Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Kosta

Memory Usage Fs9 Xp Vs. Vista

Recommended Posts

Couple of weeks ago I posted about Vista using less memory than XP. Well, here are the shots that speak for themselves. This flight took me from EFRO to EGLL, our BAV flyin, which I barely finished under Vista without FS9 crashing. The fact is, same fs9.cfg has been used, same settings, same fs9 installation, same startup flight, everything is IDENTICAL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Bump. Absolutely no comments on this post? No thoughts from people also using both? Anyone seeing similar performance?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vista 64 has given me fits at times, but I have been pretty impressed with FS9's performance in the system. Vista causes many problems in other software packages. It feels very cumbersome. If I were doing it again, I would not have accepted Vista Premium 64 as an operating system. As is common with Microsoft, it was half-baked and not particularly well thought out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't know about XP, but today was my first try at using FS9 under Vista.Please take a look at my post here:http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=238340I flew FS9 for several hours today and was very impressed.Regards,John
Hi John,I did read your post today in the morning. While I am of course happy for you that you finally got it running at nice frames, you must notice that your graphics aren't pushed nowhere near as mine. I have many addons, and they apparently push the usage up, as it is visible in screenshots.You could also modify your fs9.cfg a bit to get bit better graphics of terrain, and also turn on extended textures. On your shots there are unfortunately blurries visible. With your config, you will surely get same fps even with extended textures.My problem is simply why does XP use more virtual memory than Vista.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.....you must notice that your graphics aren't pushed nowhere near as mine....
??? Just comparing screenshots in this thread to mine posted yesterday in the screenshots forum, I believe my screenshots are just as clear and sharp, if not sharper. The Eaglesoft CII is no slouch when it comes to drain on a system, though not as much as some aircraft it gives a fair idea of what a system might do. DFW is a great place to benchmark, I used to get single fps there in the old P3. Extended terrain textures are on and at altitude the scenery is quite impressive. However I am not using a negative LOD value--my experience is treaking the LOD to make the textures even sharper doesn't match up with the countless vistas I've seen flying in real life. But that's another discussion. Back to my shots, the only thing turned off in my shot was autogen--not due to the impact on frames, but do to the way it deviates from real structures I see every day. Even with autogen maxed I can consistently hit 30fps with no drops below that in Eaglesoft's aircraft.Vista might come back and bite me, but people had the same frustrations with Windows 98 with most "experts" saying you should reformat every year or two to clean it up. I ran (and am still running, to move my application data) windows 98 since the release of FS2002. I had about a fifth of my workstations on the WAN I ran in the early '00's on 98. They never gave me issues, but XP had its teething pains like every OS does. Biggest disappointment with Vista 64 is it's refusal to run some of my legacy applications, which was my main reason for holding onto 98 to begin with. Even my old handy dos utilities are no longer useful.Regards,John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
??? Just comparing screenshots in this thread to mine posted yesterday in the screenshots forum, I believe my screenshots are just as clear and sharp, if not sharper. The Eaglesoft CII is no slouch when it comes to drain on a system, though not as much as some aircraft it gives a fair idea of what a system might do. DFW is a great place to benchmark, I used to get single fps there in the old P3. Extended terrain textures are on and at altitude the scenery is quite impressive. However I am not using a negative LOD value--my experience is treaking the LOD to make the textures even sharper doesn't match up with the countless vistas I've seen flying in real life. But that's another discussion. Back to my shots, the only thing turned off in my shot was autogen--not due to the impact on frames, but do to the way it deviates from real structures I see every day. Even with autogen maxed I can consistently hit 30fps with no drops below that in Eaglesoft's aircraft.Vista might come back and bite me, but people had the same frustrations with Windows 98 with most "experts" saying you should reformat every year or two to clean it up. I ran (and am still running, to move my application data) windows 98 since the release of FS2002. I had about a fifth of my workstations on the WAN I ran in the early '00's on 98. They never gave me issues, but XP had its teething pains like every OS does. Biggest disappointment with Vista 64 is it's refusal to run some of my legacy applications, which was my main reason for holding onto 98 to begin with. Even my old handy dos utilities are no longer useful.Regards,John
Hi John,Only thing I was really referring to was texture being a little blurry in the distance, but you could try your distance settings in fs9.cfg, under terrain section. Usually, they cover even that part with higher resolution textures, thus being sharper. I saw that you are not using autogen, that doesn't bother me. Just install some photoreal textures and you are ready to go! Rest is looking really sharp all in all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone."Bump. Absolutely no comments on this post? No thoughts from people also using both? Anyone seeing similar performance?! "It just seems to me that some people would like to dream while they think they are awake. My advice, take a flight in Real airplane, some day, and stay awake, observe the visibility and view, tell me when you see the tail of your airplane?As far as Vista, it's piece of Goop, a lousy attempt to a Muticarp presentation, if the Truthful rule of advertising would be applied, this would not qualify as an OS. Have a Happy New year everyone. TV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi John,Only thing I was really referring to was texture being a little blurry in the distance, but you could try your distance settings in fs9.cfg, under terrain section. Usually, they cover even that part with higher resolution textures, thus being sharper. I saw that you are not using autogen, that doesn't bother me. Just install some photoreal textures and you are ready to go! Rest is looking really sharp all in all.
Thanks, I understand now. I believe the shot you're referring to is one where I cut the vis way back in weather settings to simulate a humid Texas days. Later today I will post some screenies at altitude--it looks incredible. Isn't there an online tool that lets me load photoreal textures on the fly? I couldn't use it with windows 98.Regards,John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks, I understand now. I believe the shot you're referring to is one where I cut the vis way back in weather settings to simulate a humid Texas days. Later today I will post some screenies at altitude--it looks incredible. Isn't there an online tool that lets me load photoreal textures on the fly? I couldn't use it with windows 98.Regards,John
There is, don't know the name, since I'm not using it, not a fan of photoreal textures.But I think little search around forums will show some quick results. I believe it loads its textures from google earth.And btw., I ment the first shot, which has blurry mountains, all other shots except last one, which have unlimited visibility. I believe setting fs9.cfg to:TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=9.500000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=4.500000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=your choicewill pretty much give you much better results.Plus you gotta use limited visibility like in the last shot!
Hello everyone."Bump. Absolutely no comments on this post? No thoughts from people also using both? Anyone seeing similar performance?! "It just seems to me that some people would like to dream while they think they are awake. My advice, take a flight in Real airplane, some day, and stay awake, observe the visibility and view, tell me when you see the tail of your airplane?As far as Vista, it's piece of Goop, a lousy attempt to a Muticarp presentation, if the Truthful rule of advertising would be applied, this would not qualify as an OS. Have a Happy New year everyone. TV
Happy New Year to you too, though, a thought through post would really be appreciated. This is about memory usage and not about seeing the tail. Memory usage is going to climb whether I change the view or not, its just the matter of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Word Not Allowed, I'm considering Vista 64, are you saying you think V64 is better than XP 32?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It just seems to me that some people would like to dream while they think they are awake. My advice, take a flight in Real airplane, some day, and stay awake, observe the visibility and view, tell me when you see the tail of your airplane?As far as Vista, it's piece of Goop, a lousy attempt to a Muticarp presentation, if the Truthful rule of advertising would be applied, this would not qualify as an OS. Have a Happy New year everyone. TV
I fly both fixed wing and weight shift aircraft "IRL" and I harbor no illusions about the difference between reality and simulation. No one here said we'd reach that point. I feel your post has absolutely no point, other than to hijack this thread for your moment of "fame". As for Vista, it's what we have now, I have to support it as part of my job along with legacy systemseven including windows 98. You seem to have a strong view on Vista, why don't you take your expertise and years of experience working with it and put it to good use and help others get "out of the goop"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solution=Vista 64-bitI was a big opponent of running MSFS on a 64-bit operating system since I did not see the need nor the advantage of running a native 32-bit (FS9 or FSX) app on a 64-bit OS. I have since changed my mind! The PMDG 747 is a notorious memory hog I cannot even run the PMDG 747 in FSX without a OOM error, I don't get those errors with the PMDG 747 in FS9 however. I also got spurious FS9 OOM errors, for instance, when doing a transatlantic flight from Europe to the UK, I would many times get OOM errors just outside of the NYC scenery area.Mind you, I am running a home built Quadcore Skulltrail extreme CPU based system with dual ATI x2 cards (4GPUs and 1.4GB of Video memory), overclocked CPU, and 4GB of OCZ memory). All this horse power that I would put up against any other system on this board and OOM all day long with FS9 and / or FSZX.The fix was indeed Vista-64. I have seen even a hint of a OOM error (as one shouldn't since it can access more memory where Vista 32 hits a brick wall) and I am surprised that it actually DID boost performance in both FS9 and FSX (I thought this too to be a myth.) After years of teaking and being frustrated at random OOM errors erasing 8 hours of my flight, Vista-64 is the magic bullet that fixes OOM errors in FS9 and / or FSX, period.Regards,Mike T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Solution=Vista 64-bit
Vista 64 bit is the version that came pre-installed on my new system. It seems good so far, but there's one gotcha. I have a Minidisc player just a few years' old and a newer mp3 player, only a couple years' old. Neither driver works for Vista 64 and there's no plans from Sony (minidisc) or Iriver (mp3 player) to update. Also, I was a fan of some old 16 bit apps and even a couple old Dos apps. They won't run. I guess one has to part ways to get the performance I am getting now, but I'm sorry to see those old apps go. Regards,John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vista 64 bit is the version that came pre-installed on my new system. It seems good so far, but there's one gotcha. I have a Minidisc player just a few years' old and a newer mp3 player, only a couple years' old. Neither driver works for Vista 64 and there's no plans from Sony (minidisc) or Iriver (mp3 player) to update. Also, I was a fan of some old 16 bit apps and even a couple old Dos apps. They won't run. I guess one has to part ways to get the performance I am getting now, but I'm sorry to see those old apps go. Regards,John
Yes, one of my tests was Vista64 too, and I have to admin, I have been also seeing some incredible performance increase and absolutely no OOMs.As I am flying for BAV, I have to use their ACARS system to file my flights. Or I can use offline program. Though, ACARS is not working on the 64bit system, thus prevent me to do my flights as I was used to. And there is no real workaround. Either use other program to file offline or use another computer for ACARS (which I don't have).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites