Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JamesIceland

The Change to 64 Bit - What Exactly Happens?

Recommended Posts

Guys - please don't get this thread closed down. I'm asking for people to contribute to a technical conversation about software development and what developers may or may not have to do in order to get things working within a 64 bit simulator environment.

This thread is not:

1) an opportunity to say you are happy with your current system and won't upgrade to anything until kinks are ironed out

2) an opportunity to bash developers for making people pay for their add-ons again (which is a bit presumptuous in itself as we don't even know if this will happen)

I am really disappointed to see so many genuine threads taken over in the same way time and time again. I politely and respectfully therefore ask you to take these other conversations and potential arguments into your own threads.

Thank you for your understanding and thank you VGBaron for trying to help to moderate.

James 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

I'm surprised about some who think going to 64 bit is a big downer concerning performance and I haven't seen anyone mention that 64 bit data is pushed through a wider path than 32 bit data, thats why a 32 bit only machine can't run 64 bit programs. The cpu and the motherboard have to accommodate the wider path. It can be true that once a program is optimized in 64 there can still be a bit of a slow down, but that is because (if developer takes advantage of the wider path) there is more data pushed at the same time as opposed to what could be pushed thru the 32 bit path. You don't get a 1:1 ratio in performance, but what you can program is greater, not to mention the break in the ram barrier with 32.

I went thru the transfer of DCS 32 bit to 64 bit. There were gripes beforehand, mostly from people who didn't have 64 bit compatible machines, and then a few after when they were not able to run at max settings anymore. They just forgot what 64 bit brought to the table, it's been so long and now it's "old hat", but there were several things, like all sounds could be run in their own thread and other such things. A higher fidelity flight modeling could be handled, a lot of changes could be handled that wasn't possible in a 32 bit environment.

Not all progressive things are a bag of BS and 64 bit especially is not one of them.   

  • Upvote 1

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-10700F CPU @ 2.90GHz (8 cores) Hyper on, Evga RTX 3060 12 Gig, 32 GB ram, Windows 11, P3D v6, and MSFS 2020 and a couple of SSD's

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, jimcarrel said:

I went thru the transfer of DCS 32 bit to 64 bit. There were gripes beforehand, mostly from people who didn't have 64 bit compatible machines, and then a few after when they were not able to run at max settings anymore. They just forgot what 64 bit brought to the table, it's been so long and now it's "old hat", but there were several things, like all sounds could be run in their own thread and other such things. A higher fidelity flight modeling could be handled, a lot of changes could be handled that wasn't possible in a 32 bit environment.

I had forgotten about DCS - that transition was pretty smooth. So was X Plane thinking about it.

Interestingly I was having a general look through FS News and saw that ImagineSim have posted on their Facebook page some "UltraHD" texture pictures - they mention in the comments that these will be optional for those that don't wish to migrate to P3D v4. I should point out that they do clarify (in replies) that they're assuming P3D v4 will be 64 bit. That aside however, this is perhaps the first post from an add-on developer that I have seen with an actual plan for what they will offer when things go 64 bit. Admittedly it's only higher res textures and that will obviously put added strain onto PC systems but it's an interesting tidbit. No other mention of any other work they have to do for 64 bit. I imagine upgraded textures will be a big part of the next gen sims.

Share this post


Link to post

I just hope the code is optimized for the several cores of the CPUs instead of relying solely on the brute force, a.k.a, CPU Clock in terms of GHz.

  • Upvote 1

Best regards,

Wanthuyr Filho

Instagram: AeroTacto

Share this post


Link to post

May be it would require too much redesigning of the ESP code to distribute the main work load, as it could as well have been done by now with v3 or v2 before going 64 bit. Or could it be they are planning to go 64 bit and do better multicore distribution together, to do rewriting of both aspects at the same time?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, PhugoidEffect said:

 

I just hope the code is optimized for the several cores of the CPUs instead of relying solely on the brute force, a.k.a, CPU Clock in terms of GHz.

 

 

17 minutes ago, him225 said:

 

May be it would require too much redesigning of the ESP code to distribute the main work load, as it could as well have been done by now with v3 or v2 before going 64 bit. Or could it be they are planning to go 64 bit and do better multicore distribution together, to do rewriting of both aspects at the same time?

 

Actually, I have been looking into this quite a bit because I'm just about to build a new flight sim PC. I was contemplating a Ryzen CPU or an Intel 7700k. I have gone with the 7700k, even though LM may offer better multi core optimisation in future versions. Although P3D does use all cores it isn't perfect. I've taken a bit of a gamble by going for a 4 core build in anticipation of 64 bit - my thinking is that today the 7700k is still one of the best CPU's for flights sims, and even with better core optimisation, still isn't going to become obsolete if P3D 64 bit appears. 5.1Ghz (my planned OC) on 4 cores will be no slouch. I'll have a good couple of years out of it anyway. Similarly most games outside of flight sims are not 6+ core optimised anyway. I going for what works best for this generation of simming/gaming.

I have had to make this build decision by guessing what LM may do but I'm pretty sure it'll work out fine. 

A couple of thoughts I had on the move to 64 bit:

1) I wonder if LM have been optimising P3D (and ESP) for multiple generations in order to get it 64 bit ready - or did they just start the process (if they're doing it) after v3 was released?

2) If they have had a long term plan and program to switch to 64 bit, it may be more likely that they'll do it in a way that allows maximum backward compatibility for add-on developers and minimal work for them to migrate. i.e. they've had the time to get things working. When v3 came out the differences seemed jarring and it took a long while before add-on developers could catch up.

I am still fairly confident that they will look to make the transition as painless as possible for all partners - which makes me more hopeful that developers will be able to quickly get their add-ons working in 64 bit. That's a guess but it's just based on the fact they do work closely with some of the big guys out there.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I am hoping that the 64 bit version will take full advatage of muticore processors. Also that fast 6-8 core processors will be released.

Something like the 7700 , but then as a 6-8 core and capable of reaching 4.8-5.0 GHz..  


13900 8 cores @ 5.5-5.8 GHz / 8 cores @ 4.3 GHz (hyperthreading on) - Asus ROG Strix Gaming D4 - GSkill Ripjaws 2x 16 Gb 4266 mhz @ 3200 mhz / cas 13 -  Inno3D RTX4090 X3 iCHILL 24 Gb - 1x SSD M2 2800/1800 2TB - 1x SSD M2 2800/1800 1Tb - Sata 600 SSD 500 Mb - Thermaltake Level 10 GT case - EKWB Extreme 240 liquid cooling set push/pull - 2x 55’ Sony 4K tv's as front view and right view.

13600  6 cores @ 5.1 GHz / 8 cores @ 4.0 GHz (hypterthreading on) - Asus ROG Strix Gaming D - GSkill Trident 4x Gb 3200 MHz cas 15 - Asus TUF RTX 4080 16 Gb  - 1x SSD M2 2800/1800 2TB - 2x  Sata 600 SSD 500 Mb - Corsair D4000 Airflow case - NXT Krajen Z63 AIO liquide cooling - 1x 65” Sony 4K tv as left view.

FOV : 190 degrees

My flightsim vids :  https://www.youtube.com/user/fswidesim/videos?shelf_id=0&sort=dd&view=0

 

Share this post


Link to post

Windows transitioned from 32 to 64 bit too. I think that hardly anyone even noticed, or if they did, they attributed any performance gain to their new hardware.

1.2. there is no development project in a company like LM without a project plan, long term and short term. You don't allocate expensive resources to just do whatever they feel like.

The following is my personal opinion: the base P3D platform doesn't have the air of a high-priority project with a massive investment of resources on part of LM. It rather feels like a 5-10 people part-time development stream. Makes sense too, as LM, I would rather have my engineers working on intergration projects or even individual implementations for paying customers than end-user product development. A fellow simmer, who seemed to know what he was talking about, once suggested, that the P3D end-user product budget is actually paid (fully or in part) by the marketing division (meaning that it doesn't have to be cost effective at all). No idea if that is true, but it would explain a lot of things IMHO.


LORBY-SI

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, Lorby_SI said:

Windows transitioned from 32 to 64 bit too. I think that hardly anyone even noticed, or if they did, they attributed any performance gain to their new hardware.

1.2. there is no development project in a company like LM without a project plan, long term and short term. You don't allocate expensive resources to just do whatever they feel like.

The following is my personal opinion: the base P3D platform doesn't have the air of a high-priority project with a massive investment of resources on part of LM. It rather feels like a 5-10 people part-time development stream. Makes sense too, as LM, I would rather have my engineers working on intergration projects or even individual implementations for paying customers than end-user product development. A fellow simmer, who seemed to know what he was talking about, once suggested, that the P3D end-user product budget is actually paid (fully or in part) by the marketing division (meaning that it doesn't have to be cost effective at all). No idea if that is true, but it would explain a lot of things IMHO.

Makes sense for sure. I guess what I meant in terms of development was whether or not LM had been developing 64 bit alongside the v2 and v3 interations i.e. getting that coding working in early builds so that when/if it's released it's not going to be a huge change. 

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, JamesHongKong said:

Makes sense for sure. I guess what I meant in terms of development was whether or not LM had been developing 64 bit alongside the v2 and v3 interations i.e. getting that coding working in early builds so that when/if it's released it's not going to be a huge change. 

I don't think that they develop two versions alongside each other. But they were sure making (planned) provisions for the intended future use of the platform all the time. Simple things like changing the folder structure for example. And P3D SimConnect has been greatly expanded in the last years with new methods. For example, you can now attach an external simulator engine directly to SimConnect using procedures made speficically for that purpose - no more "hacking" required. IMHO we haven't seen half of what this platform is capable of in the current addons, as all developers first (have to) see to it that their current products work. And as these are still compatible, there is no need to take advantage of the new coding opportunities.

IMO LM wouldn't have done all that work if they weren't planning to use it long term. The 3rd party developers need time to adapt to it, so it would be pointless to release it and then take it away 2 years later. Not that these things don't happen in IT, but I don't worry too much about a scenario where this powerful API would not be available or not compatible in a 64Bit P3D. I would even go so far as to speculate that it will be directly compatible with all managed (C#) external addons, only requiring a rebuild with the new DLL. The C++ stuff (gauges) will be in a spot of bother though, the devs will have to go through their code and make sure that the SimConnect methods are still called correctly and yield the correct data structures in return. But that can be done in a reasonably short time frame. If they would have to change their own internal data structures, things get tough though, but that also can be accomplished with not too much effort. The real deal breaker would be if the API works differently - but we won't know until we get there.

It could be though, that the flight sim properties of P3D don't really matter that much to LM, at least not enough to plan for massive changes to the FDE etc.. They seem more intent on building up the "world simulation" capabilities, the API (=SimConnect) for 3rd party development, weapons and the visuals in general. So they could cut away functionality (like they did with the real world weather download) that is essentially unnecessary for the base platform, because it is provided by 3rd parties (= the partners) or implemented on a case to case basis anyway.

  • Upvote 1

LORBY-SI

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Lorby_SI said:

It could be though, that the flight sim properties of P3D don't really matter that much to LM, at least not enough to plan for massive changes to the FDE etc.. They seem more intent on building up the "world simulation" capabilities, the API (=SimConnect) for 3rd party development, weapons and the visuals in general. So they could cut away functionality (like they did with the real world weather download) that is essentially unnecessary for the base platform, because it is provided by 3rd parties (= the partners) or implemented on a case to case basis anyway.

Could that mean a stripped down core sim (P3D) and therefore a more optimised, streamlined sim? Or am I reading into that wrong? 

 

19 hours ago, Lorby_SI said:

And P3D SimConnect has been greatly expanded in the last years with new methods. For example, you can now attach an external simulator engine directly to SimConnect using procedures made speficically for that purpose - no more "hacking" required.

That's interesting - is this how the likes of Majestic for example keep parts of their add on "outside" of the sim? I'm not very technical hence the questions.

My understanding is that the likes of the scenery developers for the most part replace texture files in P3D - some have .dll's (e.g. ObjectFlow) that run too. Am I right in thinking that these straight file replacements would be much easier to migrate to a 64 bit platform? Hence why some of the snippets we've seen suggest compatibility and John at Orbx deciding against upgrade fees?

Things like weather (ASN etc) and aircraft (PMDG) do a lot more outside of the sim via SimConnect? Therefore they need to ensure compatibility with that more than anything?

Really interesting stuff Lorby, thanks for your input

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, JamesHongKong said:

Could that mean a stripped down core sim (P3D) and therefore a more optimised, streamlined sim? Or am I reading into that wrong? 

 

That's interesting - is this how the likes of Majestic for example keep parts of their add on "outside" of the sim? I'm not very technical hence the questions.

My understanding is that the likes of the scenery developers for the most part replace texture files in P3D - some have .dll's (e.g. ObjectFlow) that run too. Am I right in thinking that these straight file replacements would be much easier to migrate to a 64 bit platform? Hence why some of the snippets we've seen suggest compatibility and John at Orbx deciding against upgrade fees?

Things like weather (ASN etc) and aircraft (PMDG) do a lot more outside of the sim via SimConnect? Therefore they need to ensure compatibility with that more than anything?

Really interesting stuff Lorby, thanks for your input

"stripped down core sim": I would think rather a stripped down core platform, not necessarily a flight sim. I would get rid of all the old features that people have been complaining about since forever, like ATC or the AI logic. For their planned battlefield simulation LM won't need any of that. Better to team up with a "partner" and let them do it. Besides, randomized AI is not very helpful even in a pilot training scenario. Imagine you have a custom built flight simulator which you rent to people by the hour - they wouldn't be very amused if they would have to wait at the runway for 20 minutes until the AI logic sorts itself out, or being told to turn around and climb to 50.000 feet when they are already on approach to the airfield.

 

Majestic: yes, that is how they do it, and the new P3D SimConnect makes it even easier. In the future, all 3rd party aircraft could bring their own FDE to the game fairly easily. At the appropriate price tag of course, because for things like these being an excellent graphics designer and FDE engineer is not enough - you need programmers.

Scenery etc.: the current platform is basically a large file management process. Practically everything is controlled by and read from files - and there is no reason to change that file interface. Config files and textures don't care if the process reading them is 32 or 64 bit. The tricky part are the BGL scenery files and possible active code contained in them. There may not be a way to "port" that , it would have to be redone - if at all possible (you can see how that goes when looking at the threads from a few months ago, when a P3D point release broke compatibility to some legacy (FS9?) feature in sceneries). The "big names" seem to have made provisions for that, for example by implementing middleware layers of their own.

 

ASN etc. that would depend on how closely and faithfully to the API these addons were implemented. If things are done outside of the API and the SDK spec, by hacking into the inner workings of the sim, it would be prudent to assume that the product will no longer work - at all - and that it will have to be redesigned (like FSUIPC, ASN, etc. that don't even survive a point release). The whole point of an API is to provide a reliable interface that will be present in all future iterations of the base software. But many developers weren't happy with the limitations of it, so they went outside of the box. They will be the ones who will have to think long and hard about if they really want to "port" the product or if they rather develop a new one, using the equally new methods in the API. But that would result in a product that only runs with the new sim - the market may just be too small for that.


LORBY-SI

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, Lorby_SI said:

"stripped down core sim": I would think rather a stripped down core platform, not necessarily a flight sim. I would get rid of all the old features that people have been complaining about since forever, like ATC or the AI logic. For their planned battlefield simulation LM won't need any of that. Better to team up with a "partner" and let them do it. Besides, randomized AI is not very helpful even in a pilot training scenario. Imagine you have a custom built flight simulator which you rent to people by the hour - they wouldn't be very amused if they would have to wait at the runway for 20 minutes until the AI logic sorts itself out.

Whilst I agree that LM are not likely to be bothered about pleasing flight simmers who want AI aircraft flying around, I could certainly see a situation for a military training scenario where it would be advantageous to have some AI aircraft capability in P3D.

Let's say you were planning a hostage rescue along the lines of Operation Entebbe, or perhaps the GIGN assault on Air France 8969 in Algiers. Both those operations took place at airports where commercial flights were still taking place at the time of the operations. Presumably if one was planning such an assault, the presence of airliners and civilians on board those airliners, might have a bearing on what such an operation might or might not be able to achieve. One might even use such mundane airliner activity in a diversionary capacity, or to mask the arrival of some forces, for example, landing a military transport plane under cover of darkness in the guise of a regular commercial flight, in which case such an aircraft might very well have to wait for other aircraft to get out of the way, purely to look like a normal procedure. If I was assessing whether someone had the right stuff to lead an assault or some such, I'd probably be more impressed with them if they perhaps used what was going on around them in a creative and unexpected way.

Anything which might add an element of unexpected activity, such as the arrival of an airlner on the runway you were supposedly just about to land your assault choppers on for some operation, could prove useful when training for such an eventuality, since it would see if your troops could improvise or handle things when something unexpected occurs.

As another example, during the British SAS raid on the Libyan embassy in London in 1982, helicopters were deliberately hovered over the surrounding area in the days prior to the assault so the terrorists would become used to their presence and the sound of them. During the assault, the noise of those choppers served to mask the initial sounds of the assault soldiers moving into position. That's the kind of thing I would imagine military users of P3D would want to be able to simulate, or perhaps assess trainees on whether they were smart enough to suggest trying things like that. There are all kinds of clever things those sneaky special forces people do like that, for example, they set fire to a skip full of rubbish once at night about 300 yards in front of a hijacked plane, so that all of the hijackers on the plane went to the cockpit to try and figure out what it was, and when they could see they were all in the cockpit, that's when they assaulted the plane.

As they say, 'no military plan survives contact with the enemy'. And training for contact with an enemy is supposedly one of the things which P3D is for. Of course none of that needs to be in super 64 bit, but it would certainly help to have P3D have the option to do stuff like have AI aeroplanes and vehicles serve as a distraction in a training scenario, so that it was at least a bit more like what they might have occur on a real operation.


Alan Bradbury

Check out my youtube flight sim videos: Here

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, Chock said:

I could certainly see a situation for a military training scenario where it would be advantageous to have some AI aircraft capability in P3D.

I think Oliver is suggesting this could be removed from the core platform and given over to outside developers to implement instead if it was required - that makes sense to me. I guess it would be no different to having Ultimate Traffic (or equivalent) working outside the sim to inject AI. And that would go for many of the outside developers - weather etc. A really interesting prospect and it seems to make the P3D platform seem uniquely different from FSX, X-Plane and I'd imagine the upcoming Dovetail sim. Of course this is because the target audience and end simulation aim is no flight sim enthusiasts. But I can see a lot of benefits coming to us as a result of that type of approach. People complain about the flight dynamics in P3D - no worries, develop and code your aircraft outside separately! (I assume this could be done - Majestic?).

Enjoying learning about this! Thanks guys

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...