Maybe some of you architecture gurus can fill me in, but1. I don't think 16bit/32 bit comaprisons are that valid. IIRC 16 bit was based on 286 architecture with 16 bit segment registers and 16 bit memory register. After 486 architecture made possible a flat 32 bit memory architecture, it took a while for the Os to catch up (though OS/2 was way ahead of Windows on this. I think maybe it was Win NT 4 when true 32 bit addressing took effect.2. My understanding is that HLSL and at least D3D9 is based on 32 bit data. Now it should be possible to pack 2 quad words into a single 64 bit data word, but I'm not sure that would be of much advantage. I don't think that is going to change in Dx10, but I'm not sure about that.I could be way off about this so if any of you all have some specifics on 64 bit architectures or links that might be relevant to FSX type software I would be interested.scott s..

>So nobody wants a 64 bit flight sim that can take advantage>of the latest hardware. Must have been a stupid idea, what was>I thinking *:-* It's not a question of "wanting," it is a question of not setting one's expectations too high, and therefore avoiding the inevitable, crushing disappointment when one's unrealistic fantasies aren't fulfilled... ;)

Don't see it as "unrealistic" Bill, especially when people are already running full 64 bit systems, sans the applications/sofware titles but we can dream can't we? LOLRegards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/tfbeta.jpg

Well this will the second time I've said this but...Michael has a point. Yes, there are plenty of 64 bit systems about but very few people are actually 64 bit capable because they lack the software. Also you have to remember most systems playing FS will be at least 2 years old and probably don't even support 64 bit at a hardware level. I believe that 64 bit is still in the realm of the techy, maybe not the elite but certainly the techy... most people don't know what 64 bit is, don't care about it and continue to run Win XP SP2, EVEN if they're capable of 64 bit at a hardware level (Which is maybe 35% of expect customers or less). They're not going to shell out

I'm not sure how many of you have shopped for new systems lately, but you can hardly NOT buy a system with a 64bit CPU. If you want a base level PC for $300 bucks, yes, you'll get a Celeron. But thats about it. Even the lowly AMD Sempron is 64bit.So for folks to be inquiring as to the possibility of someday there being a 64bit version of FS is not unreasonable. All of this talk of it being fantasy or of expectations being set to high is BS. Yes, lets all set our expectation nice and low so as not to give the dev team any reason to move the product forward. Geez.....Yes, I admit the software end has some catching up to do, but only because there aren't alot of 64bit apps out there. My brother in law just bought a new motherboard and 64bit CPU and went ahead and bought XP64 as well. He's not using it, but it's on the shelf waiting for the apps to catchup at which point he'll install it. I suspect there are alot of people out there doing the same thing.

Hi,You don't write a software title with broad appeal (like FS) so it can only run on what is selling today, you write it so the average system in user's homes can run it today. Yes, you make it more complex so you can increase the sliders as you buy more capable equipment, but it has to at least run on the average computer. This means it has to be 32 bit compatible.Since the bloggers have already said that it would be a major rewrite to go to 64 bit code (there is still some assembly code in there), they certainly don't have the time to code it in both 32 bit and 64 bit versions and also stuff in all the improved stuff I want!! :)Take care,--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

Hi Tom!!I have no doubt that porting FS to 64bit will be a huge undertaking. Personally, I never expected or wanted FSX to initially be released in both versions.I just don't like being told that I live in a fantasy world or that my expectation might be set too high if I happen to inquire about a 64bit version. My hope is that after FSX is released and, if needed, a service pack is released, that perhaps the team start looking at porting FS to 64bit and replacing that old code with newer stuff to make it work. Maybe treat it as an interim release between FSX and FS11. :-)One can dream, can't he? :-)

Never said you lived in a fantasy world... what I said/meant was people who think 64 bit is widespread are living in a fantasty world because, quite simply, it ain't. Also that isn't fact, it's my opinion but I believe it to be right ;-)You might get a whole 64 bit system where you live for $350, but not in this country (probably more like twice that amount). Furthermore many people aren't prepared to spend that much money on a technology they neither understand or need, again, "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" which to most people out there, 32 bit is not broken. They will replace the whole system when it stops doing what they want it to do.The rest of the post might not relate to me directly but just in case anyone happens to think I've been insulting other people's ideas...I wouldn't call the expectation of a 64 bit version on release "too high", I'd call it "unrealistic" for previously discussed reasons (in both this thread and others - its been stated that it isn't happening so of course it is unrealistic). A nice idea but never the less unrealistic based upon what we know. Maybe FS11 will be 64 bit on launch but I can't see FSX making the leap, maybe there will be a 64 bit patch (perhaps integrated with the DX10 patch) but "I doubt" it - I call this expectation an "uncertainty". Personally, I can't see it happening though I would love to be proved right - it's not outside the bounds of reality. I don't believe its unresonable to request this.Don't get me wrong I think a 64 bit FS would be nice but I can't see it happening for FSX (I'm not trashing anyones expections and saying they're silly for requesting or anything, I'm stating what "I think" the likelihood is of them appearing and why) and "I'd rather" the developers spend the time adding more features, at least for now. And if I am wrong you can all take a stab at me but I never said my word was gospel, I merely state my opinions, thoughts and useless insight (often as fact if I feel they're so). If you don't agree, you don't agree and you're more than welcome to do that, but I never attack anyone (at least publically). In many ways you can think of my words as you would Jeremey Clarkson's :-) (Boy am I gonna regret saying that). And yes, I am a realist. Maybe I should finally get a signature and make it a disclaimer.

>You don't write a software title with broad appeal (like FS)>so it can only run on what is selling today, you write it so>the average system in user's homes can run it today. Actually Tom, most entertainment/game titles are written to run on the latest or upcoming tech available. I can't even count how many new releases I have bought only to find I had to upgrade to get the most out of them. Now not being able to run at all because of the differences between 64 and 32 bit, well that is another issue.I do however agree, it sucks, LOL. I am still a bit peeved that I can't get the highest texture option in the new Ghost Recon without having to get a new card with 512mb onboard DDR.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/tfbeta.jpg

Yes scott s. And people these days FORGET how slow 32-bit software was at first--mainly because of the hardware. Sure my 486DX2/66 could run 32-bit OS/2 but it was way slower than 16-bit OS's. So was 32-bit anything, at first. I'm not sure we really have the hardware to run a 64-bit FSX very well right now, or even next year.Rhett

> It's not a question of "wanting," it is a question of not setting one's expectations too high, > and therefore avoiding the inevitable, crushing disappointment when one's unrealistic fantasies > aren't fulfilled... ;)Huh, whats so unrealistic? Theres lots of 64 bit games, here are some:1. Unreal Tournament 20042. Colin McRae Rally 20053. Bet On Soldier: Blood Sport4. Codename: Panzers (Phase one)5. Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay6. Far Cry7. Fahrenheit (a.k.a. Indigo Prophecy)8. Shadow Ops: Red Mercury9. World of Warcraft10. WWII Tank Commander11. America's Army12. Halflife 2 13. Dod Source 14. Counter Strike Source 15. The Lost Coast 16. Football manager 200617. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl18. DreadnoughtDo most of these games even need 64 bit? Probably not. Does flight sim need 64 bit --> yes.

>Huh, whats so unrealistic?What's unrealistic about is the fact that MS have said that it will not happen upon release. And if they don't do it on release, they're highly unlikely to do it in a patch. Patches don't sell software, in-built functionality does. It's already been a said a lot of work would be involved to do it and that amount of work going in to a patch is unrealistic, hence the prospect of FSX in 64 bit is highly questionable. In fact, the way tdragger worded it sounds like it won't be happening at all for FSX. Is 64 bit a need - no. Would it be a big help? Probably. Are we going to see it in FSX? Probably Not.