Prepar3d v4

[Guest]

I heard that V3.5 release was imminent and that they have shifted all of the Graphics processing to the GPU and it is also going around that Nvidia are releasing a dedicated driver just for P3D to  make it 100% Quad SLI Compatible. Apparently, V4 is a 64 version of V3.5 but addons will not yet work until the Devs recompile them. My psychiatrist did tell me that I need to stop making stuff up and telling other people because when the other people find out that what I said wasn't true it damages my credibility. But I find it very hard to follow his advise because when I am telling the truth no one believes me anyway. And the stuff I make up often in fact turns out to be true!

[Ted Striker 338]

This thread just gets better and better! Keep it coming! More leaks than the White House and much more interesting!

Ted

[NZ255 309]

36 minutes ago, Ted Striker said:

More leaks than the White House and much more interesting!

FAKE NEWS! 

SAD

[magnetite 38]

3 hours ago, Avidean said:

I heard that V3.5 release was imminent and that they have shifted all of the Graphics processing to the GPU and it is also going around that Nvidia are releasing a dedicated driver just for P3D to  make it 100% Quad SLI Compatible. Apparently, V4 is a 64 version of V3.5 but addons will not yet work until the Devs recompile them. My psychiatrist did tell me that I need to stop making stuff up and telling other people because when the other people find out that what I said wasn't true it damages my credibility. But I find it very hard to follow his advise because when I am telling the truth no one believes me anyway. And the stuff I make up often in fact turns out to be true!

As much as I smell sarcasm here, to be honest, Nvidia actually dropped support for quad SLI in their recent lineup of cards. Doesn't apply to Vulkan or DX12 applications though. P3D is still DX11 for the time being.

Edited May 22, 2017 by magnetite

[anden145 2,284]

This is quite interesting...

I've never really gone into the compiling of programs. I've written a couple of C++ programs but not gotten into the nitty-gritty details of difference of compiling for different architectures.

Now, a generally curious question: If you have the source code, would you get the EXACT same end result, when compiling it with a 32-bit compiler vs a 64-bit compiler?

[keithb77 305]

Quote

If you have the source code, would you get the EXACT same end result, when compiling it with a 32-bit compiler vs a 64-bit compiler?

No - the 64-bit compiler will generate code that can only be run on a 64-bit CPU under a 64-bit OS and will use 64-bits for registers (for internal arithmetic and addressing).
The binary code will probably be bigger.
Most significant is the greater address range, you can now use all of that RAM rather than (less than) 4 GB.

All PC CPUs have been 64 bit for a long time, and run 32-bit code under emulation.

Cheers

Keith

[anden145 2,284]

31 minutes ago, keithb77 said:

No - the 64-bit compiler will generate code that can only be run on a 64-bit CPU under a 64-bit OS and will use 64-bits for registers (for internal arithmetic and addressing).
The binary code will probably be bigger.
Most significant is the greater address range, you can now use all of that RAM rather than (less than) 4 GB.

All PC CPUs have been 64 bit for a long time, and run 32-bit code under emulation.

Cheers

Keith

Thanks for the answer...  wasn't exactly what I meant.

I guess what I was aiming for with my question (sorry if I didn't express myself clearly) was if the result of the compiled source code with an 32-bit and 64-bit, would work identically? I read somewhere, that when compiling with a 64-compiler, for instance integers would be interpreted slighty different. Would a change/re-writing of source code be necessary for the end result to work the same? 

Hope you get what I'm aiming for? 

[roesti 71]

29 minutes ago, Anders Gron said:

Would a change/re-writing of source code be necessary for the end result to work the same? 

No, not necessarily. In most cases, you're able to just compile for another architecture and it works. As you said, problems only occur if you use special, 32-bit only types or libraries. But it's also possible to load 32-bit assemblies in 64-bit environments. Your 64-bit Windows for example does it all the time with 32-bit applications (like FSX, P3D) ;) And you can add such compatibility layers to your application, too.

Edited May 22, 2017 by roesti

[Ray Proudfoot 8,930]

10 hours ago, Jim Young said:

Hi Ray,

I have no first-hand knowledge but I know people in high places who are very knowledgeable.  All I can say.

Best regards,

Jim

Thanks for the link in the other message Jim. Reading it suggests scenery will be OK but aircraft with DLLs won't. That rules out FS Labs ConcordeX unless it's adapted for 64-bit. I sincerely hope it is.

[Amon1973 1,421]

10 hours ago, Green parks said:

 

Sounds like you just let the cat out of the bag. I thought that was a big no no here? 

It looks as though the NDA has (or about to be) been lifted so people can talk more freely.

[Amon1973 1,421]

7 hours ago, Avidean said:

I heard that V3.5 release was imminent and that they have shifted all of the Graphics processing to the GPU and it is also going around that Nvidia are releasing a dedicated driver just for P3D to  make it 100% Quad SLI Compatible. Apparently, V4 is a 64 version of V3.5 but addons will not yet work until the Devs recompile them. My psychiatrist did tell me that I need to stop making stuff up and telling other people because when the other people find out that what I said wasn't true it damages my credibility. But I find it very hard to follow his advise because when I am telling the truth no one believes me anyway. And the stuff I make up often in fact turns out to be true!

Who told you that you had credibility.  

[Amon1973 1,421]

2 hours ago, keithb77 said:

No - the 64-bit compiler will generate code that can only be run on a 64-bit CPU under a 64-bit OS and will use 64-bits for registers (for internal arithmetic and addressing).
The binary code will probably be bigger.
Most significant is the greater address range, you can now use all of that RAM rather than (less than) 4 GB.

All PC CPUs have been 64 bit for a long time, and run 32-bit code under emulation.

Cheers

Keith

I thought emulation uses CPU assets which in turn makes the performance worse, yet everyone seems to agree that the performance of P3D v4 64bit will be no better than V3? 

[anden145 2,284]

1 hour ago, roesti said:

No, not necessarily. In most cases, you're able to just compile for another architecture and it works. As you said, problems only occur if you use special, 32-bit only types or libraries. But it's also possible to load 32-bit assemblies in 64-bit environments. Your 64-bit Windows for example does it all the time with 32-bit applications (like FSX, P3D) ;) And you can add such compatibility layers to your application, too.

Okay. Thanks for answer! Really appreciate it. 

[mikced76 57]

So if 64 bit wont do anything for the performance, and if some rumors are true that there wont really be any new features why should I buy it? :)  

[Ray Proudfoot 8,930]

3 minutes ago, mikced76 said:

So if 64 bit wont do anything for the performance, and if some rumors are true that there wont really be any new features why should I buy it? :)  

Sorry, I would have thought that obvious. The 4Gb VAS limit is removed.