Where I come from that's not handling the error.  The OOM is an error message from the OS.  It hasn't been handled; it's been passed to the OS.  The OS can't handle the cleanup.

The only way, which anyone working with DX12 is going to have to learn quickly anyways, is to measure once, cut twice.  If you have a good plan 640k ought to be enough for anybody.

No 64 bit because a lack of backward compatibility...meh..can't buy this argument. 64bit will simply re-energize the market, and the large flightsim community will clamor for it. The dev community will follow suit since the money and demand will be there.

No 64 bit because a lack of backward compatibility...meh..can't buy this argument. 64bit will simply re-energize the market, and the large flightsim community will clamor for it. The dev community will follow suit since the money and demand will be there.

With Venema's logic, Adobe would never have switched from 16 to 32 bit or more recently, 64 bit...and also they have to deal with the fact that third party developers have developed tens of thousands of plugins, add-ons or programs that rely on their products.

If Venema thinks that LM can stop progress, then he's hallucinating. The huge majority is already using a 64 bit OS, soon we'll see 8 core processors becoming common place or graphics cards that make a GTX 980 look like a 9800 GT.
You can optimize VAS all you want, but at one point you're reaching limits (which P3D already does!), with graphics that will still look like the ones from FSX ...cough, cough.... almost 10(!) years old. Improved shadows, lighting or fog will never fix that. Compare that to the improvements in popular gaming...


On top of that, if Venema wants to keep selling his products, he will have to make them look better and better. When you visit flightsimstore.com you'll notice that FTX Global, Vector and LC continue to be he his best selling products. To keep that going he'll need to improve those products and to make them look better, you're always going to meet the evil VAS at one point. If he thinks that he can just survive by pumping out more and more airports, then he needs to think again....

And look at the current situation with all these so called "VAS optimizations" in P3D:  

No... you can NOT continue this way without 64 bit and if you do, it's only a matter of time before someone else takes over, like a 64 bit Xplane that could start a kickstarter campaign with additional support from a major investor.  And don't underestimate Dovetail Games, they have some major plans for the future with their business and I wouldn't be surprised if that could also include a brand new flight simulator, nothing related to FSX. The owners are very determined to become a major player in the simulation industry (their own words) and it's not without a reason that their reasonable young company has already over 100+ employees.

Blackberry thought they were invincible too.... Internet Explorer was the most popular browser by far... and look at it now. 64 bit or the customers will eventually move elsewhere... I can guarantee you that! No company is invincible!
 

around the time of the PMDG 777 release JV stated that the 64 bit updates to Orbx products would not be free and would require a lot of reworking ,sounds like he is preparing his customers for the charges,I have 34 orbx products at only say a £10 update fee for each item  that's a lot of doe,if I was JV I would be worried that all this talk about  a 64 bit P3d that is as far as we know only wishful thinking could effect the sales on Orbx P3d product,s,from what I see JV is no fool and looks after his business well,which is only right

peter

I dont get the confusion. People demand high quality scenery and complex aircraft more and more and push their sliders well beyond what their system is capable of. We will always be on the cusp of OOMs if not managed correctly until 64bit comes out.  Since when is LM so concerned with the flightsim community anyhow when theyve been advocating it more as a commercial/corporate simulator.

 

And who says nothing will work.  If you dont like it, then keep the 32 bit version around.  If there is 64 bit, you can bet the devs will follow, whether there is a whole lot of work involved or not, its just necessary or else we will be bumping our heads on this ceiling in frustration for a very very long time.  Build the 64bit version and just get it done already.  I really dont care about compatibility. Its whats needed. People are ready to ditch their tvs, phones, houses, cars for newer better and it means sacrifices for things that wont work or are not up to standard anymore. We are on a foundation from 2004. Its time we move on and make the sacrifice. If you dont like it then stick to 2004 and keep dealing with the frustration. Just dont expect constant high quality visuals without VAS issues.

I have never understood the hate that Avsim members have for John V. I guess I missed the Memo or something and most here seem to believe he is nothing more than a self serving liar. Yet and still he makes one statement and we have like 6 pages of discussion on what is normally a slow weekday. Not sure why he gets so much attention if he is as bad as you all seem to think.

I agree with your observation. I quite like the man, he is a straight shooter and doesn't mince his words and that I think doesn't sit well with what some people "want" to hear.

It's clearly not in Orbx's short-term interest to raise expectations of a 64-bit platform, especially if that would require users to upgrade their sceneries etc. If LM were to announce 64-bit for the near future that was incompatible with current scenery, that would clearly dent Orbx's cashflow, unless they promise no-cost upgrades. Just saying...

 

JV has stated clearly that nominal fees will be incurred by the Orbx customers moving to P3Dv3 in the future. 64-bit or not, upgrade fees are on the horizon.

 

Read it here.

 

I have no problem with that. In my opinion, the product and customer service provided are a great value for the money.

When it comes to flight models, and X-Plane versus...........

 

Actually, I don't have P3D. But I flew for decades, and owned/built high performance airplanes as well. I do have plenty of experience with FSX, as well as X-Plane 8.9.10. As far as I'm concerned, it has been my RealAirs for FSX, that have the best sense of cross controlling in a slip. They're perfection. I'd never trade the single engine RealAirs, such as the simulated Lancair Legacy, or Marchetti SF260 for any X-Plane model. In so many words, the flight models for FSX (and I'll presume 3PD) can be exceptional. The presumption that X-Plane is always superior because of "blade element theory"................is a myth, as far as I'm concerned. I've said that for many years, and haven't changed my mind. In the meantime, I'm enjoying both X-Plane & FSX with a new high performance system. Naturally, I use flight models for both sims, that do a good job of replicating real flight.

 

Agree with your view on Real Air although I only own the Turbine Duke P3D model as it is currently the only native model - my favourite P3D aircraft. I believe that flight modelling is done outside of P3D but not 100% sure. Obviously not flown one but it 'feels' really good - but no better or worse than a similar X Plane model.

 

And actually I should say I think the Aerosoft Twin Otter P3D model 'feels' better than the latest creation for X Plane, and that I think is modelled 'normally' -(sorry not very technical I know).

 

But I thought TrafficPilots post was a bit sweeping.

 

Also you just got love the mild (?) eccentricity of Austin and his small band of developers, and what they and the community have achieved against the might of massive organisations

 

cheers

Peter

 

 

he is a straight shooter and doesn't mince his words

 

An Australian trait.

What JV from ORBX said is true.  There are a huge amount of work by 3rd Party vendor if 64bit P3D is a reality.  If LM were to start now, it will not be two years until the vendors caught up.  To be honest though the training market don't use complex sceneries.  Another truse statement:  if a 64bit P3D is even available now, none of us will be able to use it either as none of the add-ons will work with it.

 

 

To be honest though the training market don't use complex sceneries.

 

A broad and over-simplified statement.  I've already provided several counter-examples.

 

Scott

I guess time will tell.

What matter is that, may it be the new DTG game or P3D optimization prevails.

I have always used gaming laptops for flight simulation....currently MSI APACHE PRO with Nvidia GTX 860M. I have all the eye candy.....ORBX, ASN, FTX Global  etc. I have never experienced OOM issues and always have great FPS....I sometimes see the guys posting their high end machine specs which are far greater than mine, yet have lower FPS and OOM issues,.I think 64 bit is not required as long as we take care with what we install onto our systems...

Another truse statement:  if a 64bit P3D is even available now, none of us will be able to use it either as none of the add-ons will work with it.

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.....