Someone linked this thread  to Lockheed Martin's  Prepare3 forum 3 days ago.  So far Lockheed Martin hasn't responded.

Wow, what conversations we have going on here. From what I have put into this thread and what I have read. I know now this is why I have not moved from FSX Classic and continue to monitor where flight simulation is headed. The future is indeed up for grabs. I still purchase products that are compatible with FSX and P3D. 

 

Will we move to 64 bit? Well we can't live in the stone age forever but for those who have put their stock in 32 bit being the future of simulation must have monkey vision . I am 55 years old so you would think I would be one of the simmers to settle for what we have. I am not afraid of change. I know there are some developers who are resisting a 64 bit platform and that indicates a 

business plan that won't survive the long term and did not think ahead of where we are. Come on guys, pro active not re- active.

All this speculation is fun but yesterday ãAirdaily defiantly  stated in their post about p3d and 64 bit that they were not getting involved in the debate for at least 3/4wks then some interesting  news would be revealed, but as I read this late last night I went back to recheck  this morning ,all ref to yesterdays posts are  gone, unless I'm looking in the wrong place or the site has been taken out by the Orbx and LM,s anti 64 bit team, seems a little strange to me, I am not sure of the actual words used but I was left wondering why the statement had been made if he was not prepared to state what he had heard

Peter

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

I have not had a single shooter (or game for that fact) give me an OOM error. Period.

 

Would 64 bit lead to "sloppy programming"? Maybe. (Though sloppier and lazier than what is already there? I doubt it...

Would 64 bit solve the OOM issues? Yes, without a doubt.

Someone linked this thread  to Lockheed Martin's  Prepare3 forum 3 days ago.  So far Lockheed Martin hasn't responded.

 

http://www.prepar3d.com/forum-5/topic/a-64bit-version-of-p3d-how-far-off/

 

 

Though sloppier and lazier than what is already there?

 

So you have access to the source code?  If not, I don't see how you could make this judgement?  Like saying a book is bad without ever reading the book.

 

 

 

I have not had a single shooter (or game for that fact) give me an OOM error. Period.

 

I have -- Crysis (the original) it OOM'd on me.   But did you read my post explaining why 3D shooters don't OOM?  It's about very short view distances that most 3D shooter impose on the user so as to avoid OOMs.  

 

32bit or 64bit ... neither make a "human" (programmer, I know we may seem non-human at times) be more or less sloppy ... it doesn't change how we code nor how we design.

 

These endless discussions about "sloppy programmers" and "bad code" is born out of unrealistic expectations that one's hardware should be "good enough" because it works well with  XYZ 3D shooter.  I've tried to demonstrate how completely wrong that association/logic is ... blaming programmers you've never met and/or sloppy code that you've never seen isn't going to magically make your hardware work better with the type of view distances and visual enhancements that are involved in flight simulations.  I'm sorry, it's just not.  If you want all the bells and whistles, then you'll have to buy the hardware to get it done ... blaming poor coding isn't going anywhere, it's a dead end road.

 

Sure optimization are always viable with enough time and money ... but "optimizations" are NOT going double your FPS, they aren't going to magically make OOMs go away, they are not going to make flight simulations operate at the same performance as 3D shooters.

 

Finally, there are development tools that allow us programmers to profile our applications (Visual Studio Ultimate 2013) .. .have been for some time.  In VS 2015 those tools will be extended to GPU and CPU bottlenecks making it easier to spot slower operations.  I have profiled applications in the past when I see a performance problem ... it's a tedious process and the results don't always have solutions (meaning it's as optimized as it can be).  But in all cases where I have profiled my applications (you need source code to do this and a development environment to support it) any optimizations I've made have never ever resulted in more than about a 5-10% performance gain.  In most of those case the time and resource taken to do the profiling wasn't worth the end results.

 

But I agree, 64bit will remove the OOM problem provide one has enough hardware (i.e. more RAM) to support it.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

 

Anyway, I agree with the point several have made already - if/when 64bit does come we'll soon see the bottleneck shift to another part of the platform, be it CPU or GPU and we'll all be bemoaning the poor performance and waiting for the Next Big Thing ™

 

I don't agree at all. X-plane runs incredibly well on my system and if it does get bogged down at least I can throw more hardware at it knowing it will improve. FSX and P3D will perform at the same level regardless. I've gone through 3 computers in the last 4 years with FSX and not much has changed in performance. That's the whole point of migrating the code, to allow it to be scale-able and utilize modern hardware. You can run X-plane on a modest computer and still get good performance.

Wow, what conversations we have going on here. From what I have put into this thread and what I have read. I know now this is why I have not moved from FSX Classic and continue to monitor where flight simulation is headed. The future is indeed up for grabs. I still purchase products that are compatible with FSX and P3D. 

 

Will we move to 64 bit? Well we can't live in the stone age forever but for those who have put their stock in 32 bit being the future of simulation must have monkey vision . I am 55 years old so you would think I would be one of the simmers to settle for what we have. I am not afraid of change. I know there are some developers who are resisting a 64 bit platform and that indicates a 

business plan that won't survive the long term and did not think ahead of where we are. Come on guys, pro active not re- active.

 

Very well said Darrin and I agree totally. I just for the life of me can't understand some of the stagnant positions amongst so many who think they know what is best because they have a degree in computer science or whatever. What you call monkey vision I see as a puddle of sludge in a volcanic wasteland itching to become life LOL. But this is a plague not just limited to flight simulation, this kind of thing is going on all over the world, in all walks of life. I have the solution but only 2-3% of the population is interested at all....oh well, I will be just fine and full of joy no matter what they decide.

 

 

I don't agree at all. X-plane runs incredibly well on my system and if it does get bogged down at least I can throw more hardware at it knowing it will improve. FSX and P3D will perform at the same level regardless.

 

That is complete nonsense. P3D takes better advantage of new hardware than XP10 does. It will use as many physical CPU cores as are available and it will take advantage of DX11. 

 

 

I just for the life of me can't understand some of the stagnant positions amongst so many who think they know what is best because they have a degree in computer science or whatever.

 

Yeah those programmers what the heck do they know ... your tech makes so much more sense, a 1.8Ghz laptop with 256MB RAM and a mobile GPU should be more than enough to simulate the world.   FSX-SE is the way ... oh wait ... it's 32bit also ... hmmm ... but is got better programmers working on it ... oh wait they might have computer science degrees being programmers and all ... but wait Phil Taylor indicated ESP is FSX SP2 with minor changes and FSX-SE is FSX SP2 with minor changes ... but how can that be?  I'm so confused ... glad you cleared it all up for me with your puddle of sludge in a volcanic wasteland.  You're so right, the 97% are just all wrong ... please teach us the way.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

 

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

I'm the very same,  people don't take me seriously at all.  I just keep repeating myself though, the same point over and over again.  In the end,  i'm always rite   :rolleyes:

 

 

 

Edited by n4gix, Today, 12:52 AM.
Remove rediculously excessive quote.

Would love powers like that,  wouldn't abuse them at all   :Big Grin:

 

 

I'm the very same,  people don't take me seriously at all.  I just keep repeating myself though, the same point over and over again.  In the end,  i'm always rite  

 No, that's me.  You're thinking you are ME.

Edited by n4gix, Today, 12:52 AM.

Remove ridiculously excessive quote.

 

Would love powers like that, wouldn't abuse them at all :Big Grin:

It is frustrating beyond belief when folks simply will not trim the quotes they include to the bare minimum required for continuity.

 

In fact, many times no quote is required at all since it follows directly afterwards in unbroken succession.

 

There are many folks using these forums who are not blessed with high-speed, high bandwidth internet. Some are still on dial-up modems for goodness' sake! It is extremely rude and unfair for them to be burdened by so much chaff.

This thread is gold.

 

All because John V. said something.

This thread is gold.

 

All because John V. said something.

When most people pass gas in a room, pretty much everyone cringes and holds their nose.

 

In certain cases though there are always a few who try to pretend it is the latest parfum from Paris...