The sliders are there for a reason.

 

Which is why I use moderate settings. I haven't hardly touched my settings since my i7 920 machine back in 2009......

 

I agree. I wish FSDT would go back and maybe simplify a little bit to make performance a little better of their last two airports. I have all of them and for me KDFW was their last great one in terms of performance vs. airport size for me. LAX is not that bad but doesnt perform for me as well as KDFW does in a comparison with no AI and clear weather. For me that makes KDFW their last great large airport before they started to get too fancy.

 

I commend FSDT for finding innovative ways to get away from "old" code and improve performance, but when you take the performance savings and then pack more features into the airport, you end up getting less performance than if you had just stopped at the performance saved line and not added in more.

 

I have not got Vancouver yet, but am seriously considering skipping this one after all the posts I have seen regarding its performance and memory usage. In all of FSDTs releases this is the first one where I have seen so many people complain about its performance. Usually with their airports its just the opposite.

 

Well said.... I have the demo but I will likely skip this one too.

 

However, if they can improve performance with an update or a config manager, I'll give it another shot. Until then, I am not going to give monetary support to developers who excessively pack great features into addons without even providing performance managers etc. Then when questioned, they tell us "remove addon X Y Z and you will be just fine at YVR." - Lack of responsibility for their own product....

Well said.... I have the demo but I will likely skip this one too.

 

However, if they can improve performance with an update or a config manager, I'll give it another shot. Until then, I am not going to give monetary support to developers who excessively pack great features into addons without even providing performance managers etc. Then when questioned, they tell us "remove addon X Y Z and you will be just fine at YVR." - Lack of responsibility for their own product....

 

This thread kind of reminds me of ORBX's Melbourne and Brisbane, both feature packed airports with HD textures that look great in screen shots. However you need to turn off just about most setting to get good performance with a PMDG bird, and even then performance is not great. Whats the point of making such great airports if you need to turn off or disable a lot of things to get satisfactory performance.

 

I understand the appreciation for HD this and that, 4096 textures used here and there, but when you have to use default ac just to not OOM its not worth it.

Whats the point of making such great airports if you need to turn off or disable a lot of things to get satisfactory performance.

 

I understand the appreciation for HD this and that, 4096 textures used here and there, but when you have to use default ac just to not OOM its not worth it.

 

This is exactly what I am saying!! :lol:

 

I personally think that devs are indirectly shooting themselves in the foot by making such high end products... For goodness sake, why am I am going to be zoomed in all the way to stare at ground textures or buildings.... It's FLIGHT simulator for a reason. - Not "HD eyecandy airport slideshow OOM Simulator 2012"

Everyone needs to be just a little bit better than the last guy so we end up with continually escalating features and visuals and concomitant hardware requirements and the bugaboo of system instability, but we can't say no!!!

 

I was one of the early guys that talked about the scenery in post #15:

 

"Process Explorer showed 3,702,100K VAS used when I was started out sitting at the gate. About 15 seconds after takeoff I got the first warning bell from FSUIPC."

 

Then I read Word Not Allowed's post:

 

"It's just that I keep on reading about people getting into OOMs again and again and again, and the reason is just simple as it comes: load everything together and you crash the sim. This is simply not what FSX was ment to keep with.

 

UTX + ORBX + CYVR + PMDG 737 + UT2 is just too much yes, simple as it is. People *want* to run that. But it's just like trying to cramp a car made for 4 people with 5 people. Simply doesn't work and is going to break sooner than later."

 

It is so true. That is me, I have all those addons and I'm complaining about OOM's? Of course I'll get an OOM with memory limitations that we have. Practicality is the key. And when I figured that out omg, this is an incredible airport. I lived in Vancouver and flew probably 300k miles out of there, and this is as real as it gets. Wonderful airport and nothing but congrats and my respect to the people that did it.

 

Everyone needs to be just a little bit better than the last guy so we end up with continually escalating features and visuals and concomitant hardware requirements and the bugaboo of system instability, but we can't say no!!!

 

 

The sad part about this is the fact that we aren't going to see hardware any time soon that is going to make this stuff silky smooth 30FPS... Regular home built silicon based computers will be gone in a decade...

Just to be different:

Flew the LDS from their LAX to YVR. Opus provided the wx (ovc at 1000 in rain at YVR). Mytraffic x 5.4b @20% airline traffic. Utx GEX installed. DX10 running. AA checked with ansioptric in fsx. I'm using 30 cm and 10m for mesh settings. I'm using very dense and dense for autogen. 6% for cars 5% for leisure boats and 15% for the other boat setting. 5% for ga. Medium for airport vehicles.

 

Landed with 21 fps. Taxied to gate 78 at 26 fps avg. No OOMs for entire flight.

 

This is way better than KJFK.

nice flight, but way too complicated for me...

Well, as I said earlier - to each their own. Razer Game Booster might help some of you - certainly worth a try. Yes, at some point you may have to notch a few things down a tad. On my system, performance is acceptable at CYVR and worth the modest cost. Remember too that Umberto from FSDreamteam is continually working to refine his products. There are frequent updates to his codebase... which I like the fact that I'm notified when I fire up FSX. To my mind, his is the ONLY software that does this directly from within FSX.

 

Nothing is perfect. But the eye candy at CYVR is very appealing. I fly there frequently because I bought Orbx PNW. FWIW, it runs fine I didn't have to remove any of the ORBX BGL files. FSDT CYVR needs to be on top of Orbx PNW in your scenery priority list. Candidly, the default FSX airport at CYVR even within the realm of ORBX PNW was very dull looking and not much fun to take off or land in. I have most of the FSDT airports including KDFW, KJFK, KPHX, KLAS, KLAX etc. To my mind, CYVR is all that and a bag of Tostitos. If I have to slide a few other settings to accommodate CYVR - I'm fine with it.

But it's just like trying to cramp a car made for 4 people with 5 people.

 

It's more like trying to haul an elephant inside a worn out Model T.

This is starting to remind me of the Grand Prix Legends posts way back when (it came out in 1998 and had a cult following for many years, still does).

 

Sort of like FSX, it has a cult following. What other software does anyone have running on their rig that is as old as FSX?

 

Damn we ask a lot from it don't we? Amazing what is being done with it now.

 

And to think, it was almost all for naught until Pete Dowson fixed those nasty g3d.dll errors! Haha....

 

(BTW, CYVR runs swell over here)

Well, as I said earlier - to each their own. Razer Game Booster might help some of you - certainly worth a try. Yes, at some point you may have to notch a few things down a tad. On my system, performance is acceptable at CYVR and worth the modest cost. Remember too that Umberto from FSDreamteam is continually working to refine his products. There are frequent updates to his codebase... which I like the fact that I'm notified when I fire up FSX. To my mind, his is the ONLY software that does this directly from within FSX.

 

Nothing is perfect. But the eye candy at CYVR is very appealing. I fly there frequently because I bought Orbx PNW. FWIW, it runs fine I didn't have to remove any of the ORBX BGL files. FSDT CYVR needs to be on top of Orbx PNW in your scenery priority list. Candidly, the default FSX airport at CYVR even within the realm of ORBX PNW was very dull looking and not much fun to take off or land in. I have most of the FSDT airports including KDFW, KJFK, KPHX, KLAS, KLAX etc. To my mind, CYVR is all that and a bag of Tostitos. If I have to slide a few other settings to accommodate CYVR - I'm fine with it.

 

Hi robert i got the pnw as well as cyvr i had to take out the cyvr bgl files out of the orbox folder since i had dulpicate towers and a taxi sign in the middle of the taxi way if you look at the fdst forum where i posted the problem. So wondering if you had the dulpicated tower and the taxi sign in the middle of the taxi way at intersection d and h i think it was

"But it's just like trying to cramp a car made for 4 people with 5 people."

 

umm, that wasn't my quote, I was quoting Word Not Allowed.

 

But yes I like the Model T analogy. Unlike most on these boards, I've actually driven one.

Have a look through the FSDT CYVR forum. Its all most likely cause is additional AFCAD, other scenery, or mesh related or something to that effect. Im pretty sure they wouldnt release it with that kind of situation and I saw some sort of solution if you have these issues.

 

BTW Robert, you well know in and around Vancouver there is evergreens galore and they can pop up just about anywhere, maybe even taxiways. :lol:

Hi Dave,

 

Yes it was in fact Orbx, once PNW was disabled the evergreens disappeared. I did have issues with bamboo trees that a landscaper lost from the back of his truck the other day when exiting the Queensborough Bridge LOL.

 

Now when it states that CYVR entries should be above Orbx PNW does that mean the order as it appears in the FSX-Settings-Scenery Library? If that is the case then CYVR would be the last entry (below) Orbx PNW in the scenery.cfg then. Would someone please confirm.

If we think we are getting punished by this beautiful scenery in all its detail and glorious textures, and the NGX punishes us in FPS and a good chunk of memory, whats going to happen when we get PMDG T7? We may not be landing at any add on sceneries without going vanilla. Yet we wouldnt have it any other way to have a detailed high resolution T7 aircraft, and cockpit.

 

We will find ways. That is what defines our Flight Simulator community.

Hi Dave,

 

Yes it was in fact Orbx, once PNW was disabled the evergreens disappeared. I did have issues with bamboo trees that a landscaper lost from the back of his truck the other day when exiting the Queensborough Bridge LOL.

 

Now when it states that CYVR entries should be above Orbx PNW does that mean the order as it appears in the FSX-Settings-Scenery Library? If that is the case then CYVR would be the last entry (below) Orbx PNW in the scenery.cfg then. Would someone please confirm.

 

No, when you are running FSX go to SETTINGS then click SCENERY and you should see FSDreamteam CYVR listed on TOP of ORBX. On my system CYVR is FIRST, then some ORBX stuff, then the rest of my FSDT add-on airports, and so on (reading from top to bottom). You can use the MOVE UP or MOVE DOWN function to re-arrange the scenery priorities.