FSDreamteam CYVR Vancouver is out!

[Marcielli 42]

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.

 

As I've said, OTHER loaded processes while FSX is running don't have the slightest effect on FSX OOMs. The only thing that cause OOM in FSX are too many FSX addons running at the same time. (Unless you have little system momory in total, I would agree).

 

TOTAL memory available to all processes, programs and the operating system are LIMITED to 4GB in 64-bit Windows 7

 

That's wrong. While you are correct, that a 32-Bit application ARE limited to 4GB in Windows 7, most programs, like FSX, will warn you *ahead* of the 4GB limit, in FSX, probably around 3.8GB. If it didn't, FSX would simply crash.

 

3.5GB in 32-bit Windows 7

 

That's wrong too.

 

Under a 32 bit OS, regardless of how much total RAM you have, everything (OS, all apps running including FSX and it's addons) will have to *share* the total 4GB, maximum. On top of that, the VRAM on your video card will *subtract* from that available memory so, with a 1GB video card, assuming you have 4 GB of RAM, you have roughly 2.6 GB available for all your apps, as soon Windows starts. It's not the full 3GB, because other resources (like mainboard cards, bios, firmwares, etc.) will map into that memory too. And of course, Windows itself has already loaded drivers and basic services when it starts, so by the time it has finished loading, you have about 2.5-2.6GB free for your apps, and about 2.5GB for FSX.

 

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

 

16GB of ram is overkill for FSX,  there's the issue of DDR3 memory working best in multiples of 3 (triple-channel), which means 6GB it's usually faster then 8GB or 16GB

[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 memor

 

As I've said, OTHER loaded processes while FSX is running don't have the slightest effect on FSX OOMs. The only thing that cause OOM in FSX are too many FSX addons running at the same time. (Unless you have little system momory in total, I would agree).

 

 

That's wrong. While you are correct, that a 32-Bit application ARE limited to 4GB in Windows 7, most programs, like FSX, will warn you *ahead* of the 4GB limit, in FSX, probably around 3.8GB. If it didn't, FSX would simply crash.

 

 

That's wrong too.

 

Under a 32 bit OS, regardless of how much total RAM you have, everything (OS, all apps running including FSX and it's addons) will have to *share* the total 4GB, maximum. On top of that, the VRAM on your video card will *subtract* from that available memory so, with a 1GB video card, assuming you have 4 GB of RAM, you have roughly 2.6 GB available for all your apps, as soon Windows starts. It's not the full 3GB, because other resources (like mainboard cards, bios, firmwares, etc.) will map into that memory too. And of course, Windows itself has already loaded drivers and basic services when it starts, so by the time it has finished loading, you have about 2.5-2.6GB free for your apps, and about 2.5GB for FSX.

 

 

16GB of ram is overkill for FSX,  there's the issue of DDR3 memory working best in multiples of 3 (triple-channel), which means 6GB it's usually faster then 8GB or 16GB

 

I guess we're dancing around two different issues- RAM and CPU slices.  You would agree that all those processes DO use CPU time?  So they are going to at minimum affect frames/performance?

 

And you're right, FSX is a 32-bit app, more than 4GB of ram is a waste.  But if you are running X-Plane 64- all of your ram is available to X-Plane, less the kernel and system overhead.

 

 

y!" Is invalid

[Marcielli 42]

I guess we're dancing around two different issues- RAM and CPU slices.

I don't see anywhere where i've mentioned CPU slices, other than saying that they will come into play and affect that 3GB.

You would agree that all those processes DO use CPU time? So they are going to at minimum affect frames/performance?

If by "processes" meaning FSX addons, they arn't really processes, but will increase FSX RAM usage, and performance, yes.

 

Other applications running while FSX is running, can affect FPS, yes.

And you're right, FSX is a 32-bit app, more than 4GB of ram is a waste

More than 6 GB is a waste.

[tttocs 301]

And you're right, FSX is a 32-bit app, more than 4GB of ram is a waste.

 

Robert, while I appreciate your zeal for 64 bit applications, your understanding of 64 bit Windows and the limitations of 32-bit large address aware apps like FSX running in that environment is flawed and incorrect.  You're confusing physical RAM with addressable virtual address space, and further confusing application limitations vs OS limitations.  It is absolutely worth having more than 4G of physical RAM on a 64bit Windows system used for FSX.

 

Apps like Game Booster (which I like and use myself) do not change an application's addressable available VAS picture at all, though they can certainly have a positive affect on performance by freeing up resources.  But running on 64 bit Windows, FSX itself has its own 4G VAS (virtual address space) and Game Booster and similar apps do not impact this VAS picture.  Game Booster neither helps nor hurts the OOM situation in FSX.  

 

 

Scott

 

Edit:  I should also note that for those running dedicated sim systems that have been carefully optimized for that single purpose, Game Booster and similar apps aren't really needed at all.  Their value is for those of us who's systems are multi-use.

[Robert McDonald 167]

Robert, while I appreciate your zeal for 64 bit applications, your understanding of 64 bit Windows and the limitations of 32-bit large address aware apps like FSX running in that environment is flawed and incorrect.  You're confusing physical RAM with addressable virtual address space, and further confusing application limitations vs OS limitations.  It is absolutely worth having more than 4G of physical RAM on a 64bit Windows system used for FSX.

 

Apps like Game Booster (which I like and use myself) do not change an application's addressable available VAS picture at all, though they can certainly have a positive affect on performance by freeing up resources.  But running on 64 bit Windows, FSX itself has its own 4G VAS (virtual address space) and Game Booster and similar apps do not impact this VAS picture.  Game Booster neither helps nor hurts the OOM situation in FSX.  

 

 

Scott

 

Edit:  I should also note that for those running dedicated sim systems that have been carefully optimized for that single purpose, Game Booster and similar apps aren't really needed at all.  Their value is for those of us who's systems are multi-use.

 

I submit that the CPU is a limiting factor, not just the ram.  A CPU can only do so many tasks at one time.  FSX is NOT optimized to take advantage of more than 4 cores CPU, and in addition, FSX is not optimized to take advantage of todays high-end video cards.  And while one of you is right when saying more than 6GB is a 'waste' in FSX, it is NOT a waste in the other world, the 64-bit sim world.

 

All of these things taken as a whole pushed me over the edge to another Simulation, one that can and does use all available system ram, (on 64-bit systems), all available system cores, and all available VRAM on the GPU card.  Sorry to say, that isn't a Microsoft or Lockheed Martin simulation.  It's still morphing and is far from 'done'.  That said, I have had experiences on that alternate platform that far surpassed anything that I ever saw on the Microsoft version.  The 3PD (3rd party devs) have sustained FSX and do truly offer some very fine enhancements, most especially the Ground Services X, Rex Essentials, and so on, and let's not forget PMDG.  If PMDG ever brings a plane to market for the alternate platform, you will likely see a substantial egress to the alternate world.

 

I misspoke about the VAS topic, I picked up my system engineer toys and moved to a 64-bit playground.  I cordially invite any of you who really want to squeeze the performance to experience 100 fps in 64-bits.  Yes, it can happen.  NO, that's not the 'average' frame rate.  But my point is that there are choices, and ways around the OOMs that some folks seem to deny ever happen in FSX land.  I can tell you after loading up a ton of add-ons, they CAN and DO.  And hit my frames so hard I thought I was running an 8088 processor.

[tttocs 301]

 

I submit that the CPU is a limiting factor, not just the ram. A CPU can only do so many tasks at one time. FSX is NOT optimized to take advantage of more than 4 cores CPU, and in addition, FSX is not optimized to take advantage of todays high-end video cards.

 

OK.  Not sure how or why you're trying to turn this into yet another FSX vs XP thread, though.  FSDT's Vancouver is an FSX add-on, and FSDT Vancouver is the topic here.  If the add-on was available in XP as an alternative, then I'd understand.  (And please don't take ANY of that as some sort of opposition to XP or its adoption - it's not.)

 

When discussing an FSX add-on, OOM's and how to mitigate them, Windows memory management, particularly with 64 bit Windows and 32 bit Windows apps, can be a bit arcane and it's important to understand what's really going on.

 

Scott

[Robert McDonald 167]

OK.  Not sure how or why you're trying to turn this into yet another FSX vs XP thread, though.  FSDT's Vancouver is an FSX add-on, and FSDT Vancouver is the topic here.  If the add-on was available in XP as an alternative, then I'd understand.  (And please don't take ANY of that as some sort of opposition to XP or its adoption - it's not.)

 

When discussing an FSX add-on, OOM's and how to mitigate them, Windows memory management, particularly with 64 bit Windows and 32 bit Windows apps, can be a bit arcane and it's important to understand what's really going on.

 

Scott

 

 

OK- let me narrow this down,  CPU slices are an issue - and utilities such as Game Booster (PROPERLY USED) and Process Explorer (PROPERLY USED) will show which processes /threads are eating up processor time, which WILL impact your simulation, regardless of which flavor SIM you fly.   So can OOM issues. It is therefore incumbent upon pilots desiring the best performance to reduce or minimize those processes which are unnecessary to your SIM experience.  

 

FYI, GameBooster RESTARTS processes that it killed prior to loading it, after your flight is concluded.  I can say that by the time I loaded up FSX, LINDA LUA, the VRIsim.exe software for the VRinsight Hardware, REX ESSENTIALS and then REX - my system FREQUENTLY crashed in FSX, running on Win 7 64-bit Ultimate with 16GB of 1866 Ram.  The FSDT CYVR app particularly was 'the last straw' on my flight deck.  But that's me.  I hear that FSDT did make some adjustments where a pilot could dumb-down their scenery to release valuable memory resources, I know it sounds a little ARCANE to say so, but read the official FSDT posts.

 

Prior to resolving a driver issue, for example, VRinsight's VRiSim.exe was gobbling up process time and resulting in SEVERE stuttering in FSX.  Fortunately, the developers, when made aware of this issue, discovered the problem and fixed their drivers.  Meanwhile, had NO PILOT tried to pin down the problem, those who were flying VRinsight hardware, much like those flying ORBX Vancouver when it first released, ran afoul of FSX problems.  Yes, even a CTD or OOM.  I vividly recall the DING-DONG warning bell from FSUIPC which happened immediately after I loaded FSDT's CYVR on top of ORBX PNW.

 

So, speaking ONLY about FSX - there are limitations and issues caused by simply trying to do too much with too little (system resources).  You can say it's not a MEMORY problem, but it IS a problem.  Not just for me or one or two souls, but several of us have reported problems from time to time with our beloved FSX.

 

I truly think FSX is pretty - and quite stunning, when fine-tuned with precision on a high-end system.  I totally love the PMDG planes, particularly the NGX.  I think ORBX and some of the other 3PDs are THE BOMB in terms of drop-dead scenery.  And who could not love FSInn?  or AvilaSoft's EFB?  FSDT's add-on airports and Ground Services X.  All of those are EXCLUSIVE to FSX.

 

I also think that the 'average' pilot has his or her hands full confronting and narrowing down the problems that loading up too many add-ons can cause.  We're fortunate to have people here who clearly know a lot and maybe even are willing to try to HELP people enjoy their FSX experience to the maximum.  I can think of several Avsim members who generously share their time and expertise solving nettlesome configuration or performance problems.  Thank you to all of those members!

[tttocs 301]

 

OK- let me narrow this down, CPU slices are an issue - and utilities such as Game Booster (PROPERLY USED) and Process Explorer (PROPERLY USED) will show which processes /threads are eating up processor time, which WILL impact your simulation, regardless of which flavor SIM you fly.

 

Lot's of words, but not much narrowing down. What, that I've said, are you disagreeing with?  Yes, Game Booster can help (I said I use it, and like it) with performance in a general purpose system.  No magic here, it's just a utility that can simplify cutting down un-needed processes when it comes time to run an application - be it FSX or anything else you configure it for, including a 64 bit app like XP-64, BTW.  No argument there.

 

 

So can OOM issues.

 

No.  Simply and succintly put, no.  Game Booster will NOT help with OOM's in a system consisting of 64-bit Windows and FSX.  Are you really disagreeing with this?  If so, then you don't understand how Windows 64 memory management works with 32 bit, large address aware apps like FSX.  If you're not disagreeing with this, then I'm not sure what I'm saying that you're responding to.

 

Scott

[aceridgey 330]

--

 

Sorry to bring up an old thread

 

--

 

No matter what I do, it's this scenery which causes me so much issues. There is very little places in the FS world which causes my FPS to drop to 14 in the external view. [Flytampa Dubai = 27-30fps in the VC]. I don't understand why some people are getting good performance with this scenery.

 

• No local ORBX scenery installed [only ftx global]
• New Install
• During the installation I set all the textures etc. to minimum. 1024 etc. 2 Seasons

[HighTowers 1,434]

--

 

Sorry to bring up an old thread

 

--

 

No matter what I do, it's this scenery which causes me so much issues. There is very little places in the FS world which causes my FPS to drop to 14 in the external view. [Flytampa Dubai = 27-30fps in the VC]. I don't understand why some people are getting good performance with this scenery.

 

• No local ORBX scenery installed [only ftx global]
• New Install
• During the installation I set all the textures etc. to minimum. 1024 etc. 2 Seasons

 

 

Why dont you try loading up a default cessna with default weather and see what you get. If its still the same it would point to a scenery issue. If it flies beautifully, then a combination of what you were flying with before and other settings need to be tempered. 

There is no reason for to be poor performance here. It wont be screaming, and its very managable. Always in the 20s or at the very least 18-20.

[aceridgey 330]

Why dont you try loading up a default cessna with default weather and see what you get. If its still the same it would point to a scenery issue. If it flies beautifully, then a combination of what you were flying with before and other settings need to be tempered. 

There is no reason for to be poor performance here. It wont be screaming, and its very managable. Always in the 20s or at the very least 18-20.

 

I am getting the feeling that it is something do with the control tower area. Also the surrounding scenery doesn't help. It puts my cpu at 100%

[Dave_YVR 989]

 You cant compare it to Dubai even with FlyTampa as the whole area has very limited features in terms of terrain, coastline, landclass, waterclass. It all adds up and plays a huge role in how it affects FSX performance.

 From that screenshot you have so MANY trees, what is your autogen at?

[aceridgey 330]

 You cant compare it to Dubai even with FlyTampa as the whole area has very limited features in terms of terrain, coastline, landclass, waterclass. It all adds up and plays a huge role in how it affects FSX performance.

 From that screenshot you have so MANY trees, what is your autogen at?

 

Normal/2

[HighTowers 1,434]

I am getting the feeling that it is something do with the control tower area. Also the surrounding scenery doesn't help. It puts my cpu at 100%

I find that hard to believe. CPU 100%?   I have nearly same system as yours with yours being a notch better, and my cpu doesnt get past 85% in the PNW

Run through the software hardware guide and be sure your system is optimized. 

Try no weather and see what happens. 

[Rocky_53 1,581]

This is one of the worst airports I have bought. Sorry fellas, just saying how things are with me. I have installed the absolute minimum textures with the scenery, run with conservative settings and normal autogen and all I get anywhere in the aiprort are graphical flashes and anomolies. Like I said, nowhere else do I experience this behaviour. So it's not about changing settings or tweaking cfg values, it's about how this one addon has some serious issues.

--

 

Sorry to bring up an old thread

 

--

 

No matter what I do, it's this scenery which causes me so much issues. There is very little places in the FS world which causes my FPS to drop to 14 in the external view. [Flytampa Dubai = 27-30fps in the VC]. I don't understand why some people are getting good performance with this scenery.

 

• No local ORBX scenery installed [only ftx global]
• New Install
• During the installation I set all the textures etc. to minimum. 1024 etc. 2 Seasons

 

 

Agreed Alex...