FSDreamteam CYVR Vancouver is out!

[laserit 93]

Running CYVR was just too big of a hit for me, couldnt get rid of the ooms without sacrificing something that I didnt want to sacrafice.

 

Then I started playing around with DX10 ala http://forum.avsim.n...the-how-to-doc/

 

In DX10 I run:

 

CYVR 4096 textures

PMDG-NGX

ORBX-PNW

Vancouver +

Mytraffic

REX 4096 textures

OpusFX

Scenery density = extremely dense

Autogen = dense

 

Lowest frames I get on an approach is around 22fps in virtual cockpit view.

 

DX10 was a real positive game changer for me, I wont go back to DX9 because of it, and it really gives me something to look forward to with P3D v2.

 

 

 

Asus Rampage Extreme iii mobo

Intel I980X cpu running at 4.4ghz

Evga GTX 680/4gig cpu

12gig ram

SSD drives

[wanabflyer 53]

Is there any advantages to DX10 other than less OOMs? That doesn't seem to be my problem, it's just the FPS hit and the stutters before I trimmed things back (compromised).

 

Regards,

[HighTowers 1,434]

Is there any advantages to DX10 other than less OOMs? That doesn't seem to be my problem, it's just the FPS hit and the stutters before I trimmed things back (compromised).

 

Regards,

 

The DX10 forum is very helpful. follow the DX10 guide. Stutters could be due to this alpha channels missing. Im far from being an expert at it, but there is alot of info on it.

I personally found dx10 to be just a little smoother, I get a few extra FPS, and far less OOMS because the GPU has to do more work rather than the CPU. Doesnt sound like much but with FSX every little bit helps.

[wanabflyer 53]

Thanks Dave, maybe it's time to do some more reading on this. I sure would like to use my Vancouver +.

 

Regards,

[honanhal 1,420]

Have to agree with others here--granted the area is heavy on the system to begin with but it does seem to be in no small part the airport that is killing performance. I still use it, and it's lovely, but this is without a doubt an unusually heavy scenery for FSDT (which has historically ranged from very light to moderate in terms of impact).

[Dave_YVR 987]

historically ranged from very light to moderate in terms of impact

No where though was even close to as demanding as around Vancouver. Even with a default setup and no AI Vancouver is VERY demanding on performance. Add in moderate amounts of AI and then FSDT KORD and KJFK are worse due to the sheer number of AI more than the scenery. Its not the scenery, its the whole package. Our thirst to crank it up that does it.

You can't simply performance compare it to payware Chicago, New York, LA or Dubai. Sure those cities are much bigger, there's just so much more to it that FSX feeds from (Islands, complex coastline, actual mountains, waterclass, landclass etc etc).

Monitor your VAS and see how much CYVR really usess compared to other addons.

[honanhal 1,420]

Dave, everything you say is true. But I should clarify that I'm not even talking about VAS (although OOM is a much bigger problem at this airport than the others--for the reasons you lay out, not really through anything FSDT did "wrong")--I'm talking about FPS and smoothness. They're totally separate issues, as you can be getting a smooth locked 30 fps with no stutters and still OOM. Even with traffic turned off, completely cleared weather and a default aircraft the FPS performance at this airport is just not especially good, with or without Orbx (try it--it's possible that it's just my system, which is no slouch, but based on what others have said I doubt it). And I think you have to admit that that's a new one for an FSDT airport.

[HighTowers 1,434]

Dave, everything you say is true. But I should clarify that I'm not even talking about VAS (although OOM is a much bigger problem at this airport than the others--for the reasons you lay out, not really through anything FSDT did "wrong")--I'm talking about FPS and smoothness. They're totally separate issues, as you can be getting a smooth locked 30 fps with no stutters and still OOM. Even with traffic turned off, completely cleared weather and a default aircraft the FPS performance at this airport is just not especially good, with or without Orbx (try it--it's possible that it's just my system, which is no slouch, but based on what others have said I doubt it). And I think you have to admit that that's a new one for an FSDT airport.

Oh I did this when I had to track down my OOM issues. I did a complete reinstall of FSX. And before installing any addons, I optimized my fsx.cfg and maxed the sliders except for no road traffic as thats a killer period.  I only installed FSDT CYVR, and did a bunch of various tests because I was curious to see if YVR was the culprit. Default cessna with no weather and unlimited FPS I got 60-80 consistently.  Flying right over the airport in circles. Out north over the mountains,  for the intense scenery draws, and back.  It was flawless. I took pics with DX9 vs DX10. VAS differences were a few hundred MB. Then I added an addon one by one and again same test. Obviously the FPS came down to where Im at usually around 20. Thats with NGX, Orbx PNW, AI traffic about 60% and Opus weather with REX 1024 cloud textures.  By that time VAS is about 3.4 with dx10 and 3.7 with dx9.

 

Bottom line CYVR is not much different than KLAX or KORD etc. Given that its an extremely detailed airport, by carefully selecting your options with the new update and lessen them (they are not that much different visually) it performs admirably with some caveats. You can check my PC specs. Its not a super fast machine, but its decent. Also remember that in addition to all the shoreline,and rugged mountain drawing, if you have traffic, it will be computing  part Seatac, Paine Field, and Boeing field traffic as well as its only about 120NM away for AI in the vacinity. 

 

Ive enclosed some pics. Notice LAX and CYVR have nearly same FPS at this point which was weather plus default 737 and little traffic yet sitting at around 35-40. 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jotw45on38mcnec/ESkLFi33p2/FSDT%20CYVR%20Test

[Boeing or not going 578]

If you are getting constant OOM errors then you have corrupt textures or files somewhere. There might be an empty texture folder in one of your scenery folders, there might be duplicate afcad files (there will be guaranteed if you have Orbx installed), there might be corrupted AI textures or lightmaps, etc.

 

There is a reason other than the FSDT airport for why you are crashing. High memory usage is one thing, but nothing should make it overload the system to crash unless you also have a problem that I listed above.

[Manny 1,293]

It's not FSDT's fault that you (or me) get OOMs... its the last straw thing... its whatever addon you add last that breaks the camel's back. If all we had were FSDT airport there would not be OOM... .

 

DX9 does map the video memory onto the regular RAM to some extent and that consumes valuable memory address. DX10 doesn't seem to do that.

 

DX10 gives me less OOM problems but it stutters and and its not smooth at all.. DX9 is smooth and no stutters but OOM nightmare... I think I need to shed some load.... all over the place and use DX9 until I figure out how to tune my PC to be smooth with DX10

[HighTowers 1,434]

 

DX10 gives me less OOM problems but it stutters and and its not smooth at all.. DX9 is smooth and no stutters but OOM nightmare... I think I need to shed some load.... all over the place and use DX9 until I figure out how to tune my PC to be smooth with DX10

 

I think you might want to revisit your dx10 install. I run dx10 everywhere, and other than the odd graphical issues visually, its pretty smooth. Not a whole lot of stutters at all. 

[honanhal 1,420]

Maybe I've misunderstood, but are you all saying that you're seeing smooth performance from this airport? Again, I'm not talking about OOMs. If so, I may need to reinstall or something, because looking in toward the center of the main terminal generally cuts my framerate in half, even in default aircraft.

[Dave_YVR 987]

It runs pretty smooth for me and most of my gates are full of AI. I've run in both DX9 and 10, 10 offering no OOMS but doesn't look nearly as good imo.

[Marcielli 42]

I can once again 'suggest' that OOM victims consider RAZER GameBooster. You can close out those various and sundry processes that load up without you even realizing it... and gobble system memory and cpu. GameBooster will make recommendations toward Windows services that can be safely shut down, and other add-on programs that may be loading at boot time that are unneeded by FSX.

 

Even a PC that is used 99.9% for FSX has extra software that 'creeps in' over time. My fastest PC is my FSX platform. So when I wanted to run a BluRay Software program (PowerDVD 12) - it was a no-brainer to install it onto the FSX machine. Guess what? 2 services load up at boot time that are related to PowerDVD! And other software does the same time. That's why over time, a machine runs slower and slower as things pile up in the task manager! When you're pushing your box to the max with FSX - I say "KILL THE UNNEEDED STUFF!", and that's how I got onto GameBooster.

 

With GameBooster, you have a "launching screen" that you add desktop icons onto, you start up GameBooster, highlight, for example FSX, and then click LAUNCH. GameBooster kills those memory eaters, closes unwanted processes, and then flushes out your system ram, then starts FSX. With GameBooster I feel I'm getting maximum use out of FSX and having far less issues than I might have otherwise. Also, it's FREE. Free is always OK with me! At the end of your FSX session, when you close FSX, GameBooster restarts those processes that you asked it to kill prior to starting FSX.

 

 

 

You might be happy to know, that external proccesses have NOTHING to do with FSX memory and OOM errors, the other programs have their own address space, so it's not like they are "stealing memory" from FSX, or your system. And those programs are usually unsafe, because they shut down essential stuff on your computer like sound processes. So your argument that "shutting down external processes that eat the ram memory!" Is invalid.

[Robert McDonald 167]

You might be happy to know, that external proccesses have NOTHING to do with FSX memory and OOM errors, the other programs have their own address space, so it's not like they are "stealing memory" from FSX, or your system. And those programs are usually unsafe, because they shut down essential stuff on your computer like sound processes. So your argument that "shutting down external processes that eat the ram memory!" Is invalid.

 

Sorry, but I cannot agree with you.  Although I have left FSX and it's 32-bit prison with 4GB max memory available for the Operating System, plus ANY AND ALL loaded processes that are running when flying, I can tell you first hand that Game Booster does make a difference to 32-bit pilots trapped in FSX's memory ceiling.

 

While you are correct that each process has it's own memory SPACE (address range on the DRAM chips), the TOTAL memory available to all processes, programs and the operating system are LIMITED to 4GB in 64-bit Windows 7 and 3.5GB in 32-bit Windows 7.  Don't confuse the operating system with the FSX program.  You can run Windows in 64-bits, but FSX itself is forever consigned to 32-bit ops, because 64-bit Windows (and the 64-bit CPUS) had yet to be invented when FSX support was dropped by Microsoft 6+ years ago.

 

I'm sure you are well aware of the 'advantages' of 64-bits - that all the memory in your system is addressable by the OS and if the software you run (example: X-Plane 64-bits) is also in 64-bits, then that program ALSO can use all remaining system memory up to the maximum total amount on your machine.

 

In my case that's 16GB of ram, some have even more.  4GB was 'common' and still is on happy-meal machines (entry level), but the performance hungry want to max frame rates.

 

Not to spoil your weekend, but X-Plane can also address total system CORES (not counting faux cores 'hyperthreaded').  So, if you have a 6-core Extreme Intel i7 processor, X-Plane can USE those 2 spare cores.  If you have dual XEON i7 system, you could have up to 12 real cores as well, but I'm not clear if XP can run on a server platform, and likely the server would have the wrong video platform to make such a proposition worthwhile.  Same issue could apply to a WORKSTATION with dual XEONS.  The processor power could be expanded via dual cpus, but the video services probably would suffer a shortfall.

 

If you really want a thrill, buy a Titan 680 video card (recommended: MSI brand with cooling-tubes) which has 6GB of RAM on the VIDEO CARD.  FSX will ignore that extra memory, but X-Plane can use it for texture rendering, you'll be amazed!

 

Cheers and regards.