I am finding this whole issue increasingly frustrating..

 

I wonder why Flytampa and UK2000 scenery can produce on par or exceed the visual detail of FSDT yet, we are not having an issue with oom's and low performance there?

 

Alex

 

 

I wonder why Flytampa and UK2000 scenery can produce on par or exceed the visual detail of FSDT yet, we are not having an issue with oom's and low performance there?

 

Exactly my thought.... I find it impossible to believe that this is "well optimized".

Just a warning to users who haven't purchased this yet:

 

This product is extremely FPS intensive.... I would strongly recommend you give the trial a go.

Why should I compromise on all those traffic and autogen when I can get a solid 30 FPS at KPHX or EFHK but CYVR only around 18 and not smooth. Even at KLAX I have better FPS and I don't have ORBX. Only NGX.

works great on my rig, smooth as silk, I use a lod of 5.5 no car or boat traffic, and I use UT2 (flying in the orbx PNW)

The graphs in Process Explorer are scaled proportionally an in realtime, based on the highest peak reached for THAT session.

 

Thanks for jumping back in to clarify.

 

Again, the only reason I question this is because I've been looking at the question of DX9 vs DX10 performance in FSX and in the scenarios I've tested, DX10 simply doesn't buy me more efficient VAS usage. If anything, the more I look, the more I find DX10 to be slightly less efficient, but the differences are small enough that I can't draw solid conclusions, and my testing has been specific to my typical flight scenarios - in Orbx regions and at Orbx airports with GA payware aircraft - so I don't want to overly generalize.

 

Thanks,

 

Scott

Why should I compromise on all those traffic and autogen when I can get a solid 30 FPS at KPHX or EFHK but CYVR only around 18 and not smooth. Even at KLAX I have better FPS and I don't have ORBX. Only NGX.

 

Same problem... I don't think I am going to be supporting a dev who excessively crams junk into scenery then tells us to turn down settings to accommodate the gorilla that they have created.

There must be a way other than manually disabling and enabling to breakdown fsx and see how much cyvr is using, how much fsx itself as a core is using, how much the AI engine addon is using, and so on.

 

That's how you have to do it. Disable/Enable certain add-ons, start FSX, test, exit, re-configure, start again, re-rest. And it's safer anyway, because by restarting FSX each time, you are sure no memory is lost, fragmented, so the tests are meaningful.

Flew into CYVR last night (from FSDT Vegas) and caught an OOM on final, luckily I had Autosave on so I was able to finish the flight. I was running DX9, NGX, UTX, and REX textures AS2012 with rain and about 1000 overcast. I was on VATSIM and there may have been one or two other aircraft at/around the airport (I use WoAI models for FSInn). I do have LOD=6.5 and 2048 could textures in REX. I am going to try YVR-SFO-YVR tonight in the NGX with LOD=4.5 and 1024 REX clouds to see what happens on departure and arrival in terms of performance and VAS. I did not even look at the VAS last night because I haven't had an OOM in quite some time (see specs on left), and by the time I was landing in YVR after the OOM it was late and I was in no mood to trouble-shot.

 

The scenery does look very nice and I am hopping that a compromise in LOD and could size will help. I will report back if I see anything interesting.

 

Yeah LOD 6.5 is an no no for these advanced sceneries I've found... the VAS just climbs like a freeking rocket and OOM's come hehe...

 

I limit myself to 5.5 if not flying NGX but in payware sceneries and 4.5 if flying NGX. Otherwise for my GA 6.5 all the time.

Same problem... I don't think I am going to be supporting a dev who excessively crams junk into scenery then tells us to turn down settings to accommodate the gorilla that they have created.

 

Have you found all this "Junk" and pointed it out to the dev as junk? You must be an awesome developer who knows what he's doing.

You must be an awesome developer who knows what he's doing.

 

I am not a developer. Also, making fallacious statements as such is somewhat senseless. I am just frustrated with the performance.

 

Scenery looks pretty but it is on an image to image basis.(If you know what I mean)

Yeah LOD 6.5 is an no no for these advanced sceneries I've found... the VAS just climbs like a freeking rocket and OOM's come hehe...

 

I limit myself to 5.5 if not flying NGX but in payware sceneries and 4.5 if flying NGX. Otherwise for my GA 6.5 all the time.

 

Yes, the only other place I have found I need to turn down LOD is at Aerosoft ANC (and after much searching it looks like an issue with UTX Alaska which I will try next time I fly there). I can get away with short (4 or less hour) flight into New York with LOD 6.5, if its a long haul I need to bump that to 4.5.

Some more food for thought. I have to say we never try those kind of tests before, but it's interesting to note the results are exactly as we expected, in theory.

 

Here's data from Process Explorer, about the difference in GPU utilization, both between DX9 and DX10, and between a scenery made in a more traditional way, such as JFK (which is still compatible with DX10, btw) and CYVR.

 

 

 

This shows how much different JFK and CYVR are, and different DX9 and DX10 are. Under DX9, CYVR uses 100% of the GPU, while JFK averages at about 45%. Under DX10, GPU usage at CYVR it's about 35% and JFK it's about 25%

 

There's an obvious difference in VRAM usage, CYVR takes almost 1.0GB of it, and JFK half that size. And it's interesting to note, the savings in System GPU, which is the memory "stolen" from your 4GB allowance to map the GPU memory, which is less under DX10.

 

Of course, it's not "just" the scenery, this is the total VRAM allocation running in that place, but at least you can see the differences.

 

The lesson learned is, with DX9 we are over-stressing the GPU, while with DX10 we still have some headroom for graphics AND we save some precious RAM too.

Awesome scenery Sir, thanks.

Those graphs are all fine and dandy for dx10, but I dont see how this is the solution if only a low percentage of FSX and addons are DX10 compatible. We have to restrict where we fly to now or the aircraft we use?

To make DX10 even work is a chore in itself.

 

We are all going to become experts in tweaking, and tinkering with systems and settings. Theres no doubt its a beautiful airport, and I still get a decent FPS out of it even with the NGX but to avoid OOMs I have to nearly disable addon traffic, and lower LOD. Even then its bumping up on the barrier. Its really too bad we can just enjoy this and just Fly!

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We are not able to approach the airport today because we may run into OOMs, which will make the aircraft very unstable, and you will be all transported to oblivion known as the FSX CTD. Thank you for flying with us, and please keep your seatbelts on.