FSLabs Concorde X - still OOM plane?

[Ultor 3]

I heard three years ago when this plane was released, there was an out of memory bug quite often present. However since that time two service packs were released so I wonder if Concorde-X's memory management within FSX improved now? 

[gman1986 14]

You definitely need to adjust your FSX settings to accommodate this add-on with any machine. It's funny because I never used to get OOM with the ConcordeX, even when I used to run an high settings. But now I simply can't.

[g_precentralis 191]

I have never experienced OOM with ConcX

[gman1986 14]

What settings do you run at?

[lodestar 186]

All settings maxed out except traffic, never had OOM. I have:

 

- microsoft fix applied http://support.microsoft.com/kb/947246

 

- Texture max load limited in fsx.CFG to 2048

 

-all payware scenery disabled in scenery library. I use sceneryconfigeditor to enable only scenery which i need for next flight, every time before i start FSX  https://www.dropbox.com/s/mikr1t69emo781i/SceneryConfigEditor-installer-1.1.1.exe

[gman1986 14]

I actually done some VAS testing the other day and found that having FSDT KJFK V2 on only added 100 onto the VAS whereas UTX added about 500. Do you have UTX and do you disable that also?

[Ultor 3]

I am especially worried because I still use 32-bit Windows version for some other reasons with 4 GB of RAM. That's why I am not sure if Concorde X will run on my rig at all. Anyway thanks for your input. In the airliners area I consider three products to be able to fully diverse my flying experience: FSLabs Concorde X, A2A Boeing 377 and jet from pre-FMS era like Coolsky DC-9-30 or MilWiz Boeing 737-200.

[CoolP 283]

Nah, 'oom plane' sounds a bit harsh. She's indeed very demanding on the memory, perhaps due to the tons of 2D windows (being necessary). Same as for some of you, I have to watch my settings to allow for the coexistence of that beautiful Concorde and some nice scenery. Means, yes, I had ooms from time to time. For example, Orbx Brisbane comes to my mind. :blush:

 

I could be totally wrong but I don't think the service packs addressed oom issues. If I understood the devs correctly, there isn't much you can do with the plane when it comes to keeping the level of optical detail, clickspots and the mentioned 2D panels. Optimizing would mean cutting right through her.

 

If one would be constantly haunted by ooms, perhaps a manual edit of 2D windows (backup first, especially the panel.cfg) would allow for dropping the ones which aren't needed for your flying style. But that's a huge guess of mine. I'm on standard config, normal texture size and rather low-ish FSX settings when e.g. flying to Aerosoft's Anchorage or the New York area or SFO.

 

In my lineup, the only planes being somehow sensible to memory related exhaustion are the Concorde X and NGX. So you gotta watch every 'X' as it seems. :lol:

 

On the more scientific side, the tip from Zeljko is a very good one. Don't enable too much scenery. Only the parts you are flying to, perhaps some favourite alternates in between. FSX does seem to collect a lot of memory items enroute, so the dreaded oom scenario may then take place when you have the most fun, at the landing. :mellow:

[Ultor 3]

OK, but why dozens of 2D panels are needed in Concorde X? Is its VC cockpit so inaccurate or non-operational it is impossible to operate switches, gauges etc.directly in VC?

[g_precentralis 191]

The VC engineer panel is just a mock up, and you have to use 2d panels to operate it. Other than that, VC is fully functional. Unfortunately, if they made full working VC engineer panel, that would kill fps - simply too much gauges and switches.

[CoolP 283]

Is its VC cockpit so inaccurate or non-operational it is impossible to operate switches, gauges etc.directly in VC?

You are right, the way I wrote it, one could think that.  :blush:  So I have to add how she works in terms of the 2D usage. You have the full 'front' VC with additional windows available for popups or in case you would want to fly with only the 2D cockpit. So that's like on some other planes too. Fully featured setup.

 

But the engineering panel is the one causing a lot of work on 2D panels as the VC representation is more or less static and when you e.g. click the spot for the overwhelming fuel panel, that one pops up in full detail. Same for the other various panels, referring to their systems. It's all simulated, so there really is a lot.

 

If I got them (the devs) right, they couldn't model the engineering panel in the 3D VC as the normal 'front' VC already is that detailed. Tons of analogue gauges and knobs, all working and being clickable. So you have some windows you can avoid when using the VC only, but you have others (engineering) which can't be avoided unless you are using the automated flight engineer to e.g. work on the pressurization and fuel for you. That's what I meant with 'in regard to your flying style'. The ones working the Concorde on their own can't leave out that many 2D panels. And each opening of such sub panels adds to the memory load of FSX.

 

Edited. g_precentralis was quicker. :smile:

[Ultor 3]

OK, so assuming I fly in VC with help of virtual flight engineer there is no necessity to pop-up so many 2D panels which crash FSX memory management?

[CoolP 283]

Yes, we may assume that. If you would really stay away from using e.g. the fuel panel, you would save the memory impact. But lets not forget what others and I reported. Which is, you can fly her in full without any oom if you keep an eye on your settings and the active scenery.

 

/ sent from a mobile device tracking my whole life for no reason /

 

 

[Ultor 3]

Well, buying Concorde X is a bit risky move from "OOM standpoint"... :wacko:

[CoolP 283]

Then switch to the Concorde viewpoint immediately. Seriously, I can understand your concerns. I think Aerosoft sells a box version, maybe they offer refunds too. I have the pure FSL download.

 

/ sent from a mobile device tracking my whole life for no reason /