Jump to content

Archived

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

jbassue

Deteriorating Aircraft?

Recommended Posts

Acouple minutes ago I started a flight in my NGX, FIAD - KORD to be specific, and it's not the first time it has happened but, shortly after takeoff my sky (The Atmosphere) Started having squares in it, and my tail and engines, started turning black, along with the land and autogen, Everything was black, upon switching to the externam view, I realized my aircraft was slowly deteriorating, it was the skeleton effect, but just the cabin was off, and the chairs exposed, engines still black, however everything inside was normal, until my cockpit started freezing...Any tips? Specs found in Signature, and yes I have Highmemfix applied...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's your computer running out of steam, struggling to dump stuff from its memory and there effectively being no room left for FSX to load in the new stuff as your flight progresses, which is somewhat of a limitation of how much RAM FS can use. The best you can do is to drop your settings or shut down other programs and try to free up some memory. Try binning stuff off your system start up list (things like MS Messenger, I-Tunes, Google Updater etc, which often set themselves up to start up when your computer does, which of course eats up RAM, you can also use things like the little freeware program 'End It All', which will kill things you tick a check box for when you run it. Opening up the Task Manager and looking on the page which shows what processes are running will reveal what things are running in the background, you can also faff around with how many CPU cores FSX is using via that Task Manager, which may also help. Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's your computer running out of steam, struggling to dump stuff from its memory and there effectively being no room left for FSX to load in the new stuff as your flight progresses, which is somewhat of a limitation of how much RAM FS can use. The best you can do is to drop your settings or shut down other programs and try to free up some memory. Try binning stuff off your system start up list (things like MS Messenger, I-Tunes, Google Updater etc, which often set themselves up to start up when your computer does, which of course eats up RAM, you can also use things like the little freeware program 'End It All', which will kill things you tick a check box for when you run it. Opening up the Task Manager and looking on the page which shows what processes are running will reveal what things are running in the background, you can also faff around with how many CPU cores FSX is using via that Task Manager, which may also help. Al
Thanks for suggestions Al, will try!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're running a 64-bit OS, it would also help to have more than 4gb of memory installed. That way FSX gets to use all its VAS & the OS/other apps can run on the surplus without crowding it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you're running a 64-bit OS, it would also help to have more than 4gb of memory installed. That way FSX gets to use all its VAS & the OS/other apps can run on the surplus without crowding it.
Hi, that's odd, I've 6GB Ram, why haven't I changed my sig, is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't guaranteed to solve any issues, but as hard as we tweak fsx to squeeze as much out of it as possible, it doesn't make sense to limit it like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This also happend to me the other day and I have 16GB of RAM........ Derek
Your problem is that FSX has so much space to work with, it forgets where it put it's things :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, will decreasing my LOD Radius? Work?I don't have a problem with Autogen popping out of the blue....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anything that I can do to reduce my Computer strain, primarily through the FSX.cfg that will not require my FS to look like FS98?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[DISPLAY.Device.NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580.0]Mode=1920x1080x32TriLinear=1VideoMemoryOverride=1610612736<<<<<<You could try this as well, the number is the anount of mem the card has, mine is for a 1.5GB. Ryan (Tabs) posted this on another thread sometime back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just wait on SP, I wonder if that will fix some problems... Until then I keep fingers crossed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll just wait on SP, I wonder if that will fix some problems...Until then I keep fingers crossed.
As Al and a few suggested, pulling back some sliders will probably help. Start with autogen --back to dense or a little less. Water to 2x medium (always [or lower]). The autogen slider alone has solved my long flight CTDs and OOMs (YMMV).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just don't get how people with 500x better PC's than mine have problems like this >.<
I wish I knew, sigh...But for now, I'll stick with my skeleton NGX.
As Al and a few suggested, pulling back some sliders will probably help. Start with autogen --back to dense or a little less. Water to 2x medium (always [or lower]). The autogen slider alone has solved my long flight CTDs and OOMs (YMMV).
Autogen on Low, and Scenery on Par with autogen.My water has always been at 1.x, unless I needed to make a video, thanks for the help Zach!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just don't get how people with 500x better PC's than mine have problems like this >.<
It's called a bottleneck, nothing to do with new hardware. The 900 series nvidia card were not nvidia's finest, in fact the 800 series far out performs it. Once Jamaljé's video card is upgraded, it will improve a lot. I know this sounds weird, put your autogen to normal, then try dense and see if you see an improvement. Autogen on low in FS9 worked, not in fsx, it can be the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's called a bottleneck, nothing to do with new hardware. The 900 series nvidia card were not nvidia's finest, in fact the 800 series far out performs it. One DE's video card is upgraded, it will improve a lot.
Well the 9500 wasn't, maybe. It was low end when it was new (5 years?). The 9800GT, on the other hand... Loved that thing! It was a cheap rebranded 8800GT. Back on topic, tough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well the 9500 wasn't, maybe. It was low end when it was new (5 years?). The 9800GT, on the other hand... Loved that thing! It was a cheap rebranded 8800GT. Back on topic, tough.
Yeah.... I have an 9800GT and i'm very happy with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's called a bottleneck
This is very true, especially when looking at a system overall, since any computer is only as fast as the slowest of the main components which mostly affect its speed, i.e. the motherboard, the CPU, the RAM and the graphics card, all of which have to work in concert with one another. Not all such components work well together in spite of them ostensibly having compatibility in terms of form factor, even if they do plug into the slots on a motherboard and seem to be made for it, which is why it is important to research the hell out of things when building a system, because it is certainly possible to have a super-duper CPU and still have a system that runs like a donkey. And even if you buy a computer from a known maker as opposed to buying components and sticking them together yourself, it is no guarantee of success, because even well known computer companies can arse up their component choices and how they are fitted on occasion, as anyone who ever bought a G3 Apple Macintosh will readily confirm. So it's not enough to say 'I have 10 Gb of RAM', what matters is the clock speed of that RAM, the bus speed of the board, the cooling, what slots that RAM is sitting in, how fast the RAM on the graphics card is in comparison to the motherboard RAM, all of which have a bearing on how the computer will do, since the data has to be shunted about between the components in a slick fashion. Throw in the fact that FSX was developed well before the most recent Windows operating systems existed, and it will be apparent why you will see people on these forums with dual core processor-equipped systems that seem archaic in comparison to more recent multi-core set ups, yet run FSX pretty well. For example, I have a Hewlett Packard laptop with a dual core processor and a mere 2Gb of memory which has no dedicated graphics card, which I actually bought just as a back up for training people on Photoshop when out and about just in case there was a problem with the computers where I was, but that runs FSX at a blistering pace with all the autogen turned up. Hard to believe I know, but it is true. Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AHA! Thanks guys, This is an Issue Dazz was telling me, about... Thanks to all of you guys, a new GPU may be more mandatory than I thought, thank you all very much!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...