Love the new HD Trees but..

[Kilstorm]

It seems like they really draw your attention to how non HD the ground textures are.  I know this is not an issue and who knows if some day there will be a way to allow sharper ground textures but I cant help but notice the huge difference between the trees and the ground in the preview shots.

[Voyager]

Yes, you saw what I had already noticed, mainly because I almost always flying close to the ground (choppers)!

I think FTX Global Base will soon receive a "retread"! LoL[emoji57]

iPhone-Tapatalk

[dominique]

It seems like they really draw your attention to how non HD the ground textures are.  I know this is not an issue and who knows if some day there will be a way to allow sharper ground textures but I cant help but notice the huge difference between the trees and the ground in the preview shots.

Sharper ground textures or, better, a 3D low height vegetal cover on a large radius around the airports (grass, wheat fields etc.) ? Tomorrow.maybe. Ten years ago, having even a little grass/flowers was out of reach of our FS computers. Now  any addon airport has some within the perimeter. And look what they already did with  "instancing" the trees in P3D. Thick cover.

[teecee]

Sorry folks, but I am getting a bit tired of complaints before a new development is even  released.. Perhaps it would be better if Orbx did not give us previews? We need to be thankful that their R&D is ongoing.. Teecee.

[Perk]

Sorry folks, but I am getting a bit tired of complaints before a new development is even  released.. Perhaps it would be better if Orbx did not give us previews? We need to be thankful that their R&D is ongoing.. Teecee.

 

It's not a complaint about HD Trees or anything Orbx Teecee.  We're all pretty impressed with HD Trees.  It's just that as Orbx keeps improving elements of the Sim, the rough edges of the now 12 year old engine underneath keep poking through.  I mentioned the same thing in the HD Trees Preview video thread.  The trees in the orchard look great, but down underneath them is a whole bunch of burned in trees in the ground texture.  It looks like a bunch of Sarlacc pits swallowing the poor little apple trees.

 

I'd love if Holger or one of the Orbx guys intimately familiar with FSX and P3D development could explain whether the large scale (and thus appearing to be "lower resolution") ground textures are still necessary at this point.  I'm wondering if it would be possible to start playing games with MIP levels to get rid of the burned in vegetation at low levels where the 3d trees render, while still showing "spots" at high altitudes beyond 3d tree render distance.  

 

I'm also not really sure how the engine chooses what texture to lay at a given grid square, how many grid squares it decides to scale that texture over, and how it blends those textures with neighboring textures so the whole thing doesn't look like Minecraft.  Does anyone have a good primer on FSX/P3D texture rendering they can point me at?

[Kilstorm]

Sorry folks, but I am getting a bit tired of complaints before a new development is even  released.. Perhaps it would be better if Orbx did not give us previews? We need to be thankful that their R&D is ongoing.. Teecee.

Not a complaint...an observation is all.

[Alex Goff]

FSX/P3D has maxed out resolution for ground textures for the foreseeable future both with engine limitations and hardware limitations.
 
Some background on how ground textures work and the impact/feasibility of increasing texture resolution.
 
There are two types of ground textures in the FSX/P3D engine (only referring to FSX from here on out but most applies to Prepar3D), photoreal terrain and landclass tiles. Photoreal terrain is aerial imagery processed and compiled into a single large file that will display in a specific area. Photoreal terrain can display resolutions up to 7cm per pixel which is very high resolution. It is most commonly used for location-specific points of interest and airports where the high resolution matters most.
 
Moving on to landclass tiles. Landclass is how most of the FSX world is displayed. A large set of tiles are assembled like puzzle pieces to cover large areas of the globe in a realistic and efficient manner. The way this is done is FSX reads a landclass file that calls specific textures and tells the engine where to display them. Here is an example of landclass:
 

 
Each tile represents a 1sq kilometer area of land. This is the size of FSX landclass tiles when displayed on the globe. As such this grid represents a 10kmx10km patch of land covered with 4 different landclass types; red, yellow, purple, and turquoise. Each of these types is then made up of a several textures, let's say 7 per color. So with 7 variants of each color being loaded in this 10kmx10km grid, what does that entail for the engine? 
 
Well, in FSX we are limited to a "soft" cap of 1024x1024 pixels per texture sheet. That number can be raised to 4096 pixels by editing the FSX.cfg and Prepar3D can change the resolution through the simulator control panel. If each tile is 1km, and a tile has a single texture sheet which is 1024 pixels then the size of each pixel is ~1m. At this resolution we can see buildings, trees, and roads very clearly although other objects like cars and small structures may be very small or not seen at all.
 
Now, in our scenario we have 4 landclass types being loaded (red, yellow, purple, and turqoise) each of which has 7 textures it can choose from. What we end up with is the simulator must load each of these texture sheets and then display them, a total of 28 texture sheets. A 1024px bitmap is about 683kb in size. Multiplied by 28 we have 19124 kilobytes of data to load, or 19mb. So to load and display this piece of terrain it will "cost" 19mb to store the textures and a little bit more overhead to store the data on where each texture is located.
 
With that out of the way we can look at how raising the resolution impacts the engine and what sort of results we get from doing so.
 
Landclass tiles are made by acquiring pieces of aerial imagery that are usually 0.25-1m per pixel in resolution. Their resolution is scaled to match the 1m per pixel that our landclass tile should be. So if we wanted to make a 2048px or 4096px texture then 0.5m or 0.25m imagery must be used, respectively. It is typically better to start with higher resolution imagery and scale it down than use imagery of the same resolution as your end result. Using a piece of 0.15m imagery from the Chicago area we can see what it would look like as a tile at 4096px, 2048px, 1024px, and 256px, the maximum resolution of FS9.
 
4096px:

 

 
2048px:

 

 
1024px:
 

256px:

 

 
The forums software does scale the images when displaying but this should give a good approximation of the level of detail at each resolution. Open each image in a new tab to view the full resolution.
 
Now for some info about each size:

[td]Size[/td][td]Resolution[/td][td]Memory required to load example grid[/td]
[td]256px[/td][td]4 meters per pixel[/td][td]1.2mb[/td]
[td]1024px[/td][td]1 meter per pixel[/td][td]19mb[/td]
[td]2048px[/td][td]0.5 meter per pixel[/td][td]75mb[/td]
[td]4096px[/td][td]0.25 meter per pixel[/td][td]297mb[/td]

Resolution Comparison

As you can see from the table, for each doubling of texture size the amount of memory it takes to load our example grid at the top (4 landclasses, 7 variants per landclass) goes up dramatically. One region may have several dozen landclass types. Each type includes 7-15 variants, 5 seasons, a lightmap, and a blending tile for each variant. PNW contains 2.24GB of custom landclass textures. Increasing the region to 2048px textures would bring the size of custom textures up to 8.96GB, with all the other assets it would be roughly 12GB. The difference visually between a 1024px texture and 2048px texture in a region would be seeing a sedan driving down the road rendered as 8 pixels instead of 4. 

 

So now where does that leave us for higher resolution ground textures in the future. Airports can already be done at 7cm/pixel if the aerial imagery in the area is of a high enough resolution. The imagery covers a small area and will take a few hundred megabytes but it will look fantastic visually. But to increase ground texture size globally using the current tiled technique we would need at 64-bit simulator with support for 4096px textures. A better solution would be an entirely new engine that does not use tile-based ground textures. Tiles have pretty much reached their limit at 1024px textures.

[Voyager]

Thank you Alex, but I believe that a new technology will come soon ... very soon![emoji57]

iPhone-Tapatalk

[gfd]

FSX/P3D has maxed out resolution for ground textures for the foreseeable future both with engine limitations and hardware limitations.

 

Some background on how ground textures work and the impact/feasibility of increasing texture resolution.

 

Thanks for this Alex. This is the type of information that answers so many questions at once. This could be an exercise in 'initial exitement'; but we need a sub forum for this type of information. Not 'blah, blah area is missing this', but general questions. I now know why it makes sense to limit my max texture load to 1024. The memory saving is huge. On the other hand, I've read that some developers batch more data into a 4096 texture file to reduce draw calls. Now I really don't even know if I got this right. But your comments please....

 

Perhaps my mental meandering above would further convince you of the need to have this type of forum. For example: I have reduced my LOD Radius to 2.5 when running the 777 at FlyTampa's CYYZ. That is a deadly area in terms of resource use. How far is 2.5? If it's right in front of me, too small. But if it's 2.5 tiles (2.5KM), then not so bad.

 

We are told to adjust and analyze the changes. Perhaps it is my advanced age, but I find after a bit of that, I suffer from sensory overload. After a while, my brain says 'time's up'. Now if I knew what the difference was between 2.5 and 4.5 in real terms, I'd have something to look for. This is just an example of how you guys, with your experience and talent could assist us in making sensible choices in our simulators.

 

The blog that the ACES guys ran, while they were up and running, was excellent. So is your post.

 

Thanks

[jabble]

FSX/P3D has maxed out resolution for ground textures for the foreseeable future both with engine limitations and hardware limitations.

Thanks, Alex!

 

Is there any prospect of an upcoming 64-bit engine improving this, irrespective of what hardware we have just now?  Or at least have any devs given LM a wishlist?

[aeronauta]

Alex very good explanation shows that unless we move to 64bit addressing, that won't be possible, then once we get there lets hope all of us can afford the very fast aand large Disk storage, memory, CPU and video card to move and process that ammount of data...I am sure we will biut not too soon..

 

Jorge

[olli4740]

Very comprehensive, Alex, and still easy to read and to understand.

 

I would suspect that with the higher resolution even in a 64bit simulator, the fact that we are already CPU-limited most of the time will be even more significant? So higher resolution would also imply higher demand on the CPU?

[dominique]

Thank you Alex for taking the time to write this excellent refreshing course following Kilstorm's interesting remark.

 

As P3DV2 allows now an extensive tree cover without too much penalty on the frame rate, do you think that the same can be done with grass to give a 3d depth to the terrain while flying low. Or would that be something that only 64 bits would allow ?

[Vora]

A 64bit version only prevents OOMs, and only if you have enough physical RAM, that is. The problem would be the FPS.

FPS is a problem you can only mitigate by more MHz or more parallel cores on CPU and GPU. In this regard there is nothing breaking coming our way currently.

[COBS]

I tend to spend most of my time flying much lower than most helicopters , and in my opinion what the current FTX provides is absolutely stunning.

 

If any improvement or advancement is offered or announced , then immediately someone pounces and seeks a further enhancement , we should be

reasonable and embrace  what has been announced.

Stop and think how disheartening that attitude is to the developers who have put in so very much effort on a project , their effort and toil is to

our benefit.

 

We all have to be realistic about the level of realism in the simulator and enjoy the marvellous scenery that we have.

 

It amuses me that people have latched on to 64 Bit as an absolute panacea for all thing related to flight simulation , it isn't and won't be ,

hardware will need to advance beyond it's current state , and then there is the problem of producing releases.

The new releases will require considerably more  time to produce , and as a consequence will cost proportionally more , all for relatively

small gains.

 

I'll keep on remembering that this is an enjoyable flight simulator , and spend my time doing what it's meant for  ......  flying.

 

Cheers

Karol 

[dominique]

A 64bit version only prevents OOMs, and only if you have enough physical RAM, that is. The problem would be the FPS.

FPS is a problem you can only mitigate by more MHz or more parallel cores on CPU and GPU. In this regard there is nothing breaking coming our way currently.

Very true, the main real issue is still the processing power. Tesselation helps a little but only a code adapted to a multiprocessor machine can really help.

[FlexFlier]

I'll keep on remembering that this is an enjoyable flight simulator , and spend my time doing what it's meant for  ......  flying.

Thank you, COBS. I'm one of those helicopter guys you're apparently flying under - I'll keep a sharp lookout for you - and I completely agree about enjoying the experience. Our grandkids may well wind up with FSH (FS Holodeck); there will be a few iterations getting there, but in the meantime I'm just having fun going places I've never been in aircraft I'll never get to fly in the real world. It's oh so much cheaper than a real aircraft, potty breaks are easy, and if I flame out I just get up and make myself a cuppa.

 

And thanks to Orbx my flying world keeps getting better and better.

[wolfko]

Sorry folks, but I am getting a bit tired of complaints before a new development is even  released.. Perhaps it would be better if Orbx did not give us previews? We need to be thankful that their R&D is ongoing.. Teecee.

 

+1

[COBS]

Flexflyer

 

your safe , I tend to be at treetop level or lower weaving between the trees , danger period is short as I'm usually at about 400+ knots.

 

Safe Heli flying

Karol

[jabloomf1230]

...

Perhaps my mental meandering above would further convince you of the need to have this type of forum. For example: I have reduced my LOD Radius to 2.5 when running the 777 at FlyTampa's CYYZ. That is a deadly area in terms of resource use. How far is 2.5? If it's right in front of me, too small. But if it's 2.5 tiles (2.5KM), then not so bad.

 

We are told to adjust and analyze the changes. Perhaps it is my advanced age, but I find after a bit of that, I suffer from sensory overload. After a while, my brain says 'time's up'. Now if I knew what the difference was between 2.5 and 4.5 in real terms, I'd have something to look for. This is just an example of how you guys, with your experience and talent could assist us in making sensible choices in our simulators.

 

Here's an interesting thread from AVSim:

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/452357-terrain-lod-slider-fsx-v-p3d/?p=3084996

 

where someone used false color to identify the ground textures of differing resolution at various LOD. The maximum resolution in the mipmap textures is 1024, but the results are still interesting.

[John Venema]

Despite the constant rumours around various forums, LM have absolutely no plans to go to 64-bit because it will effectively kill all third party compatibility not to mention create a huge retooling workload for their own internal scenery and file assets.

Their approach is to constantly improve the efficiency of the 32-bit engine to use less and less resources, which allows them to add new features within the 4GB VAS limit. We are seeing proof of this work in the recent 2.x releases.

In any case, if a 64-bit sim platform emerges it would need to come with significant porting tools for Orbx to move our IP across to it and support it. Whoever makes a 64-bit sim would also need to have a lot of experience with the FSX core structure so they can write the tools needed to port third party content.

No new sim will survive without third party content - MS Flight is the classic example of that.

[BG2518]

Short, to the point, sensible view - great !!

[dominique]

For the 15 years I've been frequenting them, the FS forums have always been dominated by irreasonable fears (like the next FS will be for console only ! ) and irrealist wishful thinking (64bits)   !

[sightseer]

So...Dovetail Games is working on a 32 bit simulator??? ack.

but back to this thread -- It was several versions of [P3D I think] ago when I first put together my 'new system' and saw textures that were unreasonably blurry and after a little reading I discovered that it was anistropic filtering intentionally blurring textures that the GPU thought should be blurry based on their angle to me.

I think when people discuss resolution what they really want is sharper textures and other issues can affect that. Im not sure if its tessalation or what (because I know next to nothing about tessalation (not even how to spell it apparently) - but if aniso can make things blurry and we've got textures being called based on mesh and mesh changes with mesh resolution and then tessellation thrown in there too... its a wonder it works at all.

but all this is to say that on my system with P3D2.4 I am still fighting odd blurry problems and I just don't know where to start anymore for answers because sometimes things seem incredibly sharp (for my half blind eyes) and other times I cant imagine why it seems so blurry.

I don't have answers. just comments. Good Morning everyone.

[jabble]

but all this is to say that on my system with P3D2.4 I am still fighting odd blurry problems and I just don't know where to start anymore for answers because sometimes things seem incredibly sharp (for my half blind eyes) and other times I cant imagine why it seems so blurry.

I'm on P3D 2.5, and got blurries right after install.  I reset FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION to 0.01, and that solved it for me.  Your mileage may differ.

[sightseer]

I've never used that tweak but Ive seen it mentioned a lot lately. AffinityMask doesn't seem to work anymore so I'll try Fiber Time Fraction. Thanks.

I'm on P3D 2.5, and got blurries right after install.  I reset FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION to 0.01, and that solved it for me.  Your mileage may differ.

[pmb]

I've never used that tweak but Ive seen it mentioned a lot lately. AffinityMask doesn't seem to work anymore so I'll try Fiber Time Fraction. Thanks.

This comes close to black magic. Usually it is said (including in the LM P3D Learning Center) that INCREASING the FFT value will reduce blurries.

 

Kind regards, Michael

[jabble]

This comes close to black magic. Usually it is said (including in the LM P3D Learning Center) that INCREASING the FFT value will reduce blurries.

 

Kind regards, Michael

I should specify that I've locked FPS - I think that matters too.

 

I came across the claim here, tried it, and it so far it's worked.

 

Edit: Also here.

[Jordan King]

So...Dovetail Games is working on a 32 bit simulator??? ack.

but back to this thread -- It was several versions of [P3D I think] ago when I first put together my 'new system' and saw textures that were unreasonably blurry and after a little reading I discovered that it was anistropic filtering intentionally blurring textures that the GPU thought should be blurry based on their angle to me.

I think when people discuss resolution what they really want is sharper textures and other issues can affect that. Im not sure if its tessalation or what (because I know next to nothing about tessalation (not even how to spell it apparently) - but if aniso can make things blurry and we've got textures being called based on mesh and mesh changes with mesh resolution and then tessellation thrown in there too... its a wonder it works at all.

but all this is to say that on my system with P3D2.4 I am still fighting odd blurry problems and I just don't know where to start anymore for answers because sometimes things seem incredibly sharp (for my half blind eyes) and other times I cant imagine why it seems so blurry.

I don't have answers. just comments. Good Morning everyone.

 

All 64 bit will do is save you from OOM's, but it wont speed up, smooth out, or enhance the simulator in any other way. What we really need is a brand new modern platform for the sim to be built off of. Most AAA games out there are 32 bit and they dont suffer memory problems because their code is modern and organically efficient. 8 years ago ACES had no idea that would be their last project and worked with the available tools that they had at the time without future-proofing. So dont be discouraged just because something isnt 64 bit if it is built for modern hardware and the advent in scenery design over the last few years. I welcome DTG making a 32 bit program if it is built the right way. I dont welcome a 64 bit, addon breaking, iteration of an 8 year old sim built to run on Intel Core 2 Duo's and Nvidia 8800 GT's. But of course if I get a modern platform, 64 bit, and developers that wont get lazy and inefficiently code because of the memory overhead, I will take all of them! 

[CrownCityMisfit]

Despite the constant rumours around various forums, LM have absolutely no plans to go to 64-bit because it will effectively kill all third party compatibility not to mention create a huge retooling workload for their own internal scenery and file assets

 

JV, you just blew up Avsim with that post.

 

 

Still look forward to many many years of simming in Orbx scenery, no matter what happens.

[Jordan King]

JV, you just blew up Avsim with that post.

 

 

Still look forward to many many years of simming in Orbx scenery, no matter what happens.

 

A small war has started on Avsim. Lol. 

[dgraham1284]

So the mod who posted in the LM forums is lying?

See post 92301: http://www.prepar3d.com/forum-5/topic/yet-another-x64-thread/

[hawkeye52]

So the mod who posted in the LM forums is lying? See post 92301: http://www.prepar3d.com/forum-5/topic/yet-another-x64-thread/

 

Exactly..I wonder on what basis JV is stating this stuff.  I love ORBX but I have a feeling that if P3D does eventually go 64-bit someone else would fill their shoes if they didn't migrate to P3D x64.  But would love to see an actual statement from LM devs on this.  As JV has not given evidence to his statement and we have an LM moderator stating the opposite...

[jabble]

There's still a difference between "eventually" going to x64, and x64 being actively developed.  I think we realise that it will majorly break most of our addons, so the economic hit will be significant as developers have to build and we have to buy a new set.  Which, of course, we will

 

Common sense tell us that it's bound to happen at some point, but that doesn't mean that there's a major push by LM to do so just yet.  It's common in software houses to think ahead to a future product, figure out lots of issues and do a plethora of technology proving, even market research, before the "go" button is pushed for active development.  "Working on" doesn't necessarily mean "in the development schedule".  Back burner rather than front burner, if you like.

 

Hence I don't see that JV's statement and that of LM are at all incompatible.

[John Venema]

I fly to Orlando each year and meet with the LM P3D team. My comment is based on a conversation I had with Wes Bard last November. At that time there were no plans for 64-bit but plenty of plans for other tech for the 32-bit engine, none of which I can discuss.

It may pain you to hear it but we're not their target market; 99% of what leads their development is what their internal LM departments are asking for, and I doubt whether 64-bit is very high in the agenda.

Of course, things can and often do change in software development so who knows what their code path is for the future.

As for Orbx supposedly not supporting 64-bit I have no idea why folks would think that. We'll go where the customers are, simple as that. We run a business to make money.

[Jordan King]

I fly to Orlando each year and meet with the LM P3D team. My comment is based on a conversation I had with Wes Bard last November. At that time there were no plans for 64-bit but plenty of plans for other tech for the 32-bit engine, none of which I can discuss.

It may pain you to hear it but we're not their target market; 99% of what leads their development is what their internal LM departments are asking for, and I doubt whether 64-bit is very high in the agenda.

Of course, things can and often do change in software development so who knows what their code path is for the future.

As for Orbx supposedly not supporting 64-bit I have no idea why folks would think that. We'll go where the customers are, simple as that. We run a business to make money.

I personally was on the same page with you John (minus of course the intimate knowledge of their work). I interned at Raytheon for a summer while in college studying aviation science, and when I got to play with their Flight System Demonstrator or "FIRSTplus" it was far from an Iain Emms photoshoot if you know what I mean. It was focused on avionics and flight dynamics, not scenery and tessellation. It's hard for a lot of folks to remember that Lockheed is a multi billion dollar defense contractor and commercial solution provider. NOT a video game company. A million or two in P3D sales from "enthusiasts" is laughable when compared to the one Sr. Program Manager who needs to sell 10 units of his $80 million weapons platform by demonstrating it in P3D. Who knows, they may decide other wise, but they haven't even completed Windows 8 support yet and that's because none of their "real" clients run Windows 8. It's just the reality of the market they are in, and we aren't really part of it.

[pchimbolo]

I fly to Orlando each year and meet with the LM P3D team. My comment is based on a conversation I had with Wes Bard last November. At that time there were no plans for 64-bit but plenty of plans for other tech for the 32-bit engine, none of which I can discuss.

 

John, it sounds like you're already making statements well-beyond your NDA agreements anyway.  

 

You made a comment earlier in this thread, and restated again just above, communicating LM's 64-bit intentions based on a confidential "conversation" you had with them.   These statements you have made MAY very well hurt their position in the marketplace.

 

I'm not an executive or an employee at LM, but if I were... I just lost trust in a trusted partner.

 

Something doesn't add up here, and my instinct is that ORBX may be getting pushed out of the equation soon.  And if not based on anything prior to your posts here, most definitely after.

 

Which company has more to lose, and far fewer resources to apply to the 64-bit migration?   ORBX does.  ORBX has everything to lose.   Will LM migrate?  Won't they?   Might there be a new player in 64-bit flightsim ourside of X-Plane?  We'll see.  

 

The world has long since been headed to a 64-bit standard.   There are risks on either side of the 64-bit migration consideration.   (1) Don't migrate risk = cannot keep up with expected 3D/HD experience = fading customer base.  (2) Migration risk = a lot of work for a lot of little guys who might go out of business.   Just to name any one consideration for either side, there are many more.

 

You know as well as anyone John, someone will jump on the horse that you fell of of.   Someone will do it, and people like myself, and other customers of yours, WILL FOLLOW!

[Guest]

X-Plane 10 is already x64 and few people follow them [emoji14]

[Jordan King]

John, it sounds like you're already making statements well-beyond your NDA agreements anyway.  

 

You made a comment earlier in this thread, and restated again just above, communicating LM's 64-bit intentions based on a confidential "conversation" you had with them.   These statements you have made MAY very well hurt their position in the marketplace.

 

I'm not an executive or an employee at LM, but if I were... I just lost trust in a trusted partner.

 

Something doesn't add up here, and my instinct is that ORBX may be getting pushed out of the equation soon.  And if not based on anything prior to your posts here, most definitely after.

 

Which company has more to lose, and far fewer resources to apply to the 64-bit migration?   ORBX does.  ORBX has everything to lose.   Will LM migrate?  Won't they?   Might there be a new player in 64-bit flightsim ourside of X-Plane?  We'll see.  

 

The world has long since been headed to a 64-bit standard.   There are risks on either side of the 64-bit migration consideration.   (1) Don't migrate risk = cannot keep up with expected 3D/HD experience = fading customer base.  (2) Migration risk = a lot of work for a lot of little guys who might go out of business.   Just to name any one consideration for either side, there are many more.

 

You know as well as anyone John, someone will jump on the horse that you fell of of.   Someone will do it, and people like myself, and other customers of yours, WILL FOLLOW!

 

Welcome to the forums! One hell of a first post! LOL. I've been waiting a LONG time to finally use this smiley! 

 

But seriously, you know NOTHING concrete to rebut John's statement yet you so passionately oppose his seemingly reasonable logic. You think LM is going to persecute ORBX because he scared off some misguided gamers? You think a man who has built such a successful company doesn't know how to adhere to an NDA? You think the ridiculously talented guys at ORBX cant recompile scenery (and charge for it none the less) if needed to convert to a 64 bit platform? Do you REALLY think John wants to single-handedly topple Lockheed Martin? Come on man. You have to take an objective look at this and recognize that the truth wont always be what you want to hear. This appears to be one of those times. I personally thank him for his transparency and honesty. Hopefully people will realize that they should be practical about where they put their money especially when a company blatantly says: "Lockheed Martin does not offer Prepar3D for entertainment, and we have no plans to enter the entertainment space. The EULAs explain that Prepar3D can be used for purposes other than personal/consumer entertainment."  http://www.prepar3d.com/forum-5/topic/we-will-not-be-answering-what-license-should-i-buy-questions-on-these-forums/

[Nyxx]

That for a first post has to go down as a milestone  

 

November 13, 2014 at 04:54 #92301

Saul

Moderator
"Yes, LM is working on 64bit.
No information is available for a release scheduled."

 

Someone is miss informed.

 

@Phil

Sadly that might be your one and only post