Jordan King Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 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 The key is that Saul is a moderator, not an employee of LM. Last time anyone actually from the LM payroll said anything about the matter was in 2013: http://forum.avsim.net/page/index.html/_/pri-news/lockheed-answers-community-questions-r1819and he even said " While most addon scenery should work, planes and vehicles likely would require some work on the developers part." So technically this would have minimal impact on ORBX portfolio. Again, another reason John would not have any reason to exaggerate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Venema Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 What a lot of nonsense! Too many keyboard warriors at AVSIM seem to view 64-but as some holy grail (it isn't) and that Orbx has a dependency on LM (we don't). We don't have a fading customer base, it's growing rapidly, and across three versions of the core sim engine. We are entirely capable of porting to almost any platform, be it 32-bit, 64-bit or another OS entirely, so it's not a logistics or capability issue either. Rather the issue is some folks are just in hysterics over the fact that a 64-bit P3D isn't imminent and now seem to be forecasting the end of Orbx's commitment to the platform over a few of my comments, including AVSIM users registering here and reposting dribble from those forums. Let's be clear on one thing: Orbx helps LM sell a lot of copies of P3D purely by virtue of our support and association. The benefits are mutual and that won't change anytime soon. Now, please let me continue to run my company without giving me lectures on NDA compliance ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmb Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 X-Plane 10 is already x64 and few people follow them [emoji14] This is true, Richard, and not without reason. On the other hand, i was quite perplexed, how (relatively) smooth they managed the 64-bit transition. They just added a 64-bit exe provided in parallel with the 32-bit exe and this was it. If memory serves me right, there was neither a major version change nor a file structure reorganization. Granted, the X-plane addon base is small compared to Prepar3d. However, most of the addons available (notably scenery) either worked out of the box or could be adjusted pretty quickly. Yes, the ESP engine is dated, but today's Prepar3d is way beyond ESP and with X-Plane's history dating back to 1993 it is all but a new kid on the block either. I am all but an X-Plane fanboy for several reasons, but I have respect for them in this regard. Kind regards, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jabble Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 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. It seems to me that all addon companies are in the same boat in terms of any potential new engine that breaks with the past. That's the case whether it means easy migration of existing assets, partial recreation, or completely new builds. That holds true whether it comes from LM, Dovetail or anyone else. I don't see that success of any of these companies will depend on an intimate relationship with the engine developer anywhere near as much as just producing good products that people want to buy. After all, that's why Orbx and others have the success they do have in the marketplace to this moment. If anything, it might give an opportunity for established developers to revamp their products, fully taking advantage of the new engine features as well as their own matured capabilities. I don't see how Orbx could suffer here compared to anyone else in the marketplace. The bigger question is surely whether the market is yet ready for a (partially or completely) legacy-breaking engine, and I suspect it isn't. It's very arguable that improving the current 32-bit engine is a better way to go in the shorter term, before that big step is taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voyager Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 The whole thing is almost ready: the tests with 32 System have already been well tested! The move to 64 will not be as traumatic: the GPU-CPU-Bus_Data_Transfer integration, all is well tested. Just missing the test as memory management: can only be done with the 64 bit system running: in all possible terminal! - us! Cheers, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyxx Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 It would be lovely to have a good conversation on these forums about new tech for P3D but sadly its not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jabble Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 The whole thing is almost ready: the tests with 32 System have already been well tested! The move to 64 will not be as traumatic: the GPU-CPU-Bus_Data_Transfer integration, all is well tested. Just missing the test as memory management: can only be done with the 64 bit system running: in all possible terminal! - us! Cheers, Um - what are you referring to? Is this the upcoming P3D version, or something from Dovetail? Please do tell, if your NDA lets you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyxx Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 The key is that Saul is a moderator, not an employee of LM. Last time anyone actually from the LM payroll said anything about the matter was in 2013: http://forum.avsim.net/page/index.html/_/pri-news/lockheed-answers-community-questions-r1819and he even said " While most addon scenery should work, planes and vehicles likely would require some work on the developers part." So technically this would have minimal impact on ORBX portfolio. Again, another reason John would not have any reason to exaggerate. Within the link it also says "We’ve put a lot of thought and research into a 64-bit version of Prepar3D. It is in the roadmap, but I can’t promise you when it will be released." Its amazing what selective quoting can do... Would be best to here from the horses mouth (LM) so we can put this to bed, or has JV let the cat out of the bag? "Speak to the organ grinder not the monkey" as the saying goes.(Wes not a mod or a vendor.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan King Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Within the link it also says "We’ve put a lot of thought and research into a 64-bit version of Prepar3D. It is in the roadmap, but I can’t promise you when it will be released." Its amazing what selective quoting can do... Would be best to here from the horses mouth (LM) so we can put this to bed or has JV let the cat out of the bag? Its not selective quoting, but omitting dated material. The Dev who stated that said it in 2013, when P3DV2 was first released. John visited them a short 4 months ago, so I would assume his information is more up to date. Everyone knows that LM said years ago that it was on the roadmap and they had plans for it (along with SLI support, Sloped Runways, and autogen popping), but we all know roadmaps change and we as a community haven't heard a thing out of them for nearly 2 years on the matter. The key word is that it has always been stated officially that "they have put thought" into the prospect of 64 bit, but never said they were in any phase of actual development or release. Its much easier to change direction on a "thought" than a beta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyxx Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Its not selective quoting Yes it was. "but omitting dated material" in this world 4 months old is dated material. you "omitted" what served you best" Lets wait to here from the horses mouth not hear say that might be right or wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dominique Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 I'd rather have a a sim engine optimized for quadprocessors than a 64bits conversion anyday... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan King Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Yes it was. "but omitting dated material" in this world 4 months old is dated material. you "omitted" what served you best" Lets wait to here from the horses mouth not hear say that might be right or wrong. The proverbial "horse" you speak of hasn't spoken to the community in years on the issue. So to label John's insight provided in the last 24 hours, from a conversation he had with the "horse" a short 4 month ago, as "dated" is a bit of a stretch as a viable debate point. If you choose to take information from 2013 over credible information from 2015 that's your prerogative, but I don't. I am not worried about being wrong because I never had the false expectation that a consumer oriented platform would be fostered by a military conglomerate. If they so choose to produce a 64 bit platform then so be it, but I for one don't see any point in sitting around with fingers crossed because someone was "thinking" about it 2 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jabble Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 I'd rather have a a sim engine optimized for quadprocessors than a 64bits conversion anyday... Maybe I'm biased as I fly GA/bush instead of tubes, so I've never had an OOM in P3D, but I agree with this. Better threading/fibre techniques will likely bring more benefit more quickly to more customers than 64-bit addressing. Don't get me wrong - I do hope that LM are looking ahead to 64-bit, but it seems there are a lot of techniques to be improved and features added in the current codebase before creating a new one. After which they'd be in a much better position to get any 64-bit engine right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyxx Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 The proverbial "horse" you speak of hasn't spoken to the community in years on the issue. So to label John's insight provided in the last 24 hours, from a conversation he had with the "horse" a short 4 month ago, as "dated" is a bit of a stretch as a viable debate point. If you choose to take information from 2013 over credible information from 2015 that's your prerogative, but I don't. I am not worried about being wrong because I never had the false expectation that a consumer oriented platform would be fostered by a military conglomerate. If they so choose to produce a 64 bit platform then so be it, but I for one don't see any point in sitting around with fingers crossed because someone was "thinking" about it 2 years ago. You believe what you want to believe. Personally I don't care one way or the other. The "horse" has not confirmed or denied it and that is the point. JV said "LM have absolutely no plans to go to 64-bit because it will effectively kill all third party compatibility" Then here is the same post said "We are entirely capable of porting to almost any platform, be it 32-bit, 64-bit or another OS entirely, so it's not a logistics or capability issue either." So why does LM think 64-bit will effectively kill third party? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Venema Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Actually, this topic has deviated from the original discussion about FTX Trees HD, and I am just as guilty of going OT, so apologies and let's end it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.