Looks Really Great, but I Can't Buy It

[ajpongress 467]

I have a slower system then the OP and I run the PMDG NGX/md11/747 into fly tampa CYUL with opusfsx, 4096 textures enabled and REX HD installed, and AI traffic + Vatsim traffic at the same time to top it off.

 

I get 25-30 frames.

 

Blaming a company like PMDG because you didn't tune your fsx correctly to match your hardware isn't their fault, it's yours.

Obviously something is set incorrectly. Just because you have a screaming pc doesn't mean fsx will just bend to it. You have to finesse it.

[tttocs 301]

 

 

Blaming a company like PMDG because you didn't tune your fsx correctly to match your hardware isn't their fault, it's yours.

 

Whoa, AJ.  That's a bit brutal.

 

I think a better way of saying this is - PMDG wouldn't be as successful as they are, and other simmers wouldn't be anticipating this release as much as they are if everyone was having the kind of problems that Robert is having.  What that suggests is that solutions are out there.

 

Scott

[Jimm 437]

I too am curious as to why there are issues.  It looks like the Op's rig is better than mine.  I run PMDG on my Alienware laptop.  Granted, i don't get high framerates, probably due to me still not having my laptop optimized fully, but for what is set, it runs ok for my needs.  I'd love to know a better way to get better optimization, but the more I look at videos, tuts and posts, the more I rip out my hair in frustration.  I don't blame anyone, I just do what I know how to do and accept it.  As long as I can fly a route in the aircraft I have and land at the airports I have, then that's cool.

[ajpongress 467]

Whoa, AJ. That's a bit brutal.

 

I think a better way of saying this is - PMDG wouldn't be as successful as they are, and other simmers wouldn't be anticipating this release as much as they are if everyone was having the kind of problems that Robert is having. What that suggests is that solutions are out there.

 

Scott

It's not brutal, it's the raw truth.

The OP said PMDG needs to "wake up" and he also mentioned that companies aren't taking OOM into consideration when designing complex addons.

 

The problem isn't with the developers or their complex addons, it's the user not tuning fsx to fit their machine's needs.

 

What exactly does PMDG need to wake up to?

[EGLL77W 1,508]

I see AJ's point. You can't expect FSX to do so much! Compromising is key to getting a stable simulator in my eyes.

 

Could anyone explain the "OOM" failure please?

[rsrandazzo 6,353]

Gents-

 

A couple of thoughts:

 

Robert:  Your simming rig is better than the one I use for development, with the exception that I am running all SSDs instead of the old fashioned spinny-thingy drives.  (I'm trademarking that- nobody try to steal it!)  I had Ryan walk me through optimizing FSX and I haven't had an OOM since very early in the NGX development cycle.  (2010'ish)

 

i use the 777 every day- and my default testing location is at an OrbX airport surrounded by OrbX scenery.  I also bounce around to various FlightBeam and FSDT and Aerosoft sceneries just to make sure nothing bad happens...  It never does...

 

We put a tremendous amount of time and effort into making sure you get a seamless experience and I think it shows.  It does require that the user approach simming thoughtfully- you can't load something created by a developer that doesn't know what they are doing...   Most often when we help customers who are having trouble- we find it is the result of a lazy or inexperienced developer doing something that is KNOWN to create problems in FSX- and has nothing whatever to do with resource consumption.

 

 

P3D:  I keep seeing folks hope that we will "see the light" on P3D.  I think those folks should go back and read my statements on same.  We think P3D is going to be a great platform in the long term for our commercial and enterprise customers.  But because of P3Ds EULA we have no plans to offer "regular simmer" products on that platform.  I recognize that some of you are using P3D as a simming platform, but if you take a good close look at their EULA- you largely don't have that right- and as such they can turn you upside down one day if they decide to enforce their rights...   As such I think it would be irresponsible for us to sell you a simmer product on a commercial platform.  Some disagree, but...  We have a very expensive legal opinion on it- and I trust the lawyers in this case.  (And I don't like lawyers- so that is saying something!)

 

Xplane:  We are very hard at work on a product for Xplane- and our long term vision is to bring our entire FSX product catalog to play in Xplane...  Austin and his team are working hand-in-glove with us to make this happen...  but it isn't a big rush project because we have to take the time to learn the platform- and we are implementing some technologies to make Xplane an easier transition for our very large FSX customer base...  When we get there- you will see what I mean!

 

 

FSX vs. Xplane:  Thank you, gents- for not letting this devolve into a platform debate.  I think this conversation is sitting right on that rough edge- so I pleasantly remind you that we don't tolerate such debates here because it never means anything positive for the participants or others visiting this forum. 

 

Robert has a valid opinion- and I think he voiced it respectfully.  I also think that there are a dozen or so people in this forum that could probably help him squeeze far more out of FSX than he is...  I'll leave that to all of you to sort out- but in the mean time please continue to treat one another respectfully...

[Tabs 2,790]

Robert has a valid opinion- and I think he voiced it respectfully.  I also think that there are a dozen or so people in this forum that could probably help him squeeze far more out of FSX than he is...  I'll leave that to all of you to sort out- but in the mean time please continue to treat one another respectfully...

 

If he'll take me up on the offer, I'd be glad to try my hand over TeamViewer at finding better settings on his machine that might alleviate what he's seeing.

[tttocs 301]

 

 

It's not brutal, it's the raw truth.
The OP said PMDG needs to "wake up" and he also mentioned that companies aren't taking OOM into consideration when designing complex addons.

 

AJ, please read the rest of my post.  I obviously agree that PMDG doesn't need to "wake up".  But a gentle nudge in the right direction is better than a whack over the head in most cases.  Robert has a real issue that many others have been able to mitigate.  Seems like helping him see that is the best course.

 

Respectfully,

 

Scott

[shamrockflyer 647]

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.

I run with water settings at the lowest. Scenery around medium-high and weather around the medium mark. I don't use FSX just to fly around and look at the scenery all day, I mainly do over-water operations and some over-land ops and stay in the flight deck for the duration of my flights. Therefor having scenery such as Orbx really isn't of any use to me. I try to keep unnecessary items out of FSX to reduce the amount of performance issues and to keep those CTD's away.  Weather is the second most important thing to have, as flying with the basic default clouds and weather is just plain boring. I also use Shade (forget the developer) but its a real nice tool to have and I've had some frame rate gain from it too. I would recommend it to you if you haven't got it already! I use UT2 also with traffic at about 75%, still get neat frames around UT2.

[bob34 124]

I think he should hand his machine over to me for a year of intense testing. Spinny-thingy drives ® and all.

[FIVE-BY-FIVE 453]

What exactly does PMDG need to wake up to?

modern sims, 64bit sims, the future.  FSX is old :lol:     P3D is a little better but it's a no go with PMDG :(

[rsrandazzo 6,353]

Bob-

 

Spinny-Thingy Drives®

 

Thank you for being respectful.  B)

[captainsazzman 83]

Gents-

 

A couple of thoughts:

 

Robert:  Your simming rig is better than the one I use for development, with the exception that I am running all SSDs instead of the old fashioned spinny-thingy drives.  (I'm trademarking that- nobody try to steal it!)  I had Ryan walk me through optimizing FSX and I haven't had an OOM since very early in the NGX development cycle.  (2010'ish)

 

i use the 777 every day- and my default testing location is at an OrbX airport surrounded by OrbX scenery.  I also bounce around to various FlightBeam and FSDT and Aerosoft sceneries just to make sure nothing bad happens...  It never does...

 

We put a tremendous amount of time and effort into making sure you get a seamless experience and I think it shows.  It does require that the user approach simming thoughtfully- you can't load something created by a developer that doesn't know what they are doing...   Most often when we help customers who are having trouble- we find it is the result of a lazy or inexperienced developer doing something that is KNOWN to create problems in FSX- and has nothing whatever to do with resource consumption.

 

 

P3D:  I keep seeing folks hope that we will "see the light" on P3D.  I think those folks should go back and read my statements on same.  We think P3D is going to be a great platform in the long term for our commercial and enterprise customers.  But because of P3Ds EULA we have no plans to offer "regular simmer" products on that platform.  I recognize that some of you are using P3D as a simming platform, but if you take a good close look at their EULA- you largely don't have that right- and as such they can turn you upside down one day if they decide to enforce their rights...   As such I think it would be irresponsible for us to sell you a simmer product on a commercial platform.  Some disagree, but...  We have a very expensive legal opinion on it- and I trust the lawyers in this case.  (And I don't like lawyers- so that is saying something!)

 

Xplane:  We are very hard at work on a product for Xplane- and our long term vision is to bring our entire FSX product catalog to play in Xplane...  Austin and his team are working hand-in-glove with us to make this happen...  but it isn't a big rush project because we have to take the time to learn the platform- and we are implementing some technologies to make Xplane an easier transition for our very large FSX customer base...  When we get there- you will see what I mean!

 

 

FSX vs. Xplane:  Thank you, gents- for not letting this devolve into a platform debate.  I think this conversation is sitting right on that rough edge- so I pleasantly remind you that we don't tolerate such debates here because it never means anything positive for the participants or others visiting this forum. 

 

Robert has a valid opinion- and I think he voiced it respectfully.  I also think that there are a dozen or so people in this forum that could probably help him squeeze far more out of FSX than he is...  I'll leave that to all of you to sort out- but in the mean time please continue to treat one another respectfully...

@rsrandazzo Great news sir to hear that you are trying hard to migrate to Xplane! I was considerably worried about what I will do with your AMAZING products when the great 'EXODUS' comes! Seems like tedious work though that will take a couple years (*cough*)  :ph34r:  and thankfully we have Laminar to help the (unfortunately) rapidly approaching 'TRANSITION'

 

In the meantime we can squeeze the last remaining years of life in FSX with other developers and you bringing new technologies to the table with Milviz, Enigmasim, Flightbeam , Aerosoft and Orbx to name a few!

 

I shall now withdraw to my man-cave and watch the T7 release unfold! :Whistle:  

[BilboBaggins 82]

The Great 32-bit/64-bit Memory Space Divide is far more complex a situation than most realize; as is multi-threading and parallelization.

 

Ableton Live 9 is a pretty sophisticated software system, and runs in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes, and yet the developers recommend sticking with 32-bit unless it has created an absolute limit on the number of tracks and software instruments you're using, one that you cannot get around (say by sampling/bouncing down/freezing some of what you've got going).

 

Bit of apples and oranges, I know, but just saying 64-bit is not some automagic cure for everything.

 

The only problem with FSX that I see is that it comes from an era of greater compute freedom, when you were willing to let the end user get themselves into trouble, instead of hand-holding them with restrictions that, sure, increase stability but also constrain the possibilities far more severely.

 

With FSX, it's up to you to learn and then manage the limits. Blindly turning it all up to 11 just blows a fuse eventually, as it always has.

 

[CaptKornDog 281]

I'm in a similar boat as the OP and can absolutely relate.  Not quite as modern of a system, certainly.  When I pieced my machine together 4 years ago, I had intended to make it my FSX machine and tried to spare almost no expense.  My machine just simply did not play nice with it.  The hours of tweaks, following guides, numerous clean reinstalls, trying to do it "right, by the book," wore on me and I've pretty much given up long ago.  Too many hours without much gain, and too many variables from one system to the next.  Hours I could have been spent flying another sim.  While certainly some revelations reduced the number of OOMs and CTDs I had, FSX simply became too unreliable, unstable, and clunky on my system.  Basically to the point where FS9 (high-sliders) looked almost as good as FSX (almost lowest-sliders that I had to use) on my system to run.  That, combined with some add-ons I still love never ported over and me being mostly a 2d-panel guy, and unfortunately most of my flying is still on FS9.  My FS9 NG, MD-11, and 1900d have a lot more mileage than my NGX or JS41 (still using them to date), though the NGX is a great aircraft.  Probably 90% with the other 10% split between XPX and FSX.

 

Would love to buy (and be able to use the 777).  The 777 is absolutely my favorite aircraft for too many reasons to count.  Even remember my first flight on one (UA, LAX-HNL on 1 Jan 2003, seat 16A in the domestic cabin config).

 

Call me old-fashioned and living in the dark ages I suppose.