Current Status

[nolanh 21]

For those people not professional developers selling to a non-corporate customer base:

FlyingPig said it with some detail already:

Writing for 64-bits is more complex than just choosing the size of variables, and it's exclusivity makes it a glaringly obvious bad risk.

You cannot expect every potential customer to buy a new 64-bit OS just to run a new product. My guess is that the vast majority of those potential customers are more casual users.

Knowing this, the no-brainer would seem to be to stick with 32-bit for any part of this software running on the customers' machines.

If the non-hard-core majority does not buy in, then Aerosoft does not have the resources to cater to the hard-core customers for the long haul. So we lose.

Aerosoft would know this. They develop software for the same customer base, so they should know.

I think that this forum is set up for them to get information that they don't already have.

They already have this information, no?

[Peter Lürkens 30]

Yes that is usually no problem with your own code, problems may arise with some 3rd party libraries used

Depends on the interface and process model. Let it be client/server with seprate process space as in FSX can have them coexist all.

regards,

Peter

[Peter Lürkens 30]

Having said probably earlier:

It would be extremely nice to have a clear scheduling and syncing of sim-phases between the main and the addons. This is one of the most limiting problems with FSX addons. In many cases overwriting simstates by addons in FSX results in fighting between the two and produce unpredictable results.

regards,

Peter

[Alexander Wurz 42]

nolanh,

maybe you are right, maybe not - but you should consider, that more and more pc's are selled with 4 GB RAM and 64 Bit Windows.

But in fact we can not know now, which OS people use in the Year 2012, because it is depending on several items.

I use 64 Bits now for almost 2 Years, and I really would love a native 64 Bit Flightsim.

[Pi@no 17]

Writing for 64-bits is more complex than just choosing the size of variables, and it's exclusivity makes it a glaringly obvious bad risk

Of course, it was only an example... But for me x64 compatibility is a must-have...

Beginning a so big project like AFS2012 in x32 is like coding with DirectX9 !

I have a x64 PC with a x64 OS and most of the people that I know have a x64-compatible PC but with a x32 OS... I think in 2012 most users will have a x64-compatible PC, the problem is only the version of the OS...

Maybe most of the users don't know they are 2 versions of an OS and have the x32 version (sold with the PC), I think all the drivers will be x64 compatible in 2012 so it's not really a problem... the users just have to install a x64 OS (Windows 7 x64 I suppose).

[nolanh 21]

nolanh,

maybe you are right, maybe not - but you should consider, that more and more pc's are selled with 4 GB RAM and 64 Bit Windows.

But in fact we can not know now, which OS people use in the Year 2012, because it is depending on several items.

I use 64 Bits now for almost 2 Years, and I really would love a native 64 Bit Flightsim.

I apologize, I was trying to explain to people who I assumed weren't really getting it - not my job anyway.

Yes I could be wrong. It really comes down to what OS people are using when release comes along.

I myself would rather see a 64-bit app as well.

And use of separate physics processors.

And better capability for tuning performance.

[Colin Caughie 7]

I apologize, I was trying to explain to people who I assumed weren't really getting it - not my job anyway.

Yes I could be wrong. It really comes down to what OS people are using when release comes along.

I myself would rather see a 64-bit app as well.

And use of separate physics processors.

And better capability for tuning performance.

I have to ask... who actually cares whether it's 32 or 64 bit, as long as it works?!

Yes of course if it comes along as 32-bit only everyone will start theorizing about how much better it would be if it was 64-bit, and complaining that they've got 32 unused bits in their CPU. But personally I'm happy to trust the developers to make the decision as to what actually works best for the most people.

Colin

[Pi@no 17]

I have to ask... who actually cares whether it's 32 or 64 bit, as long as it works?!

Yes of course if it comes along as 32-bit only everyone will start theorizing about how much better it would be if it was 64-bit, and complaining that they've got 32 unused bits in their CPU. But personally I'm happy to trust the developers to make the decision as to what actually works best for the most people.

Colin

If, like me you have a big computer (2 CPU Quad-core and 6Go RAM) and FSX is laggy because it can't use more than 3Go of my RAM and one core of my 8, it's a little bit annoying !

[nolanh 21]

I have to ask... who actually cares whether it's 32 or 64 bit, as long as it works?!

Yes of course if it comes along as 32-bit only everyone will start theorizing about how much better it would be if it was 64-bit, and complaining that they've got 32 unused bits in their CPU. But personally I'm happy to trust the developers to make the decision as to what actually works best for the most people.

Colin

Colin, I assume that you actually want an answer to your question. If not then ignore the rantings of an old coot.

Why do we care:

(1) There is potential for better performance with a native 64-bit application, which needs a 64-bit operating system, which also allows the use of more RAM.

(2) There is potential for making less money for Aerosoft if enough of the candidate customers do not have 64-bit operating systems when the product is released (candidates who will not buy a new OS just to run the product). And less money for Aerosoft is bad news for all customers.

Why are we talking about this when it is an implementation issue normally taken care of by the developers: Because, as far as I know, Aerosoft wants our input, and some of the posters here are software developers and/or technically-aware individuals of different backgrounds who are taking advantage of the opportunity given to us by Aerosoft (which is a BIG deal). So we end up talking about the "how" in addition to the "what".

Speaking for myself, I think it is better to give too much input than to hold back. Something that may seem obvious to some may be not so obvious to others, and just getting a discussion going about these things will sometimes bring up a point that even the Aerosoft developers haven't considered. Look earlier in this post and you'll see that I was guilty of shooting down 64-bit. It's tempting to do these things, but, being a developer for 25 years myself, I can tell you that there will always be something that wasn't thought of early enough, and so it doesn't make it into the final product.

I have no doubt that the Aerosoft developers know what they are doing, but I also know that discussions about topic A can sometimes lead to a not-so-obvious topic B which ends up being very important.

So thank you Mr. Kok and Aerosoft for letting me (us) take part in these discussions, brainstorming, etc.

I'm sure you will let me know when I am off base.

[Colin Caughie 7]

Colin, I assume that you actually want an answer to your question. If not then ignore the rantings of an old coot.

Thanks for this detailed response. I certainly didn't mean to shoot down the discussion, sorry if it came across that way. I'm also a software developer (although 10 years behind you) and I agree that all discussion is good.

Really I was just trying steer the discussion back to what we really want from the sim, rather than the details of how to get there. I think it's more useful for us, as future customers, to be talking about requirements rather than design details. (I don't want to say we can't or shouldn't talk about design details, but I think it's a lot less likely that such discussion will carry any weight with the developers).

In this case the requirements are a. the sim should have great performance, and b. it should run on as many customers' existing hardware as possible. If the developers can meet both of those then I take my hat off to them.

Colin

[Arista 64]

Another thing to consider is that Windows 6.1 (popularly known as 'Windows 7') is probably going to be the last Windows released in a 32-bit version. That alone will give 64 bit the final push (assuming Microsoft won't create Vista Reloaded). If they keep their pace and release the real Windows 7.0 (dubbed 'Windows 8' by most rumors) three years after its predecessor, it will be out by 2012. Given that you seem to have already settled on DirectX 11, which is kind of a gamble, too (What, no Windows XP support? How dare you? ), going 64 bit as well would seem to me like the logical next step if there are real gains to be had.

Judith

[nolanh 21]

I certainly didn't mean to shoot down the discussion, sorry if it came across that way. I'm also a software developer (although 10 years behind you) and I agree that all discussion is good.

No, my bad- I didn't take it that way - my writing style needs work. It comes across stronger than I intend. I get a little excited. Must be those last 10 years of development work!

(I don't want to say we can't or shouldn't talk about design details, but I think it's a lot less likely that such discussion will carry any weight with the developers).

Agreed. Hopefully the developers use any design comments to know where we're coming from. I've posted design-related comments on other threads, but mostly to make myself clear. I have a tendency to be misunderstood.

[Rune_ENHD 9]

I agree with 64 bit version of simulator, it would seem be the best for memory requirements as

Mathijs say they really need more than 3GB of memory, and if a boost could likely ocur going with 64bit, I vote 64bit version sim

If this sim is going to have any future, 64bit seems to be best choice for that.

I think there are loads of computers/PCs worldwide which are 64bit now and there would be a lot more within 2012, so what's only missing is 64bit OS and 64bit Simulator,

And if you don't have a machine which is 64bit hardware it would seem highly unlikely to be able to run AFS2012 in year 2012??

Simulators,Let's face it ARE demanding games, so many may have upgraded later this year or next year or in 2012,

Too just have 64bit compatible hardware is not that expensive, AMD & Intel have made 64bit computers, and 64bit hardware-parts

for many years now(ie AMD Athlon 64bit since 2003), so in my opinion what is ONLY "really missing" is the Operating system part.

And also if you have a 64bit capable hardware, but only have 32bit OS, you can always buy a new OEM OS, you don't have to pay that much then as a retail OS, I never buy Retail version OS,

Also with Aerosofts decision to go with Windows 7 and DirectX11, you would mostly have to upgrade anyway because you need a new Graphics card most likely at the least..

I Hope no one gets offended with this statement, It's not my intention at all, sorry in advance if you feel so

Best regards

Rune Skjoelingstad

[Python 9]

As far as upgrading is concerned.... I spent £1500 on a pc just for FSX and when all was said and done i still can't run the damn thing anywhere near full graphics without getting a slideshow on screen. Therefor an honest assesment of minimun requirements would be appreciated so we can all get set up nicely

As far as my current set up, i have FSX + acceleration running on

vista 64

Phennon 2 quad core 940 3.00GHz

ATI 4870

8.00GB RAM

Iiyama 24" HD monitor

This plays Crysis perfectly well but FSX runs at around 15-40 frames on low settings which doesn't translate on screen as smooth flying when demonstrating fast jets (my main interest in FSX).... im useless when it comes to tech mind so perhaps i can refine this but it would be nice if your sim could run well on such a system, of course going back to my original point, i would happily upgrade again in 3 years if you give an honest assesment of the hardware required for smooth performence?

[Patrick O. 18]

(assuming Microsoft won't create Vista Reloaded)...

:lol: That's the funniest thing I've read all day!

@Python: The problem with your setup could be the AMD processor. I know of several people on the REX Forums who can run FSX in the 60-110FPS range, and they only spent around $2000 (not quite 1300 pounds) on their systems. The common factor? Intel processors. AMD CPUs just cannot run FSX maxed out without slowing to a crawl. Most of the people I know also have nVidia cards, but the 4870s seem to be OK. Just upgrade to Intel (when you get the money) -- you won't regret it.

On topic (sort of): if 32-bit will run blazingly fast, fine. If not, 64-bit is just fine too.

(EDIT: Sorry, guys. Didn't word it right. Meant to say that none of the AMD systems I've heard of could run FSX, maxed out (especially traffic), at 60-100FPS)

[Python 9]

:lol: That's the funniest thing I've read all day!

@Python: The glaring problem with your setup is the AMD processor. I know of several people on the REX Forums who can run FSX in the 60-110FPS range, and they only spent around $2000 (not quite 1300 pounds) on their systems. The common factor? Intel processors. AMD CPUs just cannot run FSX on high without slowing to a crawl. Most of the people I know also have nVidia cards, but the 4870s seem to be OK. Just upgrade to Intel (when you get the money) -- you won't regret it.

On topic (sort of): if 32-bit will run blazingly fast, fine. If not, 64-bit is just fine too.

Thanks chap, i have been looking at these core I7's but again im not too tech savy, is it a simple matter of replacing the CPU or would i need a new mother board etc etc? also, im assuming something newer and faster will be arriving soon as is usually the case!?

[Python 9]

Thanks chap, i have been looking at these core I7's but again im not too tech savy, is it a simple matter of replacing the CPU or would i need a new mother board etc etc? also, im assuming something newer and faster will be arriving soon as is usually the case!?

Rather annoying really as iv only had this pc a few months! another wierd thing is that if i turn everything to minimal, i still don't get much better performance than on medium-high, sure it displays 100 fps+ at times but the ground still moves bye in blocy incraments... hmmmmm.

[Arista 64]

Your problem is probably not the frame rate itself, and most certainly not the AMD processor - these are plenty fast, too. Your problem is probably frame rate volatility. I.e. you get 100 fps one moment, and 20 (or even 5) fps the very next. Have you tried limiting the frame rate to, say, around 30? Or do you get half the fps you set then, still with wild fluctuations? That problem isn't limited to AMD either, by the way: I have an Intel Core 2 Duo with an nVidia card here that does it.

Judith

[BPL 39]

I have an AMD Phenom II X4 810 processor @ 2.60 GHz, and I don't seem to have this problem. I used to with my old computer, though.

[wyoming 2]

And food for thought... http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427311.300-timewarp-how-your-brain-creates-the-fourth-dimension.html?page=1

[jc75 0]

Hmmmm appears someone already got AFS2012

https://www.cranfield.ac.uk/soe/facilities/page5267.jsp

[Waleed 29]

Mathijs, as things are getting deeper here, is it possible to somehow create a list of "semi" adopted ideas so we can somehow concentrate on others.

This sounds confusing, but the threads, as expected, are growing ever larger, and one might run the risk of repeating things, and missing out on others sometimes.

Thanks.

[Mikethebike 0]

As reply to "DX is more used than OpenGL":

1.7M spending

[Enders 2]

I shure hope that they could ad sids and stars, and some aircraft separation on landing. I hate is when i'm on the app. and some AI aircraft turns in in front of me.

[flyingsub 7]

Hmmmm appears someone already got AFS2012

https://www.cranfield.ac.uk/soe/facilities/page5267.jsp

If it is the equipment I am thinking of then the graphics are more like FS98!

still a great training aid though