Robert McDonald

It's a lot of fun to speculate. One can only hope.

It's like anything else. Today it's a dream, and a fantasy. Tomorrow, next week, next year, at some point, it will be commonplace. I hope I live long enough to fly it... This is what I had mentally imagined MS Flight would be like... Google has large segments of the planet already mapped. The obvious thing is the cars aren't moving, but one step at a time, eh? Given a nice server farm packed with supercomputers, and given Google's budget... Almost anything seems 'do-able'...

I think Austin was only trying to make us smile. i don't think the animated head-banging is actually a new feature. We all want things to move faster in XPlane development, I for one am frothing for the distance view at altitude fix that Ben has shown beta photos of (labeled "10.4"). Nothing official. Nothing definite. It is when it it is... to paraphrase a common expression. The waiting is tiresome, though. That said, I love X-Plane 10.

What if? Look at what GOOGLE can do with scenery rendering - then imagine combining that with the flight model of XPlane... WOW. '

Got this via email from Austin today. Be sure to watch to the very end. :LMAO:

+1 Kyle's FACTS ABOUT WATER! Hysterical!

+1 for Kyle's post. Anyone who is serious about top-drawer jet simulation spells relief "P-M-D-G". Those who want to fly for the scenery? Almost 'any' airplane will do. I can share that the X-crowd is drooling at the thought that one day we will have a 64-bit PMDG airplane in our hangar.

Gently, I must submit that you are all dancing around basically the same problem. 32-bit vs. 64-bit. Blaming PMDG for the VAS issue is a little over the top, even without VAS crashes, to be blunt, FSX runs pretty poorly even on strong hardware, once you flood all the hang-ons into the equation. It boils down to unreasonable workloads. Someone says it best "reasonable settings" are mandatory for ANY sim, and even the vaunted XPlane can have stutter issues if you have extremely large photo realistic scenery and a small amount of video ram on your graphics card! The troubles are what I call the "better and better" phenomenon. You start off with basic FSX or P3D, you think: Hey, this is great! Then, you see some videos on YouTube that blow your current setup away... the scenery you're watching online is much nicer than your default "LEGO" airports in FSX. You buy KSFO by FlightBeam, and one or two other complex airports. Then you add a virtual cockpit jet, say the NGX or T-7. Pretty soon you want the Ground Services X... and bit by bit, little by little, you start to kill your frames. Toss in a bunch of ORBX and bingo...you are teetering with simulator overload! Then you start the tweaking, trying to eke out more frames, much like the drag racer trying to trim a few more 1000's of a second off their elapsed time for the 1/4 mile. At some point you begin to become frustrated, because not being a computer engineer, you are disliking all the tuning and wishing you could spend more time airborne. Ultimately, you have to 'decide' what is most important, and draw a line in the sand. The frames I get in the X-world are spectacular enough that I no longer fly my FSX/P3D stuff, but that's just me. Orbx (FSX/3PD) NorCal is stunning and pulled me back for a hot minute, but all of the other issues even in P3D pushed me out the back door again. Whatever 'works' for you and makes you happy, that's what you should fly. From a science viewpoint, I think Laminar has the inside track. Not to say that the X-world doesn't have warts. There are several problems, not least of which is lack of Lego airports, and the lack of 'seasons' (think summer/winter/spring/fall). There is a timetable for the distance view blur at high altitude, but it's not 'official' (there are beta images online). Still and all, I am satisfied with my setup - comparative videos are up on my YouTube channel (FSX - P3D - XP). If you begin to expand beyond a single monitor, I urge you to look at the multi-PC multi-Monitor solution when you visit. Cheers.

Before moving to the X-platform, I was forever trying to avoid VAS issues and maximize my available ram within the 32-bit FSX/P3D sim world. I had good results with IOBit's RAZER Game Booster, which is free. It's not a panacea- but it definitely helps, and I'm still using it over in X-world. The idea is it can be configured to kill unneeded software that loads up at boot time. Try as you might, over time, things creep into your system that are nibbling away at your resources including clock cycles. The more of these you can eliminate, the better your desired software (in this case FSX/P3D) will run. Of course some stuff -has- to be there for your system to run properly, so if you're unsure, you can simply run GameBooster with its default settings and see if things improve. For the benefit of those who are new to the VAS issue- there are some definite advantages to a 64-bit program, principal of which is the fact that ALL your system ram is available to that program, not the approximately 4GB maximum that is part of a 32-bit program. Running Windows 64-bit is a step in the right direction, but if you are flying P3D or FSX, those remain 32-bit programs and thus you're captive to the 4GB VAS limit. Laminar has announced a potential long-range view ("distance fix") for X-Plane that will take full advantage of those pilots with 16 or even 32-GB of system ram. Also, the X-sim takes full advantage of today's modern video cards and uses the V-RAM that is on the GPU as well, thus 4GB of ram on your video card (or 6 in the case of the Titan) also gives max benefits. Ultimately, the 64-bitness of the X-world convinced me that there was more to life than trying to 'live with' frames in the teens. Tip to those wanting to experiment with 64-bit sim: BUY the product, the free trial is so time-limited you get frustrated trying to get airborne before the timed demo expires. There is a small learning curve, but the freedom of this 'alternate universe' will pay back big dividends to those who have 'spent all the money' on a muscular system and are still scratching their head wondering why performance is so poor. I know that the investment in all the hang-ons for FSX/P3D is kind of an anchor that holds many of us captive in the 32-bit world. That said, there is a wealth of -free- scenery and airports available for your use that can go a long way toward offsetting the migration expense. Once you are unchained, I submit the frames rate improvement (a BIG thing) and butter-smooth graphics will impress. There is a very nice free tubeliner (EADT's x737 project) that gives some of that PMDG-like experience for those who have been sitting on the fence. The x737 was recently upgraded and now offers a great solution and a nice FMC. The ultimate draw of the x-platform is that all the hang-ons can pile on and it still runs well, and no VAS issues, period. And no, it's NOT for 'everyone', it's simply an alternative for those who are fed up with struggling and tweaking with their current set up. A final plus? This alternative runs out of just ONE folder on your PC (suggestion: create this folder in your ROOT directory, example C:\XP10. That way it's easy to find, and to copy or backup. This is a HUGE difference with P3D and FSX, which are scattered all over your machine, thus resulting in a real PITA to securely back up or restore in the event that you hose your setup.

I would hold off for a bit. Everything you're trying to do is going to require a pretty powerful rig, likely far in excess of a $600 budget. The graphics card alone is going to put you over your target. Intel on-board graphics are NOT going to cut 20 fps in FSX with any kind of complex aircraft and fancy scenery. I know that $2000 to $3000 is not do-able for you. So the people suggesting rigs like that aren't being helpful.

wise words- and well said! we know what we like when we see it - and then we constantly say I WANT. to make it happen though, that's another cup of tea altogether. Given everything we ask of our sims, including instrument navigation, complex airplanes and very complex glass cockpits - realtime weather including winds, clouds and rain (and more)...it's stunning what we are seeing on screen today! Many pilots fly single PC setup and single monitor... and that is asking a LOT from the user's pc, which can execute and display output x number of times per second... the more 'burden' or layers of code you add, and let's face it, Outerra alone is quite a load in and of itself... It becomes unmanageable... frames suffer...

The modern games you refer to do not (to my knowledge) comprise the entire EARTH as a planet, but rather very proscribed areas or "levels". To handle the entire planet, you are talking about either some combination of Open Street Maps (OSM) and Autogen, such as now exists in XPlane 10, or else one heckuva complex data system. There is little doubt that Outerra is stunning in so many ways, the waving grasses, the droplets of rain, and so forth. I wouldn't be shocked to see Outerra somewhere down the road release an amazing flight simulation, but I wouldn't think this will occur anytime super soon. For one thing, the 'seed money' needed for a full-on simulation platform effort is a pretty steep chunk of change. Not to mention the additional problems of integrating all the infrastructure needed for flight simulation (e.g. ILS frequencies, runways, etc). Drawing it all (rendering) is one thing. Making it all interoperate with the user while remaining true-to-life with the infrastructure (taxiways, radio frequencies, ATC) and rendering AI traffic... that's taken 20 years for FSX and XPlane, and even Lockheed isn't really 'there' quite yet. The trade-offs abound, and hinder, the ultimate desired result. Something that is so close to real it is virtually indistinguishable. We call that CGI-rendering, but that doesn't occur in REAL TIME as it MUST for flight simulation. When it takes 24 hours to render 1 frame of finished movie film in CGI (done on huge render farms at places like ILM and Pixar [among others]), you are some great distance from what we all hold as our deepest darkest wish: That flying our sim is superior even to Level-D full-motion simulators... complete with Butt-shakers, actual jet engine sounds and shakes, the clunk of the gear locking in the 'UP' position...and so on. I think it -can- and likely -will- happen, but sadly, not in my lifetime. Meanwhile, there is real-world flying... which is currently "AS REAL AS IT GETS" (because it IS real).

It's difficult to participate in forums sometimes. You will never have every person agreeing with everything you say- and when things take a dark turn- it can cause talented members to simply depart. To my mind, being able to say your piece in a polite way and to lend a hand to other enthusiasts with tech issues are among the principal benefits of belonging to a forum. When things get contentious - it's a big turn off. I think Tom A. is a stellar guy, with an amazing history and obvious love for flying. We should all be grateful to him for having the strength to contend with so many disparate personalities on a wide variety of topics. And thanks to all the moderators, for their hard work as well.

Hey Rich, Gotcha. Glad you figured out the dual-bios issue. Nice job! Safe Flight!

I suspected something to do with the BIOS, hope that's it! Maybe you can go back to 32GB? Thanks for the update!

Yes- the early days of PCs were heady times. Logging onto a BBS with our 300-baud modem and taking 30 minutes to download a 56k file! We are so spoiled now- with machines that can process Millions of Instructions (MIPS) per second. The Wikipedia article referenced herein vividly shows the quantum leap in processor power since the 80s. It dazzles to think of what PCs may be capable of once fiber optic networks allow us to link up to supercomputers remotely. Flight Simulation could make a HUGE jump in such a model. Think MS Flight on steroids. And the VR headsets in 20 years time? Mind-boggling.

Computers are funny beasts. A million years ago, about 1980 or so, I paid 4K for a 286 machine, which was a complete dinosaur. The hard drive was minuscule, the ram nearly non-existent, I think maybe 256mb or some such, and a black and white monitor. It ran DOS. Boy, was I thrilled. Someday the machines we pay all the money for now will be the subject of a hearty laugh. Reminds me of the early days of the wild west, when people drove their wagons across the prairies. Likely they were PLENTY proud of THOSE WHEELS, back in the day! Cheers!

Yeah, you're right, Rich. I am going to wait for Intel to release 8 real cores CPU. Now THAT would be something!

My pleasure. Cheers!

Hiya Richard! Naw, I don't know much. I learned by doing. My ASUS P8P67 PRO Motherboard has been ok, and I'm satisfied. I don't have issues with cold starts, and I tried using the auto-configuration in the UEFI BIOS, but that didn't work as expected. On -my- board, only the clock multiplier works. I'm glad you're happy with the RAM you own, clearly you are ahead of me with newer chipsets and CPU. I'm dying for dual CPU in a desktop, now THAT would be crazy! If only, and if only the desktop OS would support such a thing. Of course you can buy multi-cpu SERVER mobos, but then you're stuck running Windows Server, which is neither CHEAP nor aimed at GAMING. Cheers, bud.

Corsair makes 2 flavors of ram sticks in their VENGEANCE lineup. The traditional 'high spreaders' and the "LOW PROFILE" sticks, which are just what you want to clear those pesky huge coolers like the Noctua DH-14. Always suggest buying ram in completely matched set, as in a 32-gb set from Corsair. The IC chips in a 'matched set' are all from the SAME production run, and so timing glitches which can be caused by buying sticks that 'seem the same' but that weren't assembled at the same time can crop up and bite you, particularly on OVERCLOCKED systems. I run my 1866 Corsair 32gb set on my OC i2600k 4.7 ghz system - no issues. Asus motherboard. I only overclock with the clock multiplier, I do not OVER or UNDER volt my system, period. When I do, erratic behaviour and high heat become the problem. I can highly recommend Corsair, you can buy from BooEgg, the Rainforest Jungle site, or directly from Corsair themselves. Be sure to take a look at your motherboard's ram compatibility list prior to attempting to upgrade.

Hello Richard! Thanks for the compliment- corsair has really good customer service - a couple of questions... 1. Did you buy your RAM (32 gb) in one single kit- in other words, a matched set? Also, did you consult the Gigabyte ram compatibility chart for your mobo? 2. Did you buy performance ram? They have different 'grades' of memory, and of course the timings vary as well. The Corsair Platinum pieces run only 1600mhz, not the faster 1866 speed, which might be why you had the problem to begin with. If you can revert to Corsair Vengeance 1866 MHz clock speed, I think you might have a shot at success with 32gb. 3. If you are overclocked, are you at the absolute bleeding edge of stability? Sometimes ram errors can occur if your overclock is being forced with additional over-voltages instead of only changing the clock multiplier. On my main XP machine, the moment I change any other parameter except the clock multiplier (I run 47x for 4.7 ghz), I get erratic behavior and got that with 16GB which was my original build with Corsair Vengeance LP (low profile) ram. The new set (ordered from BooEgg) was 32GB also 1866 MHz Vengeance LP - as I have the gigantic Noctua DH-14 air cooling solution which would be a problem with the traditional heat-spreaders on most ram modules. The LP (low profile) eliminates those towered heat-spreaders. Although the 32GB Vengence set wasn't timed as fast as the 16GB set it replaced, it runs flawlessly with my 2600k CPU. Of course both sets were 1866 MHz speed. That 1866 speed also makes a difference in stability on overclocked systems! The standard 1600 would never overclock well for me on my 2600k system. If you're running a newer CPU than me, your results may vary. I know the 2600k was well-suited for overclocking, whilst the next-gen i7s appear a bit more 'touchy' from what I have read. If you bought from Corsair, they might work with you...if you decide to revisit the 32GB issue. My two dell happy meals shipped with 8GB (2x4) and had 4 ram slots. I purchased slower 32GB Corsair ram matched-sets and same deal, they run just fine, but the happy meals are not overclocked at all. They are only to drive the left and right wing views on the 180-degree POV. Dell said 16GB was max but 32 runs with no issues on my systems. Some of the newer Dell XPS i5s are coming with only 2 RAM slots, that could be a problem going to 32, I think.

:p0504: I stand by the emails I got from the Laminar developers themselves. Sure, Xplane being 64-bits can go above the 4GB VAS ceiling of its competitors, my point exactly. 8GB is likely too little, 16GB is likely ok in most cases, and 32GB will allow max tiles when and if the promised distance fix comes out. Supnik showed a picture of it above the label 10.4, not 10.3, so that's my best-guess for 'when' it might happen. The idea of scale is not lost on me. Clearly it's easier to make simple music with fewer musicians, but nothing beats a full-blown orchestra. If a guy wants to fly the minima hardware, God Bless Him or Her. If the person wants all the nuances, bells, whistles and eye candy, let's bring it on. From what Ben has said, the minimalist equipment peeps will have a 'shut off option' for the tile fix for distance view. So everyone wins.

It's Ben's decision, sure. But Austin would be included in the loop when it's time to release such an important fix, by virtue of that very smallness you (correctly) point out. It's hardly 'micro management' when new release plans are mapped out, there are undoubtedly a 'list' of changes that are going into the 'commits'. I am sure Austin reads those commits, and thus he is privy to the entire list. He may not know exactly how each feature will be implemented within the code itself, but he undoubtedly is aware of the plans and goals of each release and beta iteration. I have communicated with actual team members directly on this issue, and with Austin himself (all via e-mail, not by reading blog entries, which are subject to change). I'm basing my posts on those emails, not on blog posts, which are forward-looking statements, but hardly cast in cement. Actually, the distance-view fix DOES involve a mod to the API. Loading the additional scenery tiles into available extra ram is brilliant, will preclude stutters and pops as the airplane is moving across the scenery and the pilot is looking out to the horizon. FSX does a miserable job of loading distant scenery, where new scenery items like trees and buildings suddenly appear out of nowhere as the plane is flying closer and closer to objects that were once further out and are now in the closer view out of the plane. Having the distant tiles pre-loaded into ram is an elegant solution, and takes full advantage of today's inexpensive ram options. And ram is faster than the fastest hard disk. Also this feature has been described as user-configurable, meaning those with low ram on their system can leave the feature off, while those who spent the money to max out performance will indeed reap the benefits. Otherwise all that additional ram is totally wasted! Like it is now in FSX and P3D alike with their 32-bit VAS limit of appx 4GB MAX. Pilots with 16 or 32 gb are wasting money if all they do is fly those 2 sims. Once the long distance view option becomes available, you will likely see a boom in ram expansion, and rightfully so. XPlane is engineered to 'scale' across multiple systems and take full advantage of available VRAM. Why shouldn't it use the system RAM as well? It's like the #1 reason why XPlane blows its competitors away.

I would be shocked if you could not modify your scenery to solve this issue. I know you can use WED scenery editor to set exclusionary zones so the 'default scenery' would be blocked from being drawn. I would contact the peeps over at SimHeaven and ask them. Did you ever load their overlay scenery? (Ortho). If you have your scenery packs.ini file configured properly, the ortho scenery should take priority over the default scenery. It supercedes the mesh AFAIK. For example, using SimHeaven North American PLUS many of their major cities for North America, the water bodies seem to be different to me. I could be wildly wrong, but I would point you towards them for a more immediate 'fix' while you're waiting for LR to re-cut the problem area.