Are you telling me that if you have a 32bit os and more than 4gb of ram, it only uses 4?

 

Correct. If you install 8GB ram on a 32 bit machine, it will only have 4GB usable. 

 

Here are some better explanations of why 32 bit systems cannot use more than 4GB of ram: 

 

http://superuser.com/questions/394630/can-i-have-8-gb-ram-on-32-bit-win-7

 

http://superuser.com/questions/372881/is-there-a-technical-reason-why-32-bit-windows-is-limited-to-4gb-of-ram

wasnt  the pmdg the same   fsx first  followed  by p3d   sure it  was  the same  for  orbx  and  rex  products, don't know  by   amateur company, Iam sure they be  happy  being  called  amateurs

Correct. If you install 8GB ram on a 32 bit machine, it will only have 4GB usable. 

 

Here are some better explanations of why 32 bit systems cannot use more than 4GB of ram: 

 

http://superuser.com/questions/394630/can-i-have-8-gb-ram-on-32-bit-win-7

 

http://superuser.com/questions/372881/is-there-a-technical-reason-why-32-bit-windows-is-limited-to-4gb-of-ram

A bit simplistic, yes each app is limited to 4GB virtual address space (VAS) (upto 3GB for APP, 1GB system in a 32bit OS) the system does use all the memory installed on the system for memory management (paging). same as is done with the HD page file for virtual memory. Remember address space is different then actual physical memory space. People tend to treat them the same, they are not.

Iam happy i made you happy.

My apologies - my post was rude I see now. I hope you'll enjoy the FS Labs A320 as much as I hope to do!

 

Martin

This has nothing to do with amateur company. Not sure why its a point of argument here. Professional companies have all kinds of delays. Boeing and Airbus had big delays with thier releases. Are they amateur?

 

The real question is how much more indepth will it be to justify flying it over the Aerosoft buses.Price point will play a big part in determining that for many.

 

Im very curious as I love complex systems simulated.  But I am disappointed that P3D wont be released at same time.

My apologies - my post was rude I see now. I hope you'll enjoy the FS Labs A320 as much as I hope to do!

Martin

Hi Martin,

 

No hard feeling !

Eventually we might enjoy it.

I think the main developer behind FSLabs used to work for PMDG and was the biggest person behind the PMDG MD-11 addon. So the developer might be new in terms of their name, but the people behind the scenes are experienced. Sometimes real life gets in the way even well known developers disappear like Level-D with their 757 and Ready for Pushback with their updated 747 classic. People on the teams leave, money isn't there, this hobby is just a hobby most developers are not full time developing airplanes because there isn't enough money in it. Unless you pump out an airplane a month like Carenado.

I think the main developer behind FSLabs used to work for PMDG and was the biggest person behind the PMDG MD-11 addon. So the developer might be new in terms of their name, but the people behind the scenes are experienced. Sometimes real life gets in the way even well known developers disappear like Level-D with their 757 and Ready for Pushback with their updated 747 classic. People on the teams leave, money isn't there, this hobby is just a hobby most developers are not full time developing airplanes because there isn't enough money in it. Unless you pump out an airplane a month like Carenado.

 

This team has also developed the FSL concorde.

 

I think the reason it's taking so long is not full time work vs. part time .....  it's quality level.     I think some people are having a hard time understanding how the level of accuracy this product is trying to achieve demands way more time then your typical add-on.  I am sure the FSL team is more than capable of putting together a damn good product that does not push the envelope  in a relatively short period of time, however this product is way beyond what is currently out there in fidelity and accuracy.  

 

As far as the money goes....  There is money there, take a look at what some of the devs are flying. 

They owe nobody nothing.   They've been entitled to share their progress reports, provide release estimates, and to delay those estimates where they believe they need to do so, to ensure a high quality release, with as few bugs as possible.

 

Perhaps it's expectations to the contrary that are "amateur".

They owe nobody nothing.   They've been entitled to share their progress reports, provide release estimates, and to delay those estimates where they believe they need to do so, to ensure a high quality release, with as few bugs as possible.

 

Perhaps it's expectations to the contrary that are "amateur".

We dont owe them nothing as well. But be sure they need us more then you need them.

We dont owe them nothing as well. But be sure they need us more then you need them.

 

You may be right.   But I personally like to think of this hobby as being about fun and enjoyment, rather than 'needs'.  Let's face it, if you're having fun on a flight sim, the chances are you have a roof over your head and a full belly.   Needs perhaps don't come into it.  

 

My point was just that there is no contract - given of implied.  So it's perhaps not worth getting embittered, angry or frustrated over long development lead times.

 

I think we all just develop our own sense of what is vaporware (eg. LDS 757) and what is proving to be a heck of a long development but that we'll see eventually (eg.. FSL A320 and Aerosoft CRJ).

 

Blue skies!  :smile:

You may be right. But I personally like to think of this hobby as being about fun and enjoyment, rather than 'needs'. Let's face it, if you're having fun on a flight sim, the chances are you have a roof over your head and a full belly. Needs perhaps don't come into it.

 

My point was just that there is no contract - given of implied. So it's perhaps not worth getting embittered, angry or frustrated over long development lead times.

 

I think we all just develop our own sense of what is vaporware (eg. LDS 757) and what is proving to be a heck of a long development but that we'll see eventually (eg.. FSL A320 and Aerosoft CRJ).

 

Blue skies! :smile:

You right. Well, i guess we gonna see. Some people stating "take my money stright away, c.c is ready etc...". Me on the other side think its smart to wait and see what almost a decade of developing would bring as far as performance (thinking its developed in times of FSX and we are now in the future of P3D...),quilty etc... onlý then i might considre pay some outrageous amount of at least 80$ that iam sure they will ask for. just one last thing, i hate that arrogant approche of some developers using terms like "we dont owe you anything..." its just make me think twice how the support and communication gonna look like... just the way i see it. They should learn from Chris Bell what is support and future customers relations.

You right. Well, i guess we gonna see. Some people stating "take my money stright away, c.c is ready etc...". Me on the other side think its smart to wait and see what almost a decade of developing would bring as far as performance (thinking its developed in times of FSX and we are now in the future of P3D...),quilty etc... onlý then i might considre pay some outrageous amount of at least 80$ that iam sure they will ask for. just one last thing, i hate that arrogant approche of some developers using terms like "we dont owe you anything..." its just make me think twice how the support and communication gonna look like... just the way i see it. They should learn from Chris Bell what is support and future customers relations.

You wait - I'll buy.

 

DJ

Enjoy.

Now with the new (inofficial) HD textures out for Aerosoft's Airbus, if you just want to simulate a normal flight, what would be the benefit of FSL's airbus? Is it "only" that you have more system depth? Better textures or flight dynamics cannot be an argument. Im just asking to know what could be the motivation for people to buy again a bus if they already have the one from the competitor.