Since I can't post this in the other thread, I'll post it here - FPS are not a problem with his product. The only issue is the OOM and the fact that the only real fix for it right now is to use DX10, which isn't a great "solution" for a lot of people. It should also be mentioned that there's actually a very extensive commercial product coming out soon that is set to patch a lot of the major DX10 issues in FSX, so this might make it worthwhile for people to start using DX10 (I'm certainly going to give it a go). An early version of this commercial product is actually included with the scenery.

 

Again, FPS is not an issue - in fact FPS are so good I think the developer over-optimized the scenery and hopefully will update with the option to increase LOD of buildings for people who want a better look to the city flying up-close in a helicopter. Flying past the Hudson in a plane or approaching KEWR, KJFK, KTEB and KLGA from a distance the city looks great, but sitting on the pad at the heliports the buildings look all smooshy and a bit deformed from the low LOD in effect. Also people have reported texture changing when LODs are changed in the distance takes 3-5 seconds to load showing blank buildings.

Do not buy this product.

 

OOM city, very poor, horribly optimized..

 

Such a shame..

does anybody know the actual amount that this addon takes up in VAS when flying over new york?  I don't own this yet, but just looking at the download size, and the fact that it's a very small geographic area,  it's easy to see that it might take up a lot of memory.  (Orbx areas and photoscenery are multi GB packages as well, but you aren't flying over all of it at once like NY)  dx10 would offload some of this to the GPU and video memory presumably, but not all of it.  anybody do any actual data?  

 

just don't want to see lots of users who might already have their VAS loaded with NGX, 4096 clouds etc... over reporting the memory issue.

does anybody know the actual amount that this addon takes up in VAS when flying over new york?

 

Due to the fact of sloppy LOD and horrible texture optimization, people said they were oom'ing with default aircraft. So I would imagine it's atleast over 3GB.

 

 

I don't own this yet, but just looking at the download size, and the fact that it's a very small geographic area

 

Do you know how many buildings are in New York?

 

 

Due to the fact of sloppy LOD and horrible texture optimization, people said they were oom'ing with default aircraft. So I would imagine it's atleast over 3GB.

 

well, that's imagination based on anecdotal evidence, and it doesn't answer what exactly is the VAS hit of the scenery.  I can imagine lots of things, I was wondering if anybody knows the actual answer.

 

Do you know how many buildings are in New York?

 

 

the exact number? no.  I would hazard a guess that you don't either, but there are absolutely a S*#t-ton of buildings in NYC.  not sure what that has to do with anything?  Look you're obviously cheesed because you spent 25 euros on software you can't use well, and I understand that.  I haven't spent any money on it, and that gives me the luxury to be a bit more reasonable when asking questions.  I'm interested in the software, kinda.  I already run dx10, and interested in knowing what the VAS hit is.  if the vas hit is essentially the download size, I would say that the developers were smoking something when they thought this would work.  If it isn't, if it's less, then they have probably done a good job coding, and we need to see how else it could be made better.

Just curious, does anyone know what happened to my original post?  I hope I haven't done anything wrong.

 

Since I can't post this in the other thread, I'll post it here - 

Due to the fact of sloppy LOD and horrible texture optimization, people said they were oom'ing with default aircraft. So I would imagine it's atleast over 3GB.

 

 I don't think there's anything so wrong with optimization, simply too many buildings. 6100 custom photoreal buildings packed inside small area is obviously going to eat a lot of memory no matter how well you try to optimize it... After all it's like more than 2x the buildings in Aerosoft US cities products. 

 

 

 

Just curious, does anyone know what happened to my original post?  I hope I haven't done anything wrong.

 

 

 

If you mean the other thread it got locked and possibly also deleted after it was filled with some quite inappropriate stuff by some angry raging user.

 

 

 

 

 

If you mean the other thread it got locked and possibly also deleted after it was filled with some quite inappropriate stuff by some angry raging user.

Ah right, thanks, should've guessed.

Quote "If you mean the other thread it got locked and possibly also deleted after it was filled with some quite inappropriate stuff by some angry raging user."

 

Hate to state the obvious but maintaining civility is a must if only because members seeking answers to "how is this scenery" will not get information if the threads are locked or deleted. (not to mention common manners and decencies.)

 

Back to the Scenery

From what I have read so far it appears that this scenery is a memory hog somewhat alleviated by using DX10 - however, what remains a mystery to me is whether 8 Gigs of Ram and Win 64bit  (and having a 2gig Ram GTX770 video card) would make any difference or we all once again be trapped by FSX 32bit structure -  end of story?

 

This to me is the crux of the matter.

 

 

we all once again be trapped by FSX 32bit structure -  end of story?

 

Bingo. We could have 32GB of RAM and it would not help.

Yep. :(

 

This is possibly an unfortunate lesson (for buyers and for the developer), that FSX has a very finite limit in what it can do, due to it's 32 bit nature  - regardless how powerful the hardware we're running it on.

 

I suspect this software - as stunning as it looks in the screenies - surpasses that 'limit'.

 

 

does anybody know the actual amount that this addon takes up in VAS when flying over new york?

 

I asked a similar question in the other thread, just as it got diverted.  Is this truly a hog (and could potentially be optimized to improve), or is it just the straw that finally puts things over the edge in an area that already stresses memory requirements.  Or something in between.  I was hoping someone with the software would fire up Process Explorer and take a bit of a closer look.

 

 

 

however, what remains a mystery to me is whether 8 Gigs of Ram and Win 64bit (and having a 2gig Ram GTX770 video card) would make any difference or we all once again be trapped by FSX 32bit structure - end of story?

 

The addressable virtual memory limitation of 4G for large address aware 32-bit apps like FSX running on 64-bit Windows is a hard limit, regardless of how much physical memory is installed.

 

Scott

 

 

I asked a similar question in the other thread, just as it got diverted. Is this truly a hog (and could potentially be optimized to improve), or is it just the straw that finally puts things over the edge in an area that already stresses memory requirements. Or something in between. I was hoping someone with the software would fire up Process Explorer and take a bit of a closer look.

 

Would the fact that it runs (at least somewhat) with DX10 mean that it is not the 4 gig limit?

 

 

Would the fact that it runs (at least somewhat) with DX10 mean that it is not the 4 gig limit?

 

The theory is, DX9 requires mirroring of VRAM into an application's VAS which DX10 eliminates, thus freeing up a bit of VAS.  When I looked at this a while back, I found that a Windows patch done long ago (Vista time frame) was supposed to address this issue for legacy DirectX (9 and earlier), but there's at least some evidence that this isn't 100% the case, as DX10 does seem to help as people get close to the limit.

 

In direct testing with Process Explorer, I saw cases where FSX running DX10 actually used more VAS in equivalent test scenarios than DX9 did, but that may (must?) change as things get bigger.  I never tried setting up a scenario that came closer to the VAS limits.

 

Scott

By VAS (excuse my ignorance) I assume you mean Virtual address space?

 

This virtual address space has nothing to do with the virtual memory setting in the Advanced system settings does it?

 

I mean setting this to 1.5 times the addressable physical ram would not make any difference right? (And anyway, as per the AVSIM tuning guide PDF they actually recommend downsizing the Virtual ram to 3072 if you have 8 Gigs of ram.