Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

signmanbob

Looks Really Great, but I Can't Buy It

Recommended Posts

I have a high end computer with an Ivy Bridge i7, GTX670 and a sea of 64Gigs of RAM to swim around in.

I can set all of my settings to full with XPX64, and fly the most complex aircraft available for that sim, all day long without the least hiccup.

With FSX, if I set my scenery to the minimum required for airports like what are available by FSDreamTeam or FlyTampa, without any AI active, and fly a 250 mile trip with an aircraft sim equal or any more complex than the Maddog, I will get an OOM error before I start the final approach.

Why developers continue to provide complex simulations for an antiquated 32 bit program like FSX, without providing their customers or potential customers with a solution to its memory limitations is simply beyond my understanding.

I love the work that PMDG has put into the NGX and now the Boeing 777, but as much as I am blown away by the quality, it would be nonsensical to continue to purchase these "supersims" for FSX, when I have a 64bit simulation available that can actually benefit from the power available from a modern computer.

I have tried both Bojote's and Word Not Allowed's tweaks, read article after article about setting up FSX, all with little benefit.

Unless this T7 can be adapted to XPX64, or FSX developers can get together and solve the problem of its memory limitations, I can no longer pour good money into buying beautiful high-end aircraft add-ons, just to be informed that my computer has run out of memory.

I say this with no disrespect for PMDG.  I do believe that they need to wake up to the possibilities of this reality, but the work they do is of the highest degree of quality.

On the other hand, it is like buying a beautiful Cris-Craft yacht to cruise around the duck pond in your back yard.


Robert Yunque

PilotEdge Ratings =   CAT-11 (2016-09-13)  I-11 (2016-10-23)  V-3 (2016-08-01)

fslabs_banner.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use FSX with FlyTampa airports and addon AI traffic. I fly all the PMDG airliners (that includes the rather aged 744 v1.0 and the MD-11) for hours without any OOM.

 

The VAS limitation is there, but it's hardly noticable for me, except for places like YMML with nearby YMEN and some decent scenery settings to enjoy "ORBX land". Or maybe Manhattan X with three major international airports (and their corresponding traffic) in one airspace.

 

Again: Basically all other places are fine and so are x hour-flights.

 

What's wrong with your setup???


What happened to AVSIM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to confirm you have SP2 (large address aware) and the desktop heap fix: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/947246

 

AFAIK, PMDG does a very good job of optimizing the memory usage of their products. I don't have the Maddog but maybe it's much more memory intensive than most? I've never had an OOM (knock wood) even though I use quite a few addons, traffic, very dense autogen, FSDT and FlyTampa airports etc.

 

There may be ways complex a aircraft sim can overcome the 4GB limit, such as doing much of the systems simulation in an external process (even a 64bit one!), and then communicate with a small DLL in FSX, or use FSUIPC or Simconnect. But yes, eventually we'll all want to be on a 64 bit platform.  :Praying:


Barry Friedman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally disagree Robert.    I have been able to find a perfect balance with complex products like PMDGs, and FSX.

 

My enjoyment is not one bit reduced by performance demand in the NGX, for example.

 

Even in aircraft that I've complained about performance issues (such as the Carenado SR22 G1000), it is still always possible to tweak settings and still enjoy a good experience.   (whether one feels one should need to reduce settings to that level of product is a separate matter!).

 

I personally think you're painting a darker picture of the FSX / performance situation, than is really the case for most simmers (with average hardware).       Sure, you're right, FSX is coded like c.2006 (for obvious reasons), but I would not want vendors of complex products like PMDG to do anything differently that they are currently doing, because of that.

 

Just my 2c.    Interesting topic.  


Dave Romford,

 

We are united by a common interest and passion in flight simulation. We are one. We are the nation of flight simmers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor excuse... ;-P


Boeing777_Banner_Betateam.jpg
 

- Luke Pabari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got to say that my fsx setup is amazing.

 

I use oryx, ft, fsdt, flight beam, as 2012, majestic, PMDG and others with no issue, no oom or ctd.

 

Sliders are near max with 50/50 airline and ga traffic.

 

Not sure why sooooo many people have issues?


jaseman007_1_Avsimf2ba0.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why sooooo many people have issues?

 

Because people continually push the limits of their fs setup...and rightly so.  People spend thousands of dollars on this hobby and they want their monies worth.  FSX can handle the demand for the most part, but when you have the NGX flying into FsDreamteam's CYVR with Orbx PNW, Ultimate Traffic 2, ActiveSky, and REX HD textures, you're gonna run out of memory.  No matter how much PMDG optimizes their planes, they are still very resource hungry.  Heck, the NGX uses more VAS than any other payware plane out there...and rightly so.  She's a beautiful high fidelity model that simulates a real 737NG to a very high accuracy.  

 

​I do agree with the op that eventually, you're going to run out of options.  As technology advances, it is going to leave FSX and her well aged engine in the dust.  Eventually, Developers will have to either sacrifice that leading edge of simulation, or move to a platform that will allow it.  I for one have no interest in XP10.  I tried out the demo and was quite unimpressed by everything except the ability to have sloping runways.  To me, it seemed too complex with all of its different key commands and the inability to just move around like you can in FSX.  If Laminar Research wants more port over users, perhaps they might want to look into some form of commonality with FSX.  That way you don't have frustrated people who are flustered with the task of learning how to control an entirely new sim.

 

Eventually though, people will migrate to a new sim just like they always do.  Remember all of those 'FS9 4 LIFE' people?  


Matt L.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to get CTD's almost every flight I did. Now though, I haven't seen a CTD in about 1 year or so. I have a heavily tweaked cfg, and added a lot of fixes in it too. My computer isn't the best of computers but it can run the NGX with the highest quality settings almost flawlessly. For example; I can go to Stockholm Sweden where my computer used to lag so much it was unbearable, as-well as Vancouver Canada, stutters were very bad! Now I haven't any problems.


 

Ciarán Andrews 

 

                                                                                                                                                        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shamrock - I'm hearing you.  I'm the same.

 

I've got all the bells and whistles as stated in my previous post.  I can happily fly the NGX into CYVR with ORBX scenery without any OOM's, CTD's etc.

 

I have my sliders near maxed 50/50 Air Traffic, UT2, High Water Settings with FSWC that gives me a sublime eye candy experience.

 

Can't put my finger on why people have issues with it.  And you can see that developers have committed to many years worth of add-ons to come for FSX, so I've got NO incentive to change at all.


jaseman007_1_Avsimf2ba0.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because people continually push the limits of their fs setup...and rightly so.  People spend thousands of dollars on this hobby and they want their monies worth.  FSX can handle the demand for the most part, but when you have the NGX flying into FsDreamteam's CYVR with Orbx PNW, Ultimate Traffic 2, ActiveSky, and REX HD textures, you're gonna run out of memory.  No matter how much PMDG optimizes their planes, they are still very resource hungry.  Heck, the NGX uses more VAS than any other payware plane out there...and rightly so.  She's a beautiful high fidelity model that simulates a real 737NG to a very high accuracy.  

 

​I do agree with the op that eventually, you're going to run out of options.  As technology advances, it is going to leave FSX and her well aged engine in the dust.  Eventually, Developers will have to either sacrifice that leading edge of simulation, or move to a platform that will allow it.  I for one have no interest in XP10.  I tried out the demo and was quite unimpressed by everything except the ability to have sloping runways.  To me, it seemed too complex with all of its different key commands and the inability to just move around like you can in FSX.  If Laminar Research wants more port over users, perhaps they might want to look into some form of commonality with FSX.  That way you don't have frustrated people who are flustered with the task of learning how to control an entirely new sim.

 

Eventually though, people will migrate to a new sim just like they always do.  Remember all of those 'FS9 4 LIFE' people?  

 

Amen!

 

Sometimes (almost always) we ask to FSX to do what Boeing or Airbus's full motions simulators do. Everyone know that is absolutely impossible by far, but we still put a lot of effort, doing significant money expenses. FSX is what it is and personally I REALLY APPRECIATE what developers as PMDG and a few more have done, do and will do over an aged platform like FSX is. As most, I had CTD but certainly there are a lot of tweaks that really will get FSX to its higher level. Matt, I was one of those "FS9 4 life" people. Well...after squeeze FSX, after almost 2 years ago, now I almost can't remember where is my FS9 placed :P 

 

PS: Thanked forever to FS9. With Rod Machado I had my first flight lessons  :wink:  


Ivan Lewis

PMDG B737NGX, B777 and B747v3 QOTS II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because people continually push the limits of their fs setup...and rightly so.  People spend thousands of dollars on this hobby and they want their monies worth.  FSX can handle the demand for the most part, but when you have the NGX flying into FsDreamteam's CYVR with Orbx PNW, Ultimate Traffic 2, ActiveSky, and REX HD textures, you're gonna run out of memory.  No matter how much PMDG optimizes their planes, they are still very resource hungry.  Heck, the NGX uses more VAS than any other payware plane out there...and rightly so.  She's a beautiful high fidelity model that simulates a real 737NG to a very high accuracy.  

 

​I do agree with the op that eventually, you're going to run out of options.  As technology advances, it is going to leave FSX and her well aged engine in the dust.  Eventually, Developers will have to either sacrifice that leading edge of simulation, or move to a platform that will allow it.  I for one have no interest in XP10.  I tried out the demo and was quite unimpressed by everything except the ability to have sloping runways.  To me, it seemed too complex with all of its different key commands and the inability to just move around like you can in FSX.  If Laminar Research wants more port over users, perhaps they might want to look into some form of commonality with FSX.  That way you don't have frustrated people who are flustered with the task of learning how to control an entirely new sim.

 

Eventually though, people will migrate to a new sim just like they always do.  Remember all of those 'FS9 4 LIFE' people?  

 Good point Im hoping something can be worked out with P3D's EULA or the developent of some sort of tool to import (as many as possible) fsx addons to Xplane but for the time being FSX is my choice we got some good payware coming too (not just PMDG)


Flying Tigers Group

Boeing777_Banner_Pilot.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Good point Im hoping something can be worked out with P3D's EULA or the developent of some sort of tool to import (as many as possible) fsx addons to Xplane but for the time being FSX is my choice we got some good payware coming too (not just PMDG)

Dude some of the things coming out in the next 6 months are really gonna make FSX sing.

 

Cheers.


jaseman007_1_Avsimf2ba0.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today I flew from KSFO to CYVR with the PMDG NGX using DX-10.  I was testing my newest overclock settings to 4.7 Ghz.  On approach to CYVR, I received 18 FPS steady per Fraps.  The keys to good performance are overclocking, and finding and testing little tidbits of information about FSX performance, scattered across the interweb.  It takes a while, but your system tweaked properly should give you great performance, especially with a 64 bit simulator.


Dennis Trawick

 

Screen Shot Forum Rules

 

AVSIMSignature_zpsed110b13.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have not had a single OOM report with the 777 in testing, nor have I seen it myself. I have all the Orbx stuff, FSDT, FlyTampa, Flightbeam, UTX, REX textures, Opus, AS2012 etc. The only thing I don't run is AI traffic.

 

The 777 has lower texture overhead than the NGX btw. Don't assume that because it's newer it automatically uses more resources. We are well aware of the fact that we can't produce something so intensive that it precludes the use of scenery or whatever.

 

That said, you do have to make tradeoffs at some point - you can't just pile every single addon under the sun into FSX (all of which far exceed the specifications the sim was originally designed for in terms of model complexity and texture resolution and often require FSX.cfg settings that balloon the VAS) and expect no issues. You have 4GB to work with and must choose what it is you value most. Keep in mind too that GPU settings can massively increase the VAS load - a lot of people are running super high AA settings (full supersampling modes like SGSSAA, those SuperVCAA modes etc) at super high resolutions and that acts as a multiplier because the VRAM usage counts against VAS. I've settled on using 4xS with FXAA on for my own system (GTX570 @ 1920x1200) - it's a small reduction in quality vs. the ultra high modes, but it results in a lot less VRAM use and thus VAS use.

 

There may be ways complex a aircraft sim can overcome the 4GB limit, such as doing much of the systems simulation in an external process (even a 64bit one!), and then communicate with a small DLL in FSX, or use FSUIPC or Simconnect. But yes, eventually we'll all want to be on a 64 bit platform.  :Praying:

 

You can't do that unfortunately - anything linked into the FSX process counts against its VAS. Creating parallel processes to a game engine that relies on real time serialized data from the main process also has a huge list of problems that go along with it. This is why you hardly ever see true multi-threaded processing in any game engine the way you do in other types of software that don't rely on serialized data paths. There's multiple white papers I've seen written by companies like Valve and Crytek (who are the cream of the crop in game engine design) talking about how difficult this is to do.


Ryan Maziarz
devteam.jpg

For fastest support, please submit a ticket at http://support.precisionmanuals.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...