32 bit applications are not transferrable to 64 bits.  Most assets will be, but not the core engine.  So to me, DTG have got it right.  They're starting with 64 bit as their base, rather than constantly investing in, and developing a 32 bit system.

 

The more LM add to P3D, the more of a headache the project of "moving" it to a 64 bit platform will be.

 

So I intuitively feel DTG's approach may lead to faster results, in terms of a fully featured 64 bit platform.

 

 

That's how I feel. I won't have a chance to try it until tonight (in Japan) but from what I've seen so far, personally I'll be underwhelmed with the actual experience of Flight School, but as a presumed test bed to get practical feedback on what matters to the community for the full sim later, I'm happy with DTG's approach so far.

Bill is correct. In software you code to your target architecture and functionality first, then you optimize and fix bugs.

 

If your objective is to get to 64 bits, you want to do that sooner rather than later. The move to 64 bit could invalidate a lot of the work done to optimize a 32 bit application, so the effort would be wasted and has to be re-thought and re-done.

 

For example, I'm guessing DTG is memory mapping more files than FSX did. This can use a lot of VAS, but not necessarily much more RAM. The OS can handle demand paging of file contents to RAM as needed. With a 4GB VAS constraint, it's something you would not be able to do in a 32 bit application though, so instead of leveraging the OS you have to do more memory management internally to the application, probably with worse performance, then throw away all the code later in a move to 64 bit.

So I have to go to steam and then "play game' .... no exe file for Flight school...k..

Manny, there's a bloody ICON on your desktop to launch DTG Flight School... just like FSX and P3D has.

I rushed in trying Flight School, and was so stupid that I couldn't even find:

 

- how to define the toe brake axis and  delete axis from controllers where I didn't want them in;

- the CFG allowing me to tweak the LOD, Affinity and other stuff...

 

At the end of last night, tired and a bit disappointed with not even being able to use the tor brakes I gave up....

 

I am re-installing it :-)

 

 

The more LM add to P3D, the more of a headache the project of "moving" it to a 64 bit platform will be.

 

 

If your objective is to get to 64 bits, you want to do that sooner rather than later. The move to 64 bit could invalidate a lot of the work done to optimize a 32 bit application, so the effort would be wasted and has to be re-thought and re-done.

 

Granted you guys sound like you know what you are talking about but that's exactly the opposite of what the other experts who also sounded like they knew what they where talking about pertaining the P3D strategy of Optimizing the 32 bit code first and then recompiling the sim in 64bit.

 

That was always the stock answer given when the subject of a 64bit P3D came up!

 

So perhaps someone is not telling the truth?

Has dovetail not learned anything from MS Flight?

15 bucks will barely buy you 2 sandwiches at your local fast food place....and those are gone after a few minutes. Why not

Has dovetail not learned anything from MS Flight?

 

I did 5 hours now in DTGFS. MS Flight did almost everything better. Sadly... Hoped for DTGFS.

 

 

So perhaps someone is not telling the truth?

 

This so-called strategy doesn't make any sense to me. It could be a case of something being lost in translation, or the devil may be in the details as to why they would delay 64 bit conversion. I'd love to hear a detailed explanation. I wish these FS developers would give technical talks about what they are doing, or write some articles or papers. Microsoft used to do that with MSFS.

 

It could also be the case that LM management doesn't see a business case and doesn't want to commit the resources.

 

 

I did 5 hours now in DTGFS. MS Flight did almost everything better. Sadly... Hoped for DTGFS.

Why compare apples with oranges?

Has dovetail not learned anything from MS Flight?

 

What was it that they didn't learn from MS Flight?

 

Statement like this need to be substantiated. It's certainly not a given that everybody has the same opinion.

 

Read what Martin has stated for the reasons for Flight School, and the news they will follow this up with a full Flight Simulator as a bases for why the products exist.

 

Pretty much everything ties back to the use of FSX technology which was a design descion based on providing a reasonable business plan for sustainable future development of the main Flight Simulator.

 

Like it or not Dovetail have delivered a Flight School which is accessible for new flyers and looks ok enough for the less initiated to enjoy a reasonable flight experience.

Manny, there's a bloody ICON on your desktop to launch DTG Flight School... just like FSX and P3D has.

 

Glad you kept a lid on it Bill :smile: ! Manny right click on your title in Library and select Create Deskop Shortcut.

At least we have default FSX ATC, updated World airports database, maybe some navaids too ( ? ) ....

 

But.... is there AI traffic ?

Tell me what you like - but before going 64 bit with a (buggy code)  the 32 bit should have been sort out - and only than go 64 bit

 

you have to ask yourself who is doing the right thing here:

 

Lockheed Martin  -  or  -  DTG ?

 

i know the answer.

 

Moving to 64 bit after release is a huge deal. Laminar Research were set back by this, no wonder Lockheed Martin put so much effort into the VAS side. It's a moot point anyway, as Dovetail have already done the work and are addressing the issues with the FSX (or should that now be Dovetail) engine.

 

I actually thing it's refreshing that we have somebody different talking ownership of the FSX code and applying a different approach. Comparing Lockheed Martin's product with a future Dovetail release will always be a little unfair for many reasons - so I wouldn't look at it that way. Dovetail have an oportunity to bring something fresh to the table which at the moment is having a slow start but give them time. It will probably take 2 or 3 releases before the community accepts what they have, but if the 3PD's get on board early then who knows how things will shape up.

 

To make you feel better I've provided you with an image for 'arsenal82'... :smile: :smile:

 

Arsenal FC 1982 Shirt

This so-called strategy doesn't make any sense to me. It could be a case of something being lost in translation, or the devil may be in the details as to why they would delay 64 bit conversion. I'd love to hear a detailed explanation. I wish these FS developers would give technical talks about what they are doing, or write some articles or papers. Microsoft used to do that with MSFS.

 

It could also be the case that LM management doesn't see a business case and doesn't want to commit the resources.

 

Well there are different types of optimizations and fixes. Going 64-bit doesn't mean you can't recycle any code. It's mostly a re-compile of existing code, though in order to take full advantage of it, you have to re-write parts of it. The whole LOD-system they use now could probably be thrown out the window. No reason to dynamically load and unload dozens of LOD rings in 64-bit, when there's plenty of VAS to just load everything at the highest LOD.

 

I agree that if the ultimate goal was 64-bit, then they should go ahead and make the transition, and not worry about saving 4KB of VAS per tree or whatever....

I honestly don't know why they're delaying it when OOMs are such a big problem. They don't seem to worry about breaking backward compatibility, considering the massive changes they are doing to the folder structure etc. The 64-bit transition for X-Plane was mostly painless, though it required many add-on vendors to provide updated modules, but the same was true for the P3D v3 update....

I did 5 hours now in DTGFS. MS Flight did almost everything better. Sadly... Hoped for DTGFS.

 

 

MS Flight and a much  better flight model than anything I have seen with Flight School aircraft.