So, generally accepted that V4 will be 64 bit, what else do you think would be a 'plausible' but significant change to the new platform?

 

Also, true or false:   64 bit will rid P3D of blurry textures?

I suppose it depends to what extent LM change/improve the code when the 64-bit jump occurs.

 

If its just a direct switch then I'd imagine most of the issues relating to the ESP engine will still be present; to be honest I could happily live with that to be rid of OOM's.

 

From a consumer point of view the more they change the code the less backward compatability we will have with existing addons; but maybe to really go forward we need a clean slate with P3D v4.x?

 

From the discusions I've seen across various forums the general opinion is that the majority of scenery addons could be ported to 64-bit without too much work, but aircraft would be a different matter?

From the discusions I've seen across various forums the general opinion is that the majority of scenery addons could be ported to 64-bit without too much work, but aircraft would be a different matter?

 

Then you have read the same threads that I have.

They could only migrate the scenery and leavle the FDM / Aircraft components in 32 bit, I believe. This would solve most compatibility issues.

 

But above all, they should invest on a new Flight Dynamics engine...

probably fs2002 type ground polygons will be completely left behind this time as they almost did with 3.3 making many airports unusable. MCX is able to convert some of GPs to p3d type but it is not perfect as there is lot of flickering. Plus there are no seasons in p3d type ones from what I have read.

i think not that 64 bit will help with blurry textures.

 

64 bit will help with OOM`s.  But blurry textures are usualy a sign of not enough processing power or too much data to process.

Be prepar3d for lots of performance issues when P3D goes 64 bit. Devs will go banas with high rez textures and what not and we'll all be back to square one

 

I imagine v4 won't be much different than v1, 2 and 3 in most areas. LM isn't Microsoft ACES and have shown little interest in doing massive upgrades like we were used to every two years from Microsoft.

jcomm, on 04 Jan 2017 - 11:49 AM, said:

But above all, they should invest on a new Flight Dynamics engine..

But what does that mean? There are some that would argue that the lookup table method used by p3d is no worse or better than blade-element theory or any other flight dynamics methodology employed to create flight models. It seems that the skill lies with the individual FDE designer for his/her aircraft which makes the model an A+ or F result

 

simmerhead, on 04 Jan 2017 - 12:46 PM, said:

LM isn't Microsoft ACES and have shown little interest in doing massive upgrades like we were used to every two years from Microsoft.

That's probably because they've been optimising, updating, fixing the platform for a much broader professional application that the home flightsim market. The changes may not be that massive visually, but it is (for me) a MUCH better sim than FSX was at the time of its demise.

They could only migrate the scenery and leavle the FDM / Aircraft components in 32 bit, I believe. This would solve most compatibility issues.

 

But above all, they should invest on a new Flight Dynamics engine...

 

As a real world pilot with many hours, I don't see what is wrong with the flight dynamics as they are now, providing the aircraft is designed well. 

Only Kelly Johnson could have designed a better flight model... I'm more concerned about the scenery engine - that's were future improvement should be.

As a real world pilot with many hours, I don't see what is wrong with the flight dynamics as they are now, providing the aircraft is designed well. 

 

I am a RW GA pilot also, have you tried to get a GA sim aircraft to spin? its not easy and if it does it doesnt spin like it would with 1 stalled wing. 

 

There are many issues with the sims flight dynamic envelope, especially atmospheric physics modelling, have a look at fsdeveloper to get more insight. I agree that generally a well developed airfile is able to mask these deficiencies but as p3d is now marketed as a training tool, these legacy microsoft bugs need ironing out. This will of course unfortunately break the old legacy airfiles

I'll be staying with 32 bit until most add ins like PMDG become 64 bit

 

 

There are many issues with the sims flight dynamic envelope, especially atmospheric physics modelling, have a look at fsdeveloper to get more insight. I agree that generally a well developed airfile is able to mask these deficiencies but as p3d is now marketed as a training tool, these legacy microsoft bugs need ironing out.

 

I believe this to be an issue with any flight dynamics engine taken to the edge - or outside of the flight envelope - even with Level D sims.

 

The A2A models spin very well, for a simulator.

Based on ORBX's somewhat cryptic announcement from a couple of weeks ago, it's more than likely this is 64-bit.  There will be growing pains, but OOMs being a thing of the past would be great.

 

How long popular add-on developers take to catch up will be interesting to see.

 

It would be nice to update airfield layouts since the platform borrows from 2006, and many major airports keep changing.

 

Having 64-bit P3D, DTG, and XP11 makes for great competition and ejoyment.

Be prepar3d for lots of performance issues when P3D goes 64 bit. Devs will go banas with high rez textures and what not and we'll all be back to square one

 

I imagine v4 won't be much different than v1, 2 and 3 in most areas. LM isn't Microsoft ACES and have shown little interest in doing massive upgrades like we were used to every two years from Microsoft.

 

Good point! It could well be that developers just do not care any more about texture size, resolution etc. because of 64bit. The overall performance (stutters, fps) could suffer because the hardware is just not ready to handle it.