FSX-SP2(DX10): 3rd public post

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

Okay Robin, making ad hominem attacks is going to get you booted real quick. Back it down a notch or four.

[Guest MauiHawk]

>The market change hasn't fully happened! Sure, most people>have 64-bit capable cpu's these days. But home many of us>have 64-bit operating systems? Not as many. But don't forget 64bit was being contrasted with dual core. Just as dual-core keeps the same functionality that was there before (running apps 1 thread at a time), 64 bit chips keep the previous functionality to run 32 bit code. In both cases, a new technology path was opened while maintaining the existing one.64bit CPUs were around before dual-core and many more people have them than they do dual-core processors. > Furthermore, while many cpu's may be 64-bit, how fast are> their apps?Well, not slower. 64 bit can provide speed boosts, sometimes large depending on the app... especially if optimized for 64 bit (making use of new registers, etc). But the main benefit to 64 bit is the elimination of the 4GB memory limit. Arguably, until now that hasn't been much of an issue, so I can see how coding for 64bit would have gotten less attention than dual-core. I think for FSX the dual-core work they have done is probably more important than what 64 bit could have provided. Still, its clear that starting with FS11, 64 bit is going to be mandatory.

[Guest MauiHawk]

>but yes, there is a performance feature in the mix. it still>remains to be seen if it makes the cut, eg is done enough to>keep.If it comes down to it, I think I'd rather see a DX10 eyecandy feature get dropped in place of said performance feature. After all, there are already eyecandy features I can't use owing to performance.

[maxter 0]

>Okay Robin, making ad hominem attacks ...Not to mention ad nauseum...Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern AustraliaCheck out my 5th Around the World flight with MS FSX at http://members.iinet.com.au/~portercbp/fly...W_05/index.html

[Guest Robin R.]

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:Person A makes claim X There is something objectionable about Person A Therefore claim X is false Tom, I think your bias is showing thru as it is a real stretch to connect my response to Bill's "Get Real" statement as being "Ad hominem". If what I've posted is deemed content worth of banning then you will loose considerable creditability yourself. So is Bill going to be banned for telling to "Get Real"? I hope not, but if you apply your logic consistantly, he should get the same warning.But this is your place, so do what you like. But I'm sure you are aware that so long as TCP/IP packets can be spoofed (aka origination IP is modified) there is little to no hope of truely banning anyone.Is anything I've said inaccurate? If so, then feel free to Email me or continue with the debate publically.

[Guest Robin R.]

Actually 64bit games/apps going back to Quake III, FS9, and others would have benefitted from being 64bit. AMD was the first to 64bit processors for the home masses, but Microsoft delayed and delayed and delayed the release of WinXP 64bit for A LONG time. I'm not exactly sure why but rumors were around that Intel played a major part in the delay as they did NOT have 64bit processors ready for the mass home market and didn't want to see AMD eat away at more marketshare. And has Phil has brought up, Microsoft have certain commitments to those that come to the table and play the game.64bit apps aren't necessarily faster -- data types are longer and consume more space and if the motherboard/chipset is not up to the task could actually run slower than same app in 32bit. As pointed out, what makes 64bit apps appealing is the memory address space. 64bit address space also provide greater options for GPU makers, they can start putting 2GB/4GB VRAM on there video cards and be able to use it all effectively.I just find it odd that DX10 which is <1 year old is being pushed to the fore front while 64bit which is >4 years old is still on the back burner.

[Mace 1,902]

>Rhett,>>DX10 cards were available late 2006, home 64bit processors>were available 2003 -- You know all of this stuff, so why are you trying to pin all of this onerous stuff about "resisting the move to 64-bit..." and so forth on Microsoft? Despite what you have argued, it's absolutely *not* Microsoft's call, nor is it in their power to effect the move. It's still ultimately the market's call. I expand:Yes, Microsoft controls the OS market. But they can't make anyone do anything. Sure they can put out the carrot of "...if you want , you're gonna have to go 64-bit...". Holding out that carrot is fine, but you must remember that many many many users are perfectly happy with what they've got. They're still playing Quake 3 when Quake 4 has been out a while, but they don't care that much. They are not like us, who upgrade once a year and are in tune with the latest and greatest. Not all hardware/computer things move with lightning speed, and it's because of users. This is one of those things.We could have had 32-bit apps and all that as early as the 80386 processor in 1990. But we didn't...;)There can't be any purpose to jump Microsoft's craw, or at least jumping on poor Phil Taylor's back, about it.We are darn lucky to have this limited level of interaction with the FS team--and there isn't any productive purpose to try to debate their (Microsoft's) seeming inability to drive 64-bit throughout the computing world. It will all happen in good time...>Personally I don't understand Microsoft's/Phil's resistance to>64bit processing -- I can only assume it is because they can't>figure out how to market 64bit vs. 32bit apps -- maybe that's>why Microsoft spent 6 billion on an advertising company?>Don't see why marketing is an issue at all. To the average user 64- or 32-bit doesn't matter, they just want the app to work for them. But it's all moot anyway since most users don't have a 64-bit OS right now, and the average user sees no compelling reason to upgrade to a 64-bit version of Windows.Maybe that's where the 6 billion is going...to convince users that 64-bit Win is the way to go.I think there is a lot of complacency among users these days. We have come to the point where computers work reasonably well. Our applications are reasonably mature. When things work right, there is less reason for the average joe user to upgrade.Now once things start getting slow or buggy etc. for average joe user, then he will feel compelled to upgrade. That's why bit migration, whether it be from 16 to 32 bit, or 32 to 64 bit, takes longer.But we are different. We want DX10 right now, we want 64-bit right now. We're on the edge of technology. But most users are not.>But lets assume the DX10 version of FSX is to help Vista home>sales (cause clearly it isn't done to due to market share) and>convert existing WinXP base. I would think having the benefit>of both a 64bit and DX10 capable FSX for Vista 64 (Vista>provides both versions in one package) would be a huge selling>point. Two incentives rather than one to move to Vista>because I don't think DX10 alone is gone be enough convert>people. But what is more puzzling, is that you can run 32bit>apps on Vista x64 so it's a win win. Most people are going to>have to upgrade hardware if they elect to move to Vista so>again I don't understand where nor why Phil is going in this>direction. It makes no sense from market share, no sense from>selling Vista, and just no sense for any end user that would>like to see the death of blurries and other "out of memory">issues they run into with FSX and Vista 32bit or WinXP 32bit.>You seem so assured that moving to 64-bit is somehow going to magically solve all of these issues. You seem assured that 64-bit apps and OS's are going to outperform their 32-bit junior siblings.If history is any clue, this is not going to be the case initially.Win32 was sloooooowwwwww when it first came out. 32-bit = disk churn. In fact, it took Win32 a couple of years to surpass Win16 in outright application performance. Part of that was due to hardware advances, sure, but part of it was also because it took that long for apps and OS to be refined.I expect no less this time around. A gradual transition, a gradual shift. Once it gets to a certain level, I'm sure Microsoft will produce a 64-bit flight simulator.>I know these are intelligent people so I just don't understand>this imaginary 64bit wall they've created for themselves?>I just don't think that's the way to approach it. I mean to summarize, you are jumping all over Phil Taylor about something which is ultimately user-driven. And when Phil tells you that, you say that's not the case, because Microsoft controls the OS, etc.Well that's no way to think about it at all! The end-user *is* the ultimate arbiter whether you I or anyone else likes it or not. If the end user doesn't upgrade, then the marketing numbers don't support a full migration to 64-bit. Thus no marketing approval for a 64-bit project.I didn't want to write a book, but well sometimes it happens. Especially when I am misguidedly accused of not "seeing the picture". ;) I think I see the picture, and in fact I see what you are saying, but you're wrong on two counts: 1) barking up the wrong tree by jumping on PTaylor, who has nothing to do with it, and 2) you are ascribing Microsoft with the power to control the market, which despite their overarching presence there, they ultimately cannot control what the user does.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

[Mace 1,902]

>>64bit CPUs were around before dual-core and many more people>have them than they do dual-core processors. >Yes but how many have 64-bit OS's...>> Furthermore, while many cpu's may be 64-bit, how fast are>> their apps?>>Well, not slower. If it follows history, any bit shift will result in the first gen of 64-bit apps being slower than the later 32-bit versions. Not saying that's GOING to happen. Merely commenting on what happened with 16 to 32 bit transition.Also in the early days of 64-bit, most average joe users will have systems that are a bit ram-starved for 64-bit apps. And the software companies cater to average joe user...>provided. Still, its clear that starting with FS11, 64 bit is>going to be mandatory.>I hope it's mandatory. :) I hope it is 64-bit. Imagine how much "stuff" could be in the sim, if it can use 4+ gb of memory space.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

[Mace 1,902]

>Is anything I've said inaccurate? If so, then feel free to>Email me or continue with the debate publically. No, not inaccurate. But being smarty-pants with 4 or 5 different users on this thread, including a mod, speaks volumes...RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

[DadJokeCinema 145]

>A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:>>Person A makes claim X >There is something objectionable about Person A >Therefore claim X is false >>Tom, I think your bias is showing thru as it is a real stretch>to connect my response to Bill's "Get Real" statement as being>"Ad hominem". If what I've posted is deemed content worth of>banning then you will loose considerable creditability>yourself. So is Bill going to be banned for telling to "Get>Real"? I hope not, but if you apply your logic consistantly,>he should get the same warning.>>But this is your place, so do what you like. But I'm sure you>are aware that so long as TCP/IP packets can be spoofed (aka>origination IP is modified) there is little to no hope of>truely banning anyone.>>Is anything I've said inaccurate? If so, then feel free to>Email me or continue with the debate publically. You can question my credibility all you want, but that's more than enough for me.Threatening to circumvent the forum's security system is more than enough for me to ban you.However, we also have a Terms of Use you agree to when you join:"1.) Your user ID (Nickname) can be your choice, but you must provide your REAL FULL First and Last Name. Any accounts that do not have a real full first and last name provided will be removed."Therefore, your account is now deactivated.