Prepar3d v4 coming soon (64bit)

[Sang Hyun Yoon]

 

 

FSX will be history.   

 

https://fselite.net/news/prepar3d-v4-coming-soon-beta-new-lighting-engine-64-bit-releasing-soon/

 

[Rafal Haczek]

2 hours ago, rkssrkny said:

FSX will be history

It depends on everyone's individual decision.

[Romain Roux]

"However, as it’s not confirmed by Lockheed Martin, we’ll still mark this as a rumour."

But if it is confirmed, I will eventually switch to P3Dv4 when it's released.
For now, I'm sticking with FSX:SE.
It's far from being perfect but at least it is stable on my computer and there is no update every now and then which can bring compatibility issue or other problems like happened with some P3D update.

[S_r_d_a_n K_o_s_t_i_c]

I wonder how different the engine can actually be, if you get to keep your scenery addons.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk Pro

[777cap]

while it maybe a good thing if this news is indeed true...but I am also a little scared as to how well optimized this sim platform will be.

P3D for all it's glory doesn't utilize the CPU as much as the GPU...FSX on the other hand didn't use the GPU.

A 64bit platform is great for VAS..but it opens up another can of worms...developers will have more leeway to use high-res textures(and not bother optimizing them),which will in turn eat up resources.

I shudder at the thought of what will be if this is true.It is becoming increasingly clear that companies don't like to get themselves involved with customers who have low-spec computer/laptops..Look at most of the AAA titles that have released recently...horrible pc ports that are completely un-optimized.(plenty of exceptions as well)

While those of us(not me) with good rigs will still be able to run these poorly optimized games...there is a vast majority that is left hanging.The market as it stands is

"if you have a strong rig...you will be able to run these poorly optimized games"..if you don't..well..we will release a few patches that might increase performance(that..in my experience never happens)..but by that time you would have already lost interest.

I can only sincerely hope that if this rumour is  true..the sim is well optimized and uses both the cpu and gpu together..like most other 64bit games.

there seems to be some talk about a new rendering engine and light engine...while All this talk is very exciting,I can't help but be reminded of how  even fslabs said the a320 would work on a potato.Of course they changed the requirements later..but for a brief shining moment..It gave people like me hope.Only to be shattered later(I am not pointing fingers,just stating facts).

It will be interesting to see how this new sim performs.

[S_r_d_a_n K_o_s_t_i_c]

A bit unfair to be honest. P3D is way more optimized in the whole system than FSX ever was, but the whole ESP tech isn't really the highest optimization level. Far from it.
But, to limit it only to FS and say you need a good rig - not fair nor correct.
With every game nowadays, especially current titles, they simply play bad on old hardware. Moreover I know of no game that actually has the high ability of customization and possibility of addons.
And now you want tell me you want one of the highest level and probably one of the most demanding addons out there, to run well on a mediocre PC? This isn't about the optimization, it is about "I have a mediocre PC, but want the most demanding software". Can you effectively run AutoCAD on a mediocre PC? Or any of the actual titles that demand lots from your computer?
All I am gonna say...


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk Pro

[ai_ab]

On my PC P3D is able to load my GPU to 100% only if high quality graphic add-ons are installed such as REX, AS16 etc. Without these add-ons P3D was loading my GPU to 30%. So it really depends on the CPU and GPU that you have.

You perfectly understand that your rig does not qualify as a high-end laptop/computer. However, I find your statement that if a demanding application does not run fast enough on your computer as incorrect.

Compare the graphic quality of modern AAA games to the graphic quality of the AAA games released 10 years ago. Overall modern games have much more advanced graphics, however, you need a way better rig to run them at highest quality. It is not about the optimisation, it is about having the rig that is capable of running the application at the desired settings.

5 hours ago, Kosta said:

I wonder how different the engine can actually be, if you get to keep your scenery addons.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk Pro

So far I heard that ORBX sceneries are more or less compatible with P3D v4. They have stated that they will need to release updated ObjectFlow.dll when v4 is released.

However, making add-on aircraft compatible with the new P3D might be more difficult.

[S_r_d_a_n K_o_s_t_i_c]

On my PC P3D is able to load my GPU to 100% only if high quality graphic add-ons are installed such as REX, AS16 etc. Without these add-ons P3D was loading my GPU to 30%. So it really depends on the CPU and GPU that you have.








You perfectly understand that your rig does not qualify as a high-end laptop/computer. However, I find your statement that if a demanding application does not run fast enough on your computer as incorrect.








Compare the graphic quality of modern AAA games to the graphic quality of the AAA games released 10 years ago. Overall modern games have much more advanced graphics, however, you need a way better rig to run them at highest quality. It is not about the optimisation, it is about having the rig that is capable of running the application at the desired settings.












So far I heard that ORBX sceneries are more or less compatible with P3D v4. They have stated that they will need to release updated ObjectFlow.dll when v4 is released.








However, making add-on aircraft compatible with the new P3D might be more difficult.

I know. I just (apparently falsely) understood it is some new engine. But it is only about the new lighting engine, which is already now better than FSX.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk Pro

[ai_ab]

As far as I understand there are more changes then just lighting. I suspect that lighting is noted separately and is kind of used for advertising as it is one of the main selling point of XP11 as well.

And IMO current lighting in P3D is outclassed by the lighting in XP11.

I do not think that developing v4 on a new engine was a viable decision. These are the add-ons that make P3D what it is. And if v4 was to be release on the new engine that would mean that add-ons would be incompatible with it and it would take quite some time for the developers to release the new versions.

[Rafal Haczek]

12 minutes ago, ai_ab said:

These are the add-ons that make P3D what it is

But that's not necessarily what LM developers think or at least see as the priority.

[777cap]

Kosta,

Absolutely..and I have been one of the biggest supporters of P3D in that aspect.It is a wonderful simulator which has been optimized very well compared to the original Boxed FSX.

and the smoothness in fsx or p3d is very different to that of most modern games.I know this as well.

I talk out of my experience...p3d is a great platform and has solved many headaches for me in the simulator smoothness department.

But.

I find it using 99% of my gpu(which is fine) at the same time my CPU usage barely touches 20%(max)

On FSX...my CPU usage is in the high 70's(depending on various factors). while the GPU usage is next to nothing.(10% at most)

My problem is not with wanting the best of all worlds on my mediocre rig..It is with the fact that my mediocre rig is still not being used to it's full mediocre capacity.(which is still quite a bit more than what is currently being used)

The a320 is possibly one of the most complicated software created for a desktop sim. just the fact the fslabs has been able to get it to run on an ageing platform is amazing.i am not trying to criticize them,I have nothing but respect for the team.And I have repeated that feeling many times in the past.

At the same time...there is still room for optimization. I have been able to run titles like GTA 5

, Battlefield 4 and a few other properly optimized games.They ran splendidly well(I never looked at fps,but it was buttery smooth.I'll be the first one to say otherwise) at medium high settings(of course in this case I was limited by the amount of VRAM i had).

I don't expect to run my simulator at full settings and hope it runs as smoothly as some of the overkill setups people have. I know better.

I look forward to a 64bit simulator...But please don't tell me that I am wrong in hoping that the simulator is able to use my hardware..however humble it might be..to its full capability,However little that might be.

Warm regards

 

 

 

[ai_ab]

11 minutes ago, Rafal said:

But that's not necessarily what LM developers think or at least see as the priority.

This depends on how valuable the consumer market is for them.

[Rafal Haczek]

3 minutes ago, ai_ab said:

the consumer market

This depends on who the target consumer is.
I am still on FSX but as far as I can recollect we, armchair pilots (scenery and aircraft collectors), are not LM's P3D target, are we?

[ai_ab]

34 minutes ago, Rafal said:

This depends on who the target consumer is.
I am still on FSX but as far as I can recollect we, armchair pilots (scenery and aircraft collectors), are not LM's P3D target, are we?

Well, according to the official statement - no. However, I highly suspect that actually we are, LM simply does not want to confirm that.

[S_r_d_a_n K_o_s_t_i_c]

1 hour ago, 777cap said:

I find it using 99% of my gpu(which is fine) at the same time my CPU usage barely touches 20%(max)

Then your FS is not well balanced. Just through setting sliders, you can balance it one or another way. The fact that P3D uses one core at 100% (if loaded) and others less, is nothing uncommon. No game to my knowledge uses 4(8) cores too 100% potential.

Ironically, prior to P3D, everybody was shouting "FSX is CPU-bound, blah blah blah".
 

Quote

 

My problem is not with wanting the best of all worlds on my mediocre rig..It is with the fact that my mediocre rig is still not being used to it's full mediocre capacity.(which is still quite a bit more than what is currently being used)

 

Well, I don't know about you, I have a non-mediocre PC which is used more than to it's potential, I only LIMIT that potential, so that I have an overhead for situations where the overhead is needed.

Quote

I have been able to run titles like GTA 5 , Battlefield 4 and a few other properly optimized games

Ohhh, no no no. Don't go there. Bad omen to say something like this!

Seriously, there is no single title out there (except other flight simulators like XP11 for instance), which provide the same gaming "arena", if you want to call it that. That is what other games have, that is what FS can not be called. It is not an arena. It is a whole world dynamically rendered, and it is something ESP team can really be proud of. It was high-tech at the time, now certainly aged, however still unique.

Quote

But please don't tell me that I am wrong in hoping that the simulator is able to use my hardware

I will, yet again. P3Dv3 is using hardware quite well. This means: to it's full potential if set up correctly.

Efficiently? Most likely not.

[Andrea Bianchini]

Look at this... https://youtu.be/rOTLzOizxng
See the lights, see the police car lights!

Inviato dal mio Nexus 5X utilizzando Tapatalk

[Alexander_Halbritter]

Mathijs (project manager of aerosoft) postet a Screenshot of his desktop in the A330 Forum (Forum.aerosoft.com). In the background you can see the prepared v4 icon. It seems it's finally coming

[ai_ab]

Seems like NDA was loosened.

The major developers already have access to P3D v4. The question is whether FSLABS are on this list of the developers or not.

[Jose_Monteiro]

On ‎17‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 7:06 AM, Budbud said:

"However, as it’s not confirmed by Lockheed Martin, we’ll still mark this as a rumour."

But if it is confirmed, I will eventually switch to P3Dv4 when it's released.
For now, I'm sticking with FSX:SE.
It's far from being perfect but at least it is stable on my computer and there is no update every now and then which can bring compatibility issue or other problems like happened with some P3D update.

And if it happens anytime soon, it'll take a good while to stabilize, and then for 3pds tp start offering 64 bit versions of their add-ons...

I wouldn't be surprised if the FSLabs A320 would be running in such a version not before 1 yr, so, in the meanwhile, I'll be gladly using it in FSX:SE, and saving the lmost necessary PC upgrade I would have to do otherwise....

But of course, having a 64 bit version of P3D will be Great!

[Romain Roux]

You are right, I would also wait for my current addons to be compatible (i.e.: FSL, PMDG, MJC...) and obviously sceneries (too many to list here!). No need to switch to P3Dv4 if it is to fly default aircrafts... 

[ai_ab]

I think that the products of the large developers might get compatibility updates shortly after P3D v4 release. So far we know that ORBX and Aerosoft have access to P3Dv4 beta.

[S_r_d_a_n K_o_s_t_i_c]

I know I'll be buying it the second it gets released.

[ai_ab]

I've just found some good news here:

http://www.orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/130828-no-upgrade-fee-for-orbx-products-for-next-version-of-p3d/

Quote

Hi all,

 

There's been a bunch of speculation about our pricing policy for the next version of P3D, likely based on my previous posts back in December.

 

Let me clarify: we will NOT be charging anything for our products for the next version of P3D. They will be 100% free to use on the new platform. Better still, through the magic of FTXCv3 you won't even need to re-download them.

 

Please do NOT ask me or any member of the Orbx team about any tech details about any new P3D releases from LM, or why we can make this zero-cost promise. We are under NDA and we will not be pressed into talking about it for obvious reasons. If and when LM give us permission to discuss things publicly then we'll do so.

 

I just wanted to reassure those with a sizeable investment in Orbx products for P3D that you won't be asked a penny more to upgrade.

 

 

http://www.orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/130828-no-upgrade-fee-for-orbx-products-for-next-version-of-p3d/?do=findComment&comment=1163701

Quote

There will be no wait, FTXCv3 will do it all for you. That capability has already been added to the current build of FTXC which you have now.  That's all I can say, please don't push any further

----

It seems like at least ORBX products are quite compatible with P3D v4.

[Andrea Bianchini]

Remember that under win 64bit OS a lot of 32bit stuffs run well.

Inviato dal mio Nexus 5X utilizzando Tapatalk

[Guest]

10 hours ago, ginopatrassi said:

Remember that under win 64bit OS a lot of 32bit stuffs run well.

Inviato dal mio Nexus 5X utilizzando Tapatalk
 

And it's done through this: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa384249(v=vs.85).aspx

[Ju_li_en Ke_ml_er]

Mathis from aerosoft let this slip through yesterday.

Look at the top right corner.

I hope LM sent a copy to fslabs too. 

[Andrea Bianchini]

I've asked to a dear friend of mine... Generally yes but sometimes recompiling is a must. Not a tough thing do to if you know how to but it is something you have to go through.

Inviato dal mio Nexus 5X utilizzando Tapatalk

[ai_ab]

Justsim has posted on their FB page that their products will be ready for P3D v4.

3 minutes ago, jjk said:

Mathis from aerosoft let this slip through yesterday.

Look at the top right corner.

This was already posted 17h ago.

[Rob Jones]

Can someone tell me in a couple of sentences what is involved in converting code to 64 bit? My coding experience is limited to a couple of hours not learning Basic. I do understand roughly the difference between 32 and 64 but I'm really a complete numpty .

[Philipp Schwaegerl]

1 hour ago, Rob Jones said:

Can someone tell me in a couple of sentences what is involved in converting code to 64 bit? My coding experience is limited to a couple of hours not learning Basic. I do understand roughly the difference between 32 and 64 but I'm really a complete numpty .

It isn't that difficult as you might think. Basicly you have to tick a "64bit" box in your tool and click on "rebuild", get yourself some coffee and afterwards you have a x64 program. 

After you have done this, you have to go through the code itself, because there are assumptions you have to correct, like some recalculations of pointer (pointer to memory addresses) to get the correct result under a 64bit environment. If it is a complex program, this may take a while .

[Rob Jones]

Seems simple written like that but I guess the reality is somewhat different. Thank you.

[Philipp Schwaegerl]

Yeah, I think the code is very long and not very easy to recalculate. This is the longest task the dev must go through and it is a lot of try and error and eliminating one error can lead to 5 more errors... this stuff can be very frustrating.

And think about stuff where you not might guess 32bit coding, like maybe some .bgls with animations. 

Yes, theoretically it is easy but the devil is in the detail.

[Andrea Bianchini]

The better the code is written in 32bit the fastest recoding for 64bit it is.

Inviato dal mio Nexus 5X utilizzando Tapatalk

[Rafal Haczek]

9 hours ago, tonaz said:

I will never understand people keep on using FSX.

Why would you need to understand?
99% people in the world will never understand why you are an armchair pilot.

[Romain Roux]

10 hours ago, tonaz said:

I will never understand people keep on using FSX.

Hi,

Read my previous post. Hopefully you will understand my reason.

[ai_ab]

1 hour ago, tonaz said:

Actually yours is a good point BudBud.

Rafal that sounded hostile. Would you please explain better, i am not english mothertongue.

That's simple, there are people who have a lot of add-ons for FSX and if they decide to switch to P3D then they might need to either upgrade or rebuy these add-ons for P3D (e.g. PMDG does not offer upgrade options for their aircraft).

[Todd Harrell]

What if P3Dv4 is not 64-bit? Right now it's just assumption/speculation/rumor. Will there be a collective meltdown? 

[S_r_d_a_n K_o_s_t_i_c]

11 minutes ago, twharrell said:

What if P3Dv4 is not 64-bit? Right now it's just assumption/speculation/rumor. Will there be a collective meltdown? 

I'll just pretend I didn't read that

[Matthew Webb]

On ‎23‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 7:44 PM, tonaz said:

Actually, in a technical way of speaking, it IS history.
Since the moment P3D started using Dx11.

 I will never understand people keep on using FSX.

There was one reason: when the A320 was released for FSX only.

Sent from my SM-N920I using Tapatalk
 

[wlrjr]

On 2/17/2017 at 1:33 AM, Rafal said:

It depends on everyone's individual decision.

If you have to re-install FSX for whatever reason and your re-install allotments are up, Microsoft will no longer activate your simulator by phone. Microsoft is a rip-off

[Norman Blackburn]

7 hours ago, wlrjr said:

If you have to re-install FSX for whatever reason and your re-install allotments are up, Microsoft will no longer activate your simulator by phone. Microsoft is a rip-off

Not so.  I have probably activated FSX in excess of 20 times over the years and on at least 6 different machines.  Its never been an issue.  Ever.

[Roi B]

This whole NDA and darkness around V4 is just silly... LM thinks its a prototype of some spy plane ? Its just a PC simulator ! show people some features, highlights...

[Daniel Reber]

Do you think that we have to pay a completely new version or that there will be an upgrade price?

[Rafal Haczek]

34 minutes ago, Airbus A340 Pilot said:

Do you think that we have to pay

See the answer here:

 

[Daniel Reber]

Oh sorry, I ment if we have to buy a completely new P3D version from the Lockheed Martin store.