FSDreamteam CYVR Vancouver is out!

[megs8888 20]

I'm the same summer 0 traffic and enjoy it sensational.

[pete_auau 1,163]

yea even i saw that hes got 2 control towers and obivoulsy didnt take my advice on it probably got his own agenda

[fullmetal02 23]

Virtuali: I completely understand defending your hard work on this product. Maybe you are to close to your own work to see things objectively. Your airports have to work with complex addons. Otherwise they get compared to Orbx Brisbane, Melbourne etc.

 

I would bring in an independent 3rd party to respond. Your responses seem like you're not willing to consider that there is a definite issue that compromises performance with your product.

[megs8888 20]

Really guys why need traffic AI your in the cockpit, your doing you last procedures and getting ready to ultimately take off and then the drills star again forget AI! enjoy the ngx and scenery no OOOMS. It's worth it!

[alepro 15]

It's a matter of understanding there are limits to what you can do with FSX and 4GB. And understanding that, you WILL have this problem with something else entirely (as if OOM didn't existed before CYVR...really ? ), sooner or later, because the more add-on will be released, especially those that could be possibly used together, the more the issue will hit you, because those 4GB limit will always be there, you have to learn how to MANAGE your stuff and make choices, either in the number of add-ons to use together OR in your settings

 

While this is well reasoned, this is not what is going on here. I am not running ORBX, Vancouver+, the NGX and am running the sim with texture_max_load of 1024, low res DXT3 clouds, the simple default weather theme and I still get an OOM within a few minutes of loading the scenery. I also have disabled the "force to use high resolution textures" option in the add-on manager.

 

I do not have OOM's when I fly the NGX into ORBX, Aerosoft "Mega-airports" in Europe or any other FSDreamteam airports (I own all!). I can even fly into FSDTs JFK with Aerosofts Manhatten with the NGX while I also have Imaginesim's LaGuardia loaded and full Ultimate traffic AI and UTX night lighting active. I simply do not get OOM's. Ever. Until now, that is.

 

There is an issue with the FSDT Vancouver scenery, and I'd like to see that addressed, otherwise I simply can't purchase any future releases. I regret not having tested the scenery trough the demo, but so far buying from you guys has been a no-brainer.

 

 

Btw.: I am running this on Win7 x64, i7-2600 with 12GB ram and an ATI6790M 1GB.

[ZKOKQ 984]

yea even i saw that hes got 2 control towers and obivoulsy didnt take my advice on it probably got his own agenda

+!

[virtuali 4,421]

Virtuali: I completely understand defending your hard work on this product. Maybe you are to close to your own work to see things objectively. Your airports have to work with complex addons. Otherwise they get compared to Orbx Brisbane, Melbourne etc.

 

I really starting to believe that probably my english skills are not up to the task, because it seems that I keep being misunderstood. I've said EXACTLY the opposite: this is NOT about FSDT, it's a more general problem of a wrong way to approach the sim.

 

It seems you don't *want* to hear the hard reality, that memory is a finite resource in FSX. This is starting to be all used up. We might have reached a limit now with CYVR, but ONLY because it's located in place were there are many chances to use many products all together.

 

Let's try to approach it from a different point of view.

 

Assume that in a few months time, a new great product comes out, something you can't do without, that takes the same 500MB we are taking now with CYVR.

 

Assume that, with your existing combination of add-ons at any given place, let's say KLAX with FSDT KLAX installed, you were using 3.5GB. No OOMs, because you still have some spare room.

 

You install the "new great product", go to KLAX, and BOOM.

 

What do you do ?

 

1) Complain with the "new great product" developer that "your add-on must work with all complex airports, like FSDT KLAX"

 

OR

 

2) Lower your settings and/or try DX10

 

OR

 

3) Decide not to fly to KLAX with the "new great product" ?

 

OR

 

4) Complain with FSDT we should redo KLAX as a lighter version to accomodate for the "new great product" ?

 

I would really like to hear what the rules are: it's the latest released product that must always take into account *everything* that has been released before ?

[megs8888 20]

I have i72700k no overclock and 8gb ram with Gtx670 4GB, pretty basic no ooms so really to name software addon developers is not quite right unless you can say 100 % that's its their fault! and not some deficiency with your system. Lets not fire bullets at developers unless we know they are the problem. Just sayin Peace Out. Oh and know affiliation with FSDT whatsoever!

[virtuali 4,421]

I do not have OOM's when I fly the NGX into ORBX, Aerosoft "Mega-airports" in Europe or any other FSDreamteam airports (I own all!). I can even fly into FSDTs JFK with Aerosofts Manhatten with the NGX while I also have Imaginesim's LaGuardia loaded and full Ultimate traffic AI and UTX night lighting active. I simply do not get OOM's. Ever. Until now, that is.

 

CYVR IS larger than all our previous airports, that doesn't mean it has an "issue". And, if you followed up the explanation about DX9 vs DX10, and had a look at the GPU usage graph, you would see how much more GPU-dependent is CYVR comparing to JFK.

 

As we know, the more GPU memory a product uses, the more *system* memory will be "stolen", when in DX9. THAT'S why you get significant savings by using DX10, because the scenery is more GPU-dependent than others, and the performance graph clearly shows that, and it also shows that under DX10, not only you save memory, but the GPU is even less stressed.

 

The issue is, if a scenery is less-GPU dependent, it will be more *CPU* dependent and, we are not getting that much more Mhz, and it takes time and it's very expensive to upgrade to a new CPU (usually you'll have to upgrade the mainboard and ram too), but faster GPUs keeps coming at a faster pace, and their rate of improvement is *way* faster than CPU improvements, without mentioning that upgrading your graphic card is much easier than upgrading the CPU.

 

THAT'S why we are taking the route to the depend more on the GPU, and it's also a way to not be caught with our pants down, when DX11 will eventually arrive in P3D, and I bet that in order to use DX11, you will have to use only something that WORKS today with DX10, I don't expect that legacy FS8/9 code which doesn't work in DX10 today, will work in DX11 tomorrow.

[Rocky_53 1,583]

I think, and others have touched on it too, is that devs today appear to be more concerned with eye candy and the actual 'look' of scenery than they are to it's performance on today's hardware. By that I don't suggest for one minute that devs shouldn't persue the finest design philosophy, just that many appear to try and place far too much emphasis on things like (correct me if I'm wrong) dynamic shadows and othe rsuch things. I mean what's all that about. Personally I couldn't give a fig about the shadows at an airport, or indeed if it's running at 4096 resolution. Surely, it's about flying into and out of an airport. OK, it's important to have a relatively high quality runways, taxiways and gates, but beyond that...?

[Wynthorpe 51]

I think, and others have touched on it too, is that devs today appear to be more concerned with eye candy and the actual 'look' of scenery than they are to it's performance on today's hardware. By that I don't suggest for one minute that devs shouldn't persue the finest design philosophy, just that many appear to try and place far too much emphasis on things like (correct me if I'm wrong) dynamic shadows and othe rsuch things. I mean what's all that about. Personally I couldn't give a fig about the shadows at an airport, or indeed if it's running at 4096 resolution. Surely, it's about flying into and out of an airport. OK, it's important to have a relatively high quality runways, taxiways and gates, but beyond that...?

 

Because the majority of people are wanting the next best thing and all the eye candy they can get to "immerse" themselves.

 

I think going by most people they are happy that these things are being added, and work for most people.

 

I want every bit of eye candy i can get, the more the better.

 

I don't think its a hardware problem more of a FSX problem that's causing issues for users.

[B777ER 2,489]

 

Obviously not. I'm saying that if you want to use many add-ons at the same time, you'll have to switch to DX10. What you guys don't seem to understand, is that this situation, sooner a later, would have happened in ANY CASE.

 

It doesn't have anything to do with FSDT products.

 

It's a matter of understanding there are limits to what you can do with FSX and 4GB. And understanding that, you WILL have this problem with something else entirely (as if OOM didn't existed before CYVR...really ? ), sooner or later, because the more add-on will be released, especially those that could be possibly used together, the more the issue will hit you, because those 4GB limit will always be there, you have to learn how to MANAGE your stuff and make choices, either in the number of add-ons to use together OR in your settings.

 

I find the above verbiage to be utterly wrong and laughable. So you sitting in your office have now decreed to the entire flight sim community that in order to use multiple addons we all now must go to dx10? I find it interesting that the highly respected dev's at Fly Tampa have stated on their forum that dx10 is fraught with issues and recommend to stay away from it. Many current products do not work correctly or display correctly in dx10. So what are we supposed to do with all the other third party scenery? Get rid of it and wait for years for dx10 compliant stuff to take its place? Really Umberto?

 

Your statement this does not have anything to do with FSDT products is absurd. It has everything to do with your product. Why is it other top quality dev's can release such products without issue from the likes of Aerosoft, FT and Flightbeam that all work just fine with the NGX? You remind me of a guy I work with who constantly screws up. When asked about it he always says he is the one that is correct and the other 12 guys must be wrong.

 

It is up to YOU and your company to produce scenery that will work within the framework of fsx and dx9. Just because you have developed something that no longer can, don't think you are going to tell the entire community it has nothing to do with you and now we must all go to dx10!!

 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 2

[virtuali 4,421]

devs today appear to be more concerned with eye candy and the actual 'look' of scenery than they are to it's performance on today's hardware.

 

For us, performance is the most important thing, that's why we are trying to move more and more stuff to the GPU, because there's no easy way to get more performances out of the CPU, the GPUs are progressing way faster.

 

Personally I couldn't give a fig about the shadows

 

The shadows are not the problem, you don't see more things on screen because of them, shadows are pre-rendered and don't add much to the scenery memory usage, what makes CYVR larger than, let's say, JFK or even KLAX, is the number of polygons, not just in the terminal buildings, but all around, including the airport island, that is rendered in 3d, which allows for a realistic rendition of the seaplane base, for example.

 

at an airport, or indeed if it's running at 4096 resolution.

 

That's why you can turn that option on/off in the Addon Manager (without even restarting). You can choose between image quality or resource used.

 

However, we ARE trying to squeeze some memory ouf of it, and probably found a solution that might save about 200MB, putting down memory requirements to be similar at least to KLAX.

 

It's not really rocket science: by removing ALL LODs (except the jetways) in the scenery, we found we could save about 200MB of RAM, so this might be just what allows to save those users already close to the limit from an OOM.

 

 

Of course, there's no free lunch, and this it's likely to put the system requirements for fps a bit higher. Those with fast systems (especially the GPU) might not see any difference, but those with slower systems and/or unbalanced system with a very fast CPU and a not-so-fast GPU, might see slower fps. I personally can't see any difference on *my* "slow" (2.66 Xeon not overclocked) CPU + fast GPU (GTX670), but it might depend on systems.

 

I'm not happy to remove LODs, it's not a good practice, and it's a temporary solution anyway, we simply postponed the problem a bit, but the next "new great addon" that will be out, if it's something that can be used anywhere, might put you back in the same situation. To be more clear: let's hope the PMDG 777 wouldn't require more RAM than the 737...

[Wynthorpe 51]

I find the above verbiage to be utterly wrong and laughable. So you sitting in your office have now decreed to the entire flight sim community that in order to use multiple addons we all now must go to dx10? I find it interesting that the highly respected dev's at Fly Tampa have stated on their forum that dx10 is fraught with issues and recommend to stay away from it. Many current products do not work correctly or display correctly in dx10. So what are we supposed to do with all the other third party scenery? Get rid of it and wait for years for dx10 compliant stuff to take its place? Really Umberto?

 

Your statement this does not have anything to do with FSDT products is absurd. It has everything to do with your product. Why is it other top quality dev's can release such products without issue from the likes of Aerosoft, FT and Flightbeam that all work just fine with the NGX? You remind me of a guy I work with who constantly screws up. When asked about it he always says he is the one that is correct and the other 12 guys must be wrong.

 

It is up to YOU and your company to produce scenery that will work within the framework of fsx and dx9. Just because you have developed something that no longer can, don't think you are going to tell the entire community it has nothing to do with you and now we must all go to dx10!!

 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 2

 

FSDT haven't stated you HAVE to use DX10 but pointed out that it WILL save you memory if you do and will help to save OOM's in very heavy areas, you have to admit with all the addons people are trying to run at the same time there is only so much the system can take if it can only run 4GB of memory.

[virtuali 4,421]

Your statement this does not have anything to do with FSDT products is absurd. It has everything to do with your product. Why is it other top quality dev's can release such products without issue from the likes of Aerosoft, FT and Flightbeam that all work just fine with the NGX?

 

Again, it seems you are missing the point, entirely.

 

Yes, this doesn't have anything to do with us, we happen to simply have tipped the breaking point with a scenery slightly larger than average, but it will happen anyway, sooner or later, with something else.

 

An easy to undertand example:

 

Since CYVR takes about 200-300 MB more than KLAX, and nobody seems to have a problem with it (fact that KLAX area doesn't have SO many available addons to choose from also helps), if an user it's in a particular situation that those 200-300MB were exactly what was needed to reach the memory limit on HIS system with HIS settings and HIS combination of addons, if the next big product, let's say the PMDG777, which surely everybody will want to use, will happen to take 200-300MB more than the 737NGX, you'll have the same discussion as we are having now.

 

And again, I've said many times already that DX10 it's just ONE of the options you have, you can also tone down your settings, turn off HD textures, not use a specific add-on, it's your choice.