Why would I sleep with someone for no money?  I have NO vested interest at all ... heck I'm not even a commercial member.  

 

Maybe John has much more recent information than I (within that last couple of weeks) ... but I have no comment because I was told by LM that such information provided to me was not to be made public.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Well said and interesting comment

 

 

I am sure that John Venema knows more than I do but on this i think he is incorrect.

-----------------------------------------------

 

Somehow, a man that over-sights a graphic powerhouse like ORBX, being wrong in a totally blunt statement about any 64 bit P3D (at the time of his writing his post)....not being realized, is something that my logical mind can NOT wrap around.  I was hoping and waiting like everybody else for a totally new flight engine, at a modern 64 bit base architecture. I already have and enjoy the benefits of a totally OOM free flight experience (with no feature compromise and strength level) that can fly into multi real time hours in Laminar Research.  I will now focus my 64 bit 'minded' financial expenditures in that arena. He*l, it is already here...and supplying all the 64 bit goodies and perks to anyone that wants 'in'. They only have to press the 'plastic trigger'....

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.

I believe now, that your post has succinctly hit the proverbial nail on the head....and is the cause for their decision not to port over....

Sorry, all I read in JV's post is "LM won't dare going to 64 bit because it will be difficult for ORBX.".

 

Quite a bit of local spin there methinks.

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.

 

---------------------------------------------

 

Yes Peter, because that code was forced to be written so tight and clean by a low level Assembler of the day, and not high level language (drive a Mack truck through) sub-routines that is the norm.  FSX was written high-level...as most was into the late 80's and up.  PASCAL, COBOL, BASIC Extended, Cplus, etc.  The days of machine level Assembler is over....and that was what your word pro was written with,....simple core level lines of execution with lightning speed parsing!  Too bad those days are gone....

 

Oh..and yes...to you, I am preaching to the choir, lol!  Cheers!

 

 

I already have and enjoy the benefits of a totally OOM free flight experience (with no feature compromise and strength level) that can fly into multi real time hours in Laminar Research.

 

Mitch, Xplane has significant feature compromise for a lot of us, namely very poor ATC and ridiculous Ai, poor seasonal coverage, lack of a decent weather program.

and limited lod radius at altitude

I notice in your (many) screenshots that you seem to exclusively fly GA in a Carenado aircraft, for a lot of folks Xplane may be great as a GA sim but if you simulate  airline flying it comes up short,very short

 

 

FSX was written high-level...

 

Just LOL

mwilk, on 26 Mar 2015 - 09:31 AM, said:

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.

I believe now, that your post has succinctly hit the proverbial nail on the head....and is the cause for their decision not to port over....

 

Good points above. At some point, we must remember and admit to ourselves that this is flight simulation we are doing and not river and mountain simulation. I am a low and slow guy and love the graphics also but the most important thing is the flight model. If it is true that LM has taken a descision to keep with 32 Bit for now, I suspect some of that decision is based on the technology that Nvidia is just now starting to talk about. Look for yourselves. They are claiming 10X more graphic computing power (actually 10X the Titan X) in the next year ortwo. Factoring in the hype in advertising and they only get to 2X or 5X then LM can use that to take a hell of a lot of work off the processors.

Sorry, all I read in JV's post is "LM won't dare going to 64 bit because it will be difficult for ORBX.".

 

Quite a bit of local spin there methinks.

I did not see that quote in there. You may want to take off that mask and read again. :ph34r:

Quote:

"

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."

 

That's a better approach to addressing the real problems with the ESP engine than masking them with 64-bit recompilation.

 

Am I only one that sees this as good news?

I did not see that quote in there. You may want to take off that mask and read again. :ph34r:

It wasn't a quote, but my interpretation ("... all I read in ..."), apologies if that wasn't clear.

 

I reread JV's statement without mask, even put on my spectacles!

 

 

Am I only one that sees this as good news?

 

I don't see how that is good news. There is a lot of wheel-spinning all done to compensate for the 4 GB limit of VAS.

Don't get me wrong but what I understand is that an addon developer has the power to control the future of a sim platform.

It is obvious that orbx don't like the idea to make compatible addons for a new 64bit platform due to the workload required.

They are still in the process of making their older addons p3dv2 compatible.

The result is that we simmers in 2015 with 5k HW can't take any advantage of them and we are afraid running out of memory..

If memory serves me correctly (which, at times, it doesn't) I recall the TacPack publisher saying they wouldn't have a P3D version, that PMDG initially didn't want a P3D version and most of the community thought in-cockpit weather radar was impossible. I generally discount sweeping statements. If there is a demand, there will eventually be a supply. 

Just LOL

 

You believe they used Assembler, and not a higher-level (copted routine calls) interpreter layer language?  Ok.....

 

It (FSX) was written, using Microsoft Visuall C++, and not low-level,CPU instruction code. Using an interpreter layer, causes code bloat, and slower execution inefficiencies.  If you wish to (LOL) with that...that is alright as well...(smile). I used to assemble in 6502 in the 80's, and only fought kicking and screaming, to BASIC and BASIC Plus before business design interpreters came online...with x2/386 class of CPU's. There is no code executed, (and authored) finer than at low-level, native CPU-base instruction. Nobody will argue that, that programs for a living.

 

 

At some point, we must remember and admit to ourselves that this is flight simulation we are doing and not river and mountain simulation.

 

Prepar3D is more than just a flight simulation.

I notice in your (many) screenshots that you seem to exclusively fly GA in a Carenado aircraft, for a lot of folks Xplane may be great as a GA sim but if you simulate  airline flying it comes up short,very short

 

------------------------------------

 

You're right...most of my XPX time is with G.A.  I predominately use FS9 for most commercial flying, and you're also right...the M.S. based side of things certainly does a better commercial environment than XP.  That is true...

The only thing missing from X-Plane is a realistic flight model. I wouldn't train my students on it.

 

For now it's a great graphics simulator especially in 64bit form.

 

Are you serious???