purchasing his current software.  Yes, he can be a bit rough around the edges, but for general and specific scenery packages, ORBX is basically the cat's meow in that area.

 

If he heard 64-bit was coming, he would probably announce that OrbX will support 64-bit. That makes the most business sense to me.

 

 

No flight sim company is or ever has been or ever will be greater than the simmers that support them, not even Lockheed Martin

  If I could have one fact hang in the minds of everyone involved with this debate: Lockheed Martin owns the plans, designed and built from start to finish, some of the actual aircraft, the finest planes that we can model in our precious simulators, and did most of them before many of us were born.  That corporate culture is what brought them to "Our Simulator", even if we think all this simulator is about us.

 

 

You personally can choose to tolerate cutting back on the settings but that does not mean anybody else has to tolerate it. But anyway why would anybody tolerate this?  I know why, its called being politically correct and being a good little boy or girl. Doing what you are told no matter what.

 

Ok ... haha ... I'll be a rebel from now on, I promise!

 

This is really about FSX-SE?  Ugh, how did I let myself get pulled into this one.  Sorry I thought you were going to bring something technical into this discussion, I see that is not your intent at all, how foolish of me.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Hardware does not matter if you have terrible programming. The above is a perfect case in point. FSX-MS and FSX-SE

are essentially the same yet I get double performance and zero stutters in SE with the exact same PC full max sliders. Hardware can matter but here lately until SE came along it has not mattered. If P3D was worked over like FSX was by DTG then we may have something.

 

.....

 

.........

 

.............

 

From a neutral perspective, I think P3D has been worked over plenty over the past few years than the past few months from DTG.