64bit can't make up for an engine which was developed (and expanded later on) 16 years ago (and was based on the previous version of the same engine). It will please P3D players who stumbled upon OOM issues,  but that's about it. There is no future nor a way to expand it but eventually the pool of people who used FSX in the past.

There is one silly thing on x-Plane which makes me understand how old the FSX/ESP engine is. Dynamic light generated by object. You land on a highway? The lights will illuminate your plane. What do we get on FSX/ESP? Light Textures only.

"When is that expected to happen"

 

It will be much sooner than the time it has taken for P3D to upgrade to 64bit.

 

The reason why XP has been introduced into this thread is because of the word "any."

 

Comprende?

All rumors are false, P3D v4 will be 256bit. 

Ok, here goes 'any'

 

How about FlightGear?

It's actually quite a nice sim,(free!!) & their space shuttle is awesome, better than anything similar I've seen that our sims can handle.

And then we have SimplePlanes. (https://www.simpleplanes.com/)..

This is fun as well. Something different, where you can design your plane, or whatever!

After a while, for me anyway, point to point flying, does get a bit boring, I'm really not concerened with raindrops or stuff like that, and trying new things is quite fun.

 

64bit? Meh! So what, IMHO, ramp take-off's, driving & racing around F1tracks are also fun, & certainly do not make me a lessor simmer than those those 'button pushers'. (& a lot less expensive as well).

 

So, for fun, we have built an MD 326 twin seat simulator (in a fuseage), as well as an Avro Shackleton, using original yokes, seats etc. We are using, believe it, FS2004 & freeware local South African scenery (Aeroworx).

I just cannot understand how going 64bit is going to improve our immersion factor.

 

But then, thats just me! :smile: 

 

Hi! Folks,

 

I would like to know your opinions about the P3D 64bits.

 

IMHO I think that when Lockheed Martin moves P3D to 64 bits, any simulator will not survive, because today the main issue in P3D is OOM.

 

With 64 bits this issue will be solve. Today I have P3D v3.4, FSX-SE and X-Plane 10 and I admit always tried use all simulators but when the day came to the end I am using to P3D v3.4 in the most of the time.

 

 

Lets I know your opinions about this matter...

 

Thanks

 

Do you live in a bubble? XP is already 64bit and I would never trade it in simply because P3D moves to 64bit. And I am sure most other XP users feel the same!

64bit can't make up for an engine which was developed (and expanded later on) 16 years ago (and was based on the previous version of the same engine)..

Ths s a myth. I recall having tried (and disliked) early X-Plane demos during the 90-s. This was the time where the present MSFS compatible product line roots as well. Of course, X-plane made a steep development since - as made FSX/P3D.

 

And.no, I don't think X-Plane will disappear. I am pretty sure both will be with us for a longer time with the user ratio not shifting much. And those relying on XP11 (which seems to be a step forward indeed) can be sure P3D will not remain static as well.

 

Kind regards, Michael

I just cannot understand how going 64bit is going to improve our immersion factor.

I agree with everything you have said in your last post Robin. But for many, the immersion factor will be improved by simply not having to restart the sim to reload 'new VAS' or crashing out on approach to an airport after a long flight. Restarting the sim is sometimes necessary and really kills immersion - even worse, OOMing on approach.

 

Apart from which - why would you not want 64 bit? Every simmer and his yoke has been wanting it since 2006. Put it down to progress and aligning with competitors, if nothing else.

Hi Erich,

Maybe, when I see it, & what it offers. Strangely enough, I'm having so much fun, still, with my FS2004, & Garry & Ed's Ford Tri-motor project stuff. Where else can I have sloping runways & ramps? It's not an issue that things are not photo real.

 

For me, simming is about facts, fiction & fun!

It really depends on how faithful DTG and LM are to the standard ESP file formals such as MDL, AIR, BGL, etc.. Further, texture files will probably continue as DDS.  I don't see why either company would tinker with those file formats, except to extend them in a fashion, while still maintaining  backwards compatibility. At one point I thought that it would be a good idea to replace the scenery BGL files with ArcGIS SHP files, as the SHP format is the industry standard for geographic data. But having watched LM over the past few years and more recently DTG with its test public offering, Flight School, I am convinced that the standard file formats will be alive and well in any future 64 bit versions of ESP.

 

So that leaves addons that either use SimConnect, a DLL or just somehow probe into the inner workings of the sim in some nonstandard fashion. I don't think that any of these options pose a serious barrier to 64 bit conversion. Look for example, at the recent XP compatible version of the Garmin GTN 750 unit. All that was needed was an interface written in 64 bits between the 32 bit Garmin EXE file and XP10 64 bit. The conversion to 64 bit is vastly overblown as an issue.

 

Good to know.  Not so familiar with those intricacies, and if all those great add-on developers would have to invest a lot of time to the point of perhaps an upgrade fee, which would be understandable.

 

 

Hi Erich,
Maybe, when I see it, & what it offers. Strangely enough, I'm having so much fun, still, with my FS2004, & Garry & Ed's Ford Tri-motor project stuff. Where else can I have sloping runways & ramps? It's not an issue that things are not photo real.
 
For me, simming is about facts, fiction & fun!

 

Then I'd say you're onto a winner and why change?  

Ths s a myth. I recall having tried (and disliked) early X-Plane demos during the 90-s. This was the time where the present MSFS compatible product line roots as well. Of course, X-plane made a steep development since - as made FSX/P3D.

 

And.no, I don't think X-Plane will disappear. I am pretty sure both will be with us for a longer time with the user ratio not shifting much. And those relying on XP11 (which seems to be a step forward indeed) can be sure P3D will not remain static as well.

 

Kind regards, Michael

 

Michael, you seem to be missing my point. X-plane had continuous development. The others did not. There have been years in which the graphic engine stayed the same. This is beyond addons, they add something to it but do not increase the capability of the engine itself.

Never had an OOM in P3D. I have a feeling that a 64-bit P3D will look and feel exactly like the 32-bit version right out of the box. I predict that It won't be spectacular until 3rd party devs work with it for a couple of years.

 

P3D is a fully functioning sim that integrates all aspects of flight. That is why it is, and will continue to be, my sim of choice. Yet, I do look forward to a 64-bit platform and what it means for ongoing development.

Michael, you seem to be missing my point. X-plane had continuous development. The others did not. There have been years in which the graphic engine stayed the same. This is beyond addons, they add something to it but do not increase the capability of the engine itself.

 

X plane has nad to have continuous development, because they started out so far behind. They haven't even caught up to changing seasons yet, or decent AI or ATC. 

X plane has nad to have continuous development, because they started out so far behind. They haven't even caught up to changing seasons yet, or decent AI or ATC. 

 

And maybe they never will, and yet there are plenty of things in which they are clearly superior to the competition

And maybe they never will, and yet there are plenty of things in which they are clearly superior to the competition

 

If that is true, how come they have such a small market share?