What is the big barrier with developers bringing out a 64bit compatible version of their product ?  -- and if they do the work to produce such a product, why should they not expect to be compensated for their efforts ?

 

Yes there will be some 32 bit addons  from developers who are no longer operating,  so these will not be updated by the original developer to 64bit - but a good opportunity for current developers to step up and produce a new  64bit version.

 

But any current developer,  who owns the IP to their product, ($64,000 ?) should be able to produce a 64 bit version.  If not, maybe it's time for them to get out of the modern software development world, and take up something less technical.( like sheep farming )

Programmers and people with detailed knowledge of the P3D API correct me if I'm wrong here:  I think the amount of work to port P3D to 64 bits is way overblown.  

 

For one thing, Operating Systems have been at 64 bits for a pretty long time, so everything related to the platform, including compilers, is reliable and thoroughly tested. For another, no work is required for any textures, model design or gauge design.

 

If everything were ideal (which admittedly it never is) then P3D needs a recompile, the addon APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) need to be redefined for 64 bit with legacy calls for 32 bit and the vendors have to recompile their addons (the executable code) for the new API. The real  problem, as far as I can see it, would be code management, repackaging and releasing, not the code changes themselves. 

 

That is the way I remember it from porting 16 bit code to 32 bit code a long way ago. And that was not as straightforward because of the horrible 'segmented' 16 bit Intel architecture (shudder!).

 

Ideally, there shouldn't be a change in the source code required - the memory handling should be mostly opaque in a system programming language. There might be some explicit pointer arithmetic somewhere, but those cases would have to be well documented and are generally big no-nos.

 

Problems could arise for vendors who circumvented the API, as it is apparently necessary to get some things done in FSX. That working outside of the API is why some things (like Instant Scenery) need a patch every time a new minor version of P3D gets released. 

 

Please point out if I am overlooking something fundamental. 

I see this thread is still kicking along ... good for P3D forum statistics ... thanks John!

 

I think John V needs to be reminded that Flight Simulator started life with NO 3rd party content ... nothing, nada, zippo, and look what happened.

 

Cheers, Rob.

I don't know if anyone noticed, but after John V. posted that, there was very little discussion in that thread (other than a few comments about this thread on AVSim) and no further responses from either John V. or any other ORBX staff. It's almost like the original comment was made without  considering the potential  backlash, but once it was quoted on other flight sim websites, it was too late either to either edit or delete it.

 

One of the allures of P3d is that it may eventually be updated to 64 bit. If that is not going to happen, the benefits of presently converting to P3d are reduced substantially in my opinion. With the advent of FSX Steam, the two platforms are more or less comparable. P3d looks better and that in itself is a plus. But if it looks better and it might eventually rid many complex add-ons of OOMs, then P3d is far more attractive.

Orbx,s posters most likely to scared of getting banned,if there is going to be a 64 bit version of P3d then it will be for one reason only,that is because LM need and want P3d in 64 bit,I would imagine that LM will decide not JV

peter

One of the allures of P3d is that it may eventually be updated to 64 bit. If that is not going to happen, the benefits of presently converting to P3d are reduced substantially in my opinion. With the advent of FSX Steam, the two platforms are more or less comparable. P3d looks better and that in itself is a plus. But if it looks better and it might eventually rid many complex add-ons of OOMs, then P3d is far more attractive.

How does a potential 64-bit P3D accrue present benefits. Would it be a free upgrade? Was P3D V2? Sometimes I think, 64-bit will give developers a further excuse to bloat their products even more than they do now.

 

 

An Australian trait.

 A person may not mince their words, but they may be minced already.  Straight shooter doesn't mean shooting at the right thing.

 

 

that is because LM need and want P3d in 64 bit,I would imagine that LM will decide not JV

 

Exactly. LM have invested tremendously up to this point, I have a hard time believing they would just forget the 64bit roadmap just because one dev doesnt like the conversion process. If JV doesnt want to do it, you can be sure someone will step up and provide addons for a 64bit p3d.

In the end the market will dictate. Perhaps corporate training will not be interested in addons so much, but if the flightsim communities are still allowed to use p3d 64bit under the current license, then the money will be there to be made. Build it and they will come.

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...

 

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.  

LM have invested tremendously up to this point, I have a hard time believing they would just forget the 64bit roadmap just because one dev doesnt like the conversion process.

 

They are not and have not been ... the correct answer to this thread is still the correct answer to 64bit P3D.

 

64bit is needed, try loading FlyTampa's Toronto with all the options enabled ... no amount of code "optimization" and memory deallocation strategy is going to cure an OOM before an Airport even fully loads.  Everyone, including LM are well are of the need for 64bit and have the same desires and goals.

 

Relax, be happy, enjoy flight simulation and the future it holds.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Methinks some people should learn to read between the lines and calm down.

 

 

Vic

 

 

try loading FlyTampa's Toronto with all the options enabled

 

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?

P3D is in a great place. Just look at the feature set that has been added to date. The eye candy we have now is simply amazing, in 2.5 we also had a restructure, it was a little chaotic at first but all the 3rd party dev's worked overtime and here we are and the dust has settled.

 

Personally I think everyone should pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

 

So, where next? This simulator is on the verge of moving onto the next level IMO perhaps a few more optimisations will come but after that to move forwards were all going to have to go through more turmoil. 64bit P3D will set this pastime alight. Personally, I think we should be seriously debating that step because it's closer than we think.

IF only there is a way to do everything outside FSX/P3D

 

Scenery done outside with its own 4GB. Aircraft done outside the sim having its own 4GB, AI, Weather, ATC, Terrain and graphics pushed to the Graphics Card... use the FSIM only for taking the output from all these outside glob and putting on the screen in font, we can beat the 32bit OOM ISsue

 

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?

 

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'