Buy now or Buy later

[Fredla]

Hmmm..I didn't really read that and doubt it. I think its one program and will run on both, but will utilize features of Vista. I have no idea what those features will be though!

[Garrovick]

There is no reason to buy any version of FSX until Vista is released.

I won't buy an XP version. FS9 still has plenty of life left.

[coolian2]

If there were two versions i'd hold off.

I'll be chucking Vista onto my new FS computer any (once i actually have the money to pay for it admittedly) to get the full capacity of the game, and leave my trusty laptop alone.

Given i have no means of playing any version of FS until December at the earliest, if i get the new machine before FSX for Vista comes out i'll play FS2004 for a while. I just want back in the virtual cockpit.

[JSkorna]

;( ;( ;( ;( ;( ;(

Jim
http://www.hifisim.com

http://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-development.jpg http://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-proud.jpg [hr][link:www.jdtllc.com|http://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4bannersupporter.jpg]

[khaliah]

>Hmmm..I didn't really read that and doubt it. I think its one
>program and will run on both, but will utilize features of
>Vista. I have no idea what those features will be though!
Good grief expert.

http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/notams06/vist0322.htm

[baddadnv]

>Good grief expert.
>
>http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/notams06/vist0322.htm


What are You Guys talking about? ........ 2 versions of FSX ?

I haven't seen anything about 2 versions, and I definitely don't see mention of it in the link above ! ?????????????


Randy Burton

[JSkorna]

"What does this all mean for flightsimmers?

For starters, expect a lengthy amount of time to pass, measured in months, between the release of FSX for Windows XP and the Windows Vista version. Secondly, the question remains of whether the Vista version will be a free upgrade patch, or a separate payware version such as the way Microsoft had two versions of FS2000 and FS2002."

Hope this helps,
Jim
http://www.hifisim.com

http://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-development.jpg http://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-proud.jpg [hr][link:www.jdtllc.com|http://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4bannersupporter.jpg]

[n4gix]

There will NOT be 64 bit version of FSX...

You guys can wait until the cows come home, but ACES has not and will not be rewriting the FSX core for 64bit systems. You can take that to the bank.

[n4gix]

>>Hmmm..I didn't really read that and doubt it. I think its
>one
>>program and will run on both, but will utilize features of
>>Vista. I have no idea what those features will be though!
>Good grief expert.
>
>http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/notams06/vist0322.htm

Somebody is full of it. There are at least four errors of fact in that bit of screed...

[RatRace]

>
>You don't realise there are No Code Changes required to build
>64 bit applications. You simply switch to a 64 bit Compiler!


:7 :7 :7 if only it was that easy !!

[fbobum]

>>>Hmmm..I didn't really read that and doubt it. I think its
>>one
>>>program and will run on both, but will utilize features of
>>>Vista. I have no idea what those features will be though!
>>Good grief expert.
>>
>>http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/notams06/vist0322.htm
>
>Somebody is full of it. There are at least four errors of
>fact in that bit of screed...

I'm curious as to if anyone will put their name behind this...announcement...or if it was truly a meeting of minds in collaboration?...

[n4gix]

>> There will NOT be 64 bit version of FSX...
>
>> You guys can wait until the cows come home, but ACES has not
>and will not be rewriting the
>> FSX core for 64bit systems. You can take that to the bank.
>
>Bank managers dont accept rubbish :-)
>
>You don't realise there are No Code Changes required to build
>64 bit applications. You simply switch to a 64 bit Compiler!
>
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/programming/64bit/

I'll simply quote Mike Gilbert's response to a similar observation:

"Another mythical silver bullet. The compiler is not going to re-write your application. For instance, how will it know that it's okay to move texture load tasks to a background thread but that frame buffer setup needs to be on the foreground thread? <g> Nope, developers are still gonna have to understand how it works."

FS9 is already a multi-threaded application to be sure, but the entire paradigm for thread handling in a 64 bit environment is different.

>To optimse this thing for Vista they will most definitely be
>offering a 64 bit version.

I am a professional programmer by trade, and that - in your own words - is pure rubbish!

I quote here something Mike Gilbert (tdragger) wrote in another forum:

"I don’t know of any major performance issues with the WOW32 layer. Most of the issues would happen when thunking to/from the OS and the thunk should already be big enough to hide that. In general the 64-bit CPU architectures are built to handle 32-bit code well. I have drivers that function for all of my gaming tasks and I’m running x64 ‘Server’ operating systems. The issues I presently have with x64 drivers are for printers though I expect the driver landscape to get better with the consumer version 64-bit Vista. The only catch I can see for running 32-bit FSX* is if the application working set approaches 2GB and DirectX fails (known issue). I think the 3rd parties will be able to push the application to this limit if they try hard enough."

"The first thing I can think of that would make the 32-bit version a better choice would be the video driver quality. If the x64 version of XP is any indicator the 64-bit drivers may be an issue. I'm not convinced that this situation will change quickly even with a 64-bit Vista available."

*Note: redactor's emphasis

It is clear from the above that for the foreseeable future at least, FS will remain a 32 bit application and will simply run within the WOW32 layer of Vista. Further, it seems that - at this juncture - there are definite advantages for FS to remain a 32 bit application... ;)

Might I suggest two things? How about less antagonistic bloviation, and perhaps more actual study of the facts before pontificating?

Regarding the link to which you pointed, I can only assume that you didn't actually read the article, otherwise you'd have understood that this "easy transition" only applies to applications that were originally written within the .NET framework to begin with!

In fact, Vista will also have a second layer called WOW64, but this layer is reserved for 32 bit applications that were developed using the .NET 2003 or 2005 framework. The WOW32 layer is for those legacy 32 bit apps that were written pre-.NET, which includes the entire FS franchise.

Most of the core code of FS9 and indeed FSX is still 'legacy code' from the Bruce Artwick days, and as such is as far from a ".NET framework" as Mandarin Chinese is from Arabic...

Huge hunks of the core remain pure assembly language! :P

[mgh]

You should have read that article more carefully. It includes::

"In most cases, applications developed using the 32-bit .NET Framework can be ported to the 64-bit version of the .NET Framework and executed as 64-bit native applications without any source code modifications. However, 32-bit .NET Framework applications that have floating-point or native code (e.g. DLLs or COM InProc Servers) dependencies may require modifications when porting to 64-platforms."

and

"It would be great to never have to know about the differences of the underlying platforms. Unfortunately, there are some situations (e.g. dealing w/floating-point) when developers must be aware of underlying platform specifics."

This is then followed by a list of 32-bit vs 64-bit platform differences and recommendations to avoid problems.

[Fredla]

I simply gave you my opinion and stated it as such!

[jclay13]

Flightsim.com where are you getting your information from?

When you state "not to jump at the first release of FSX for Windows XP", you make it sound like there will be more than one release of FSX or a patch required when Vista comes out.

Do you know this for a fact?

You need to back up these statements with facts so a lot of rumor and speculation is not started.

[n4gix]

>That was hilarious.....
>
>> FS9 is already a multi-threaded application to be sure, but
>the entire paradigm for
>> thread handling in a 64 bit environment is different.
>
>Total BS :) There isn't a new threading model or paradigm for
>64 bit. You cannot support that with facts because there is
>none!

Really! I quote the Lead Program Manager from MS Game Studios and you call his words "Total BS..."

Now you have just lost any shred of credibility. Go back the kiddy forums and try to dazzle them with your "brilliance..."

No, I don't work for ACES, I work with ACES... ;)

[n4gix]

>You should have read that article more carefully. It
>includes::
>
>"In most cases, applications developed using the 32-bit .NET
>Framework can be ported to the 64-bit version of the .NET
>Framework and executed as 64-bit native applications without
>any source code modifications. However, 32-bit .NET Framework
>applications that have floating-point or native code (e.g.
>DLLs or COM InProc Servers) dependencies may require
>modifications when porting to 64-platforms."

That's precisely my point. FS is not now, nor has it ever been developed or compiled using the 32-bit .NET Framework.

It remains to this day an ad hoc collection of assembly language routines wrapped in a shiny C shell, with an unhealthy dependence on .dll modules to somehow function (mostly) well... ;)

[loki]

"Like what?! 64-bit systems can process twice as many instructions per second as a comparable 32-bit system and can address up to 16 exabytes of RAM (thats 16,000,000 GB of RAM!!)"

No, 64 bit processors don't process twice as many intructions per second. They can process 64 bit chunks of data at a time instead of 32, but that does not equal twice as many instructions per second. In some cases they can be slower, and in others they can be faster. The speed of the processor is what controls how many instructions it processes per second, not how large the chunks of data are.

http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.html?i=112
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64_bit

loki

[tdragger]

Uh, right. I think it's a *wee* bit complicated than that.

[tdragger]

Well, they have our number. I suppose they could have called to ask...

[mgh]

The article you reference (but didn't seem to read fully) lists the following aspects where code changes may be needed: floating point, pointers, memory alignment, and native code.

"Most .NET Framework applications can be easily ported to the 64-bit .NET Framework and work without modification." My emphasis - most but not all.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnanchor/html/64bitwindows.asp

"One of the first steps in porting your 32-bit application to the 64-bit version of Windows is to turn on this flag and compile your code like you normally would. The first time, expect to get several errors."

http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/using/building/64bit/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dnnetserv/html/ws03-64-bitwindevover.asp#ws03-64-bitwindevover_topic3

The following link discusses the benefits of 64-bit processing. It doesn't mention increased processor speed. If processor speed was doubled I think it would have been mentioned.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/win64/win64/introducing_64_bit_windows.asp

[mgh]

"...reduces the risk typically associated with a migration, and cuts the time and cost of an application migration by 70%."

What about the remaining 30%. That's a long way from your original erroneous statement that "...there are No Code Changes required to build 64 bit applications. You simply switch to a 64 bit Compiler!"

Are you still claiming that "...64-bit systems can process twice as many instructions per second as a comparable 32-bit system..."?

[loki]

OK, since you seem to know more than anyone one else here, please explain how a 64 bit processor can process twice as many instructions per clock cycle.

http://arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/x86-64/x86-64-1.html

loki

[loki]

Right... Just because someone said so on one website with no further explanation backing it up makes it true. Try reading the links I have posted and then give us a detailed explanation of how a 64 bit processor running at 2GHz, for example, will process twice as many instructions per clock cycle as a 32 bit processor.

loki

[RatRace]

>Right... Just because someone said so on one website with no
>further explanation backing it up makes it true. Try reading
>the links I have posted and then give us a detailed
>explanation of how a 64 bit processor running at 2GHz, for
>example, will process twice as many instructions per clock
>cycle as a 32 bit processor.
>
>loki


my next CPU is going to be 64 bit, whatever ...
What I'd like to know: should I buy dual core or not ?
Honestly, that MS FS FAQ raised more questions than it gave answers

[n4gix]

>> Really! I quote the Lead Program Manager from MS Game
>Studios and you call his words "Total BS..."
>
>Where can I see this 'quote'? Seems like another lame attempt
>to save face without any facts to back up your statement.
>
>> That's precisely my point. FS is not now, nor has it ever
>been developed or compiled using
>> the 32-bit .NET Framework.
>
>I'll believe that when I see it. Until then its another wishy
>washy claim with no substance.

Well now, my foolish Padawan... You've had two replies from Mike Gilbert himself directly, and in both cases you've wasted the opportunity to ask him whether I quoted him correctly.

You seem to have painted yourself into a corner, and cannot find a graceful way to exit... :+

In any case, I'm done with you, as I have a low tolerance level for the "Invincibly Ignorant.

[mgh]

And I suppose you believe everything you read in the newspapers too?

[Lou_Betti]

There's only going to be one version of FSX, based on what I have heard at these various forums (and that includes comments from the FS team), and I plan to buy it the moment it is released, and run it on XP. I will deal with the Vista OS when it comes out, and I am quite certain that this one version of FSX will run on it.

Yeah, no doubt, FSX will probably be optimized, or whatever for Vista, but there will be no need for 2 versions.

Unless MS has changed something, I see there only being one version, and I'll "take that to the bank". I doubt MS has changed anything in this regard.

One version. That's my take on it.

If I am wrong, my apologies to the FS team as, ultimately, I will happily deal with whatever they deliver! :-)

Regards,
[link:www.dreamfleet2000.com|http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx2/forum_banners/LOU.gif]
[font size=1][font color=blue]Can you pilot a plane, instead of programming an FMC to do it for you?[/font color= blue][/font size=1]

[n4gix]

>Another great post!
>
>> Well now, my foolish Padawan... You've had two replies from
>Mike Gilbert himself directly,
>> and in both cases you've wasted the opportunity to ask him
>whether I quoted him correctly.
>
>So now your saying Mike Gilbert is the guy who told you this
>'quote' - haha. For your info Mike Gilbert aint the Lead
>Program Manager from MS Game Studios! Your just making stuff
>up. Then you say he gave "two replies". He gave one with no
>explanation.

Are you kidding? Then I have to wonder who that nice gentleman was I met last year at Microsoft's offices in Redmond, Washington? The one who introduced himself as "Mike Gilbert, Lead Program Manager at ACES (MS Game Studio)...

Golly, he sure seemed real enough! Jason W. (pixel_poke) seemed to think he was "Da Boss" too? :P

Hey Mike! When did you quit ACES? Who's in charge now?

Have you even bothered to go here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/archive/2006/02.aspx
to see what's up?

Hmmm... Who's that imposter in this video who claims to be "Mike Gilbert, Lead Program Manager for ACES?"

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/microsoftflightsimulatorx/news.html?mode=all

"In the second interview, Mike Gilbert says that Flight Simulator X will take full advantage of Windows Vista, DirectX 10 and nextgen hardware to deliver the best possible graphics."

Dang! He's all over the place!

"Who better to get the answer from than the current FSX Program Manager at Microsoft, Mike Gilbert. Here's his take on backward compatibility posted on his blog... http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/archive/2005/08/31/458560.aspx "

OMG! Even Owen Hewitt seems to think Mike's who he says he is!

http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=248&topic_id=1917&mesg_id=1917&listing_type=search

"Want to get your voice heard when making feature requests for FS X and beyond?

How to write a feature request Written by Mike Gilbert, ACES Lead Program Manager." http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/archive/2006/01/23/516681.aspx

Oh well, it's your loss. Mike has even less patience with trolls than I do...

[n4gix]

>If I am wrong, my apologies to the FS team as, ultimately, I
>will happily deal with whatever they deliver! :-)

Hi Lou!

Have you read this claim from "Nosepicker" (er, noseDRAGGER) that Mike Gilbert isn't who he says he is?

Gosh, how could Mike have managed to fool all those people at ACES who call him boss? ;)

[baddadnv]

Don't slow 'Em down now. ....... Best entertainment we've had around here for months!

Got-A-Have sumthin to fill the voids until FS X .............

Your turn Bill .................


Randy Burton
Mesquite NV.

[khaliah]

According to flightsim, 2 versions of FSX will be released. A FSX XP 32bit version and a FSX Vista 64 bit. XP version will come out first, Vista a few months later. What is your plans?
I'm waiting.

[CapMason]

This is absolutely, positively, undeniably NOT TRUE!

Please read the news item again. We merely posed the qustion:

"Secondly, the question remains of whether the Vista version will be a free upgrade patch, or a separate payware version such as the way Microsoft had two versions of FS2000 and FS2002."

Microsoft has not announced it one way or the other so it is merely a QUESTION. You do klnow what Q U E S T I O N spells, right?

Seriously, guys, chill out. Let's just have fun with FS2004 now and wait to see what FSX is really about. I'm sure we'll all love it.

FSX was prematurely announced a year in advance, then Microsoft plays this silly game of dribbling out a few facts here, a liettle misdirection there. We are not falling for it. It will be, what it will be. And when we know actual facts, you'll know.

The facts are in the top half of the news item. The commenrtary is in the bottom half and clearly indicated as that.

[CapMason]

Read the Microsoft statement, in their own terse words.

Our conclusion is that if FSX is going to be patched for Vista, that will me a significant change. Frankly, I would wait and see what comes down the pike. Many FS2002 simmers did just that with FS2004 and I'm sure for them, it was the right move.

We are all free-thinking, smart people. After all, we're flightsimmers, not gamers. Common sense says, wait until the kinks are worked out. Microsoft, like every other software publisher, has a history of releasing a product, then patching it later.

You are all free to make your own choices. Be the first on your block to get FSX? Great. Wait until the Vista version is released (or the upgrade patch provided). Also great. If you don't plan on upgrading your computer to Vista and Dual Core anytime soon, why wait? Go with the WinXP system you have and FSX your brains out from Day One. If you plan on upgrading your system, save yourself some installation grief and step up to FSX when you upgrade and it can get the Vista version. Doesn't that just make sense?

Honestly flightsimmers, a lot can happen during that year between FSX announcement, and final release. This wrinkle with the Vista delay was a big one. No matter how much Microsoft tries to sugar coat that pill, it is still a bitter one for the PC industry to swallow. On the other hand, it is really much ado about nothing. Vista and 64-bit computing will arrive, when it arrives. Meanwhile, 32-bit computing and Windows XP are chugging along just fine.

There was a bit of misdirection at CES with Microsoft pushing FSX up front and making it seem like it was the Vista entertainment jewel in the crown, when in fact, it may not turn out that way until much later after its intitial release.

A lot is happening in Redmond. There was a major executive shuffle after the Vista delay and that may accelerate progress or retard it. Let's just wait and see what happens.

Meanwhile, I personally would rather spend my spare time flightsimming instead of gazing into my crystal ball trying to figure out what the heck is going on in Redmond. Life is too short for that. Microsoft has my number. If they have something to report. They'll tell me about it. And I will tell you.

[W2DR]

Call it any way you see it Cap, but your comment "...then Microsoft plays this silly game of dribbling out a few facts here, a liettle (sic) misdirection there. We are not falling for it. It will be, what it will be. And when we know actual facts, you'll know..." has to be the dumbest/stupidest comment I've seen yet regarding FSX. Since the staff here thinks they are just playing a silly little game, I think Mike and Jason should give some serious thought as to ever posting anything here again. What little credibility you may have retained regarding FSX is, in my opinion, now gone.

Doug

[RatRace]

>Call it any way you see it Cap, but your comment "...then
>Microsoft plays this silly game of dribbling out a few facts
>here, a liettle (sic) misdirection there. We are not falling
>for it. It will be, what it will be. And when we know actual
>facts, you'll know..." has to be the dumbest/stupidest comment
>I've seen yet regarding FSX. Since the staff here thinks they
>are just playing a silly little game, I think Mike and Jason
>should give some serious thought as to ever posting anything
>here again. What little credibility you may have retained
>regarding FSX is, in my opinion, now gone.
>
>Doug
>

At this moment in time not even the ACES team know for certain what the outcome will be (postpone, one or two versions, one + patch, ...)
That makes this thread just about the dumbest /stupidest thread of this forum

In fact, this blog says it all ("I have nothing to say")

http://blogs.technet.com/skyhawk/archive/2006/03/22/422875.aspx

Don't try to comment tho ... doesn't work

[n4gix]

>In fact, this blog says it all ("I have nothing to say")
>
>http://blogs.technet.com/skyhawk/archive/2006/03/22/422875.aspx
>
>Don't try to comment tho ... doesn't work

One can leave a comment, but you do have to have an MSDN registration and be 'logged in' in order to do so... ;)

The simple fact is, that those who do know can't; those who don't know rant...

[greggerm]

Reliable Sources at ACES Studio Said:
"Flight Simulator X is still on track for a holiday 2006 release and will be optimized for Windows Vista when Vista is released."

Reading between the lines, I understand this to mean that FSX will be prepped and ready for any enhancements that Vista can provide straight out of the box, not needing any additional work. Perhaps my glass is half full rather than half empty, but that's what I take from it.

Penny for my thoughts?

I think the real item worth watching for isn't Vista itself, but the associated DirectX 10. I think (keywords: *I* think) FSX will be ready-to-go with DirectX10 enhancements right out of the gate, from day one. DX10, however, may not be available when FSX releases...

DX10 will be shipping with Vista. As we all know, FSX will function under DX9/WinXP without issue (see ALL the screenshots of FSX so far!), so compatability with WinXP is assured. But presuming that DX10 is Vista-only, this could be the "Vista enhancements" the reliable source is referring to.

DX10 Vista-Only Link -
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1931918,00.asp
(It's not a MS announcement, but seems certainly plausable)

(We'd all hope that DX10 will be made available for WinXP, but we must consider all possibilities)

As stated by the developers above, there is no plan for a 64bit version of FSX, and I cannot think of any other Vista enhancements that a program could be written for other than DX10 and 64bit computing.

Interesting thread...
-Greg