64-Bit has little to nothing to do with performance, it's the ability to use all available system memory rather than just 4Gb. It will reduce the VAS issues people have, but conversely because people will install more add ons it could make performance worse. Nor will it entirely eliminate VAS issues, i asked over at the X-Plane forums about VAS on the 64-Bit sim, somebody reported they ran out of memory (system mem) at 16Gb!!!!!!



You see, it's very likely that developers who currently ring every Kb of memory for there product will be far more laissez faire at 64-Bit.

 

Yes, I'm aware of the VAS issues you have mentioned and the possibility of avoiding those issues (mostly) with a 64-bit flight sim.  But your last statement is more to the point.  As developers become more demanding in writing their applications for 64-bit, the more are the demands made on the simmer's hardware.  It will require, it seems to me, a likewise upgrade in our hardware to keep up with the demands placed on it by developers.  At least this is one of the points I took away from Venema's original assertions over at the Orbx forums.

The title of this thread is totally misleading - can't stand when people do this to gain attention

 

The title should read Orbx sales in P3D taking over by years end. FSX still has the highest market share of any sim

 

 

I don't have X-Plane, but I asked the same question to a high number of X-Plane users in different fora. While they report or complain about different issues, nobody actually reports VAS problems.

 

Generally that's true, however with the increased memory people really push everything at the simulator (e.g OSM, high-res imagery, UHD mesh). The effect is that they can exhaust up the system's physical memory and then swapping comes into play, which shouldn't cause an OOM, but rather cause poor performance. 64-bit is not a magic solution that will allow you to throw everything at the simulator. The same rules apply, if you push your system too much then you will have problems

 

The advantage of course is that modern systems have far more memory than they did on the FSX days and addons are becoming far more demanding. The move to 64-bit is  the logical way forward but it isn't the end of the problem, it just moves the bottleneck somewhere else.

Good point, Ryan.  This was certainly the intent of Venema's original post over at Orbx.

The title of this thread is totally misleading - can't stand when people do this to gain attention

 

The title should read Orbx sales in P3D taking over by years end. FSX still has the highest market share of any sim

 

Actually it should read "Orbx sales in P3D projected to take over by years end" :smile: . Whatever one thinks of the issue, there's no garanty, in general, that an observed trend will continue in the future and at the same pace. Specially that the market will be agitated by two new products in 2016.  Now, reading forums here and there, I see a lot of people switching to v3, even diehard FSXers. Don't we see, all over again, the FS9/FSX debates of 2006/2008 ?   

P3D is unquestionably superior in performance to FSX but the trouble is the cost of add-ons for it.

The only thing DTG Flights sim has going for it is 64bit,and LM have done a great job making p3dv3 work in the 32bit environment without ooms. I'm actually looking forward to Aerofly 2 I think it has really great potential.

P3D is unquestionably superior in performance to FSX but the trouble is the cost of add-ons for it.

Most devs charge the same price or addons regardless of the sim or the license, the only ones I know of who up prices are PMDG and Flight1

I'm with Delta VA and in about 3 weeks or so I shall be adding to the P3D user percentage. I keep hearing P3D V3 is much much better than fsx. I'm excited to find out. Not so excited about the week long config and setup with all my hardware ?

I'm with Delta VA and in about 3 weeks or so I shall be adding to the P3D user percentage. I keep hearing P3D V3 is much much better than fsx. I'm excited to find out. Not so excited about the week long config and setup with all my hardware

 

You will love P3D.   Don't mess with tweaks like you have to do with FSX. Just load it up, install one add on at a time, and fly after each , and you won't have any problems. 

P3D is unquestionably superior in performance to FSX but the trouble is the cost of add-ons for it.

That's a pretty bold statement considering they're both 32-bit programs. How, in your opinion, is P3D "unquestionably superior"?

That's a pretty bold statement considering they're both 32-bit programs. How, in your opinion, is P3D "unquestionably superior"?

 

It looks much better and it is much more stable.  That pretty much sums it up. 

It looks much better and it is much more stable.  That pretty much sums it up.

Looking much better is purely subjective, imo. I've seen screenshots from guys using P3D and I wouldn't say it's *much* better. There may be some improvement, but again, that would be a subjective opinion. Stable? I've seen posts of folks complaining of OOMs in P3D, so, again, stable seems to depend on the user and his sim setup. To be kind, unquestionably superior seems to be an exaggerated claim. FSX and P3D are both 32-bit sims. P3D admittedly handles VAS problems better than FSX, but that doesn't qualify it as "unquestionably superior". A 64-bit sim, on the other hand, has the potential to be unquestionably superior. But not P3D.

 

 

the only ones I know of who up prices are PMDG and Flight1

A2A Simulations too.

A2A Simulations too.

For their higher license tiers but for the acidemic version they charge the same as the FSX products.

You will love P3D.   Don't mess with tweaks like you have to do with FSX. Just load it up, install one add on at a time, and fly after each , and you won't have any problems. 

Isnt a full reinstall needed with every new release? or can P3d installover the top