Hi,

 

i wrote this question already in another thread, but i think this topic gets more and more important.

 

FPS seem to be not the main concern with the PCs getting more and more powerful. However, the VS 4GB limit of the 32bit application FSX is a hard limit and therefore a real rpoblem when using a combination of high end payware addons, as maybe 95% of the simmers use nowadays. Of course, you have always to balance performance and visual - but who really wants to fly a vanila FSX today?

 

So my question is fairly easy - what ist the VAS of the 777 in comparison to the NGX (i guess the 737 took about 700mb). Did any Beta-Tester experienced any OOMs . if so when, where and what products where used.

 

I asked these questions already several times, one time even Ryann personally, and Im sure PMDG considered this while developing the 777X.

 

There is hardly anything worse than flying 10hours and then getting a OOM whil being on final - i think everybody agrees with me who experienced such an event....

and that's when it happens

Cheers,

Don

Hi,

 

i wrote this question already in another thread, but i think this topic gets more and more important.

 

FPS seem to be not the main concern with the PCs getting more and more powerful. However, the VS 4GB limit of the 32bit application FSX is a hard limit and therefore a real rpoblem when using a combination of high end payware addons, as maybe 95% of the simmers use nowadays. Of course, you have always to balance performance and visual - but who really wants to fly a vanila FSX today?

 

So my question is fairly easy - what ist the VAS of the 777 in comparison to the NGX (i guess the 737 took about 700mb). Did any Beta-Tester experienced any OOMs . if so when, where and what products where used.

 

I asked these questions already several times, one time even Ryann personally, and Im sure PMDG considered this while developing the 777X.

 

There is hardly anything worse than flying 10hours and then getting a OOM whil being on final - i think everybody agrees with me who experienced such an event....

Don't have the post here but I remember seeing somewhere it's slightly higher than 737NGX I guess it was about 50MB. But better placed people will surely answer.

Here's what Ryan posted a couple days ago when someone else asked about VAS when compared to the NGX

 

 

jetsflier, on 04 Aug 2013 - 04:07 AM, said:

The 777X has less polygons due to it's lighter design [this is entirely realistic however.]

 

I think there would be less VAS usage due to this. Optimization techniques that have saved FPS should also save VAS.

 

"Careful there - VAS isn't just about polygons and textures. While the VC is less "busy" and whatnot than the NGX, the 777 systems are a lot more complicated, particularly the ECL and EICAS systems. There's a lot more variables that are being stored in memory and referenced etc and that increases VAS. I tested this extensively and found that it's slightly above the NGX, but not ridiculously so. The NGX will show for instance 750MB of use, and the 777 will show 800MB - it's not a big deal and it's going to fluctate around that 750-850 range most likely."