Out Of Memory

[eclipz 14]

Not that I noticed.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

 

 

I am. :mellow:

 

Challenge: prove me wrong.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

Challenge: prove you're right.

 

Thing is, 2 different CPUs sold at different clock speeds are the same. The faster one is just sort of overclocked compared to the slower one. The slower one is just there to generate availability of a cheaper product or because quality control determined this particular CPU doesn't overclock well. Even comparing i3 & i7 they can be the same CPUs but with 2 cores deactivated for the i3 (again, to provide a lower-end product or because a core is not functioning as it should). Same goes for the i5 and the cache quantity. Determination is done at the end of the production process.

 

Every CPU as a different potential because the production process is not perfect and generates differences. So, technically, overclock is what Intel does. They don't sell faster products for different reasons :

- production process is not good enough to provide enough quantity of faster CPUs

- higher frequency generates to much heat or power consumption that can be judged as inacceptable

- higher frequency doesn't leave much room for turboboost (which is, by the way, an overclocking)

- marketing purposes

 

Considering all this, overclocking is not bad IF you can dissipate heat correctly and IF you provide enough power. Sure, if you let your CPU burn or if you don't feed it with enough power, the overclock will arm the CPU or be unstable... But tests (Pi calculation is an example) & probes exist for this very reason. Same kind of tests exist for RAM & GPU overclocks. It allows you to detect errors & unstable overclocks.

In the end, every CPU has its own limit, it's not set in stone. Some CPUs are pretty much stuck at their stock speed, some perform better.

 

Hashwell is showing this perfectly.

Heat is rapidly increasing as you overclock... That's one limit

And, for example, if you take a sample of several i74770k, some won't go past 4GHz, some will do 4.5 easily. Same chip, same production process, different results, different potentials.

[Scott434 12]

Let me explain my FSX settings again.

 

I am a very experienced FSX user, I know what kind of tweaks influence what, how and when. I am running my fsx.CFG tweaked by the Venetubo website. The only tweak I've added under BufferPools is the setting PoolSize=0. This is a tweak I will never fly without because it increases performance by at least 30%. I have been running this fsx.CFG for a long long time, and haven't done an FSX reinstall in ages. 

 

In FSX, resolution is set to 1080p, aircraft shadows are disabled, scenery is maxed out with water on HIGH2X and ground scenery shadows disabled. Clouw draw distance is set to 80 nm and cloud coverage is set to maximum. All, I repeat ALL AI traffic is disabled at all times.

 

For the rest in my fsx.CFG, TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=1024 (never use 4096), LOD_RADIUS=4.5 (default). For the rest, no other tweaks have been made. 

 

Before I bought the 777, I wanted to make sure my FSX was stable. So I did over 20 flights in the NGX without a SINGLE issue. I did both long and short hauls, into small and big detailed airports, all of them were flown on IVAO. NEVER HAD AN OOM, NEVER HAVE I HAD AN OOM BEFORE IN FSX.

 

I bought the 777, and immediately on my first flight, I could hear the bells sounding the background when landing into Aerosoft LFPG. 

 

If my FSX worked so well before, and I am suddenly experiencing an OOM with the PMDG 777, then the problem can't be anything else than PMDG 777 related. It might not be the MAIN cause, but it might be the straw that breaks the camel's back. 

Note: when I did this flight I where I experienced an OOM, I actually used a CLEAN fsx.CFG with HIGHMEMFIX=1 and PoolSize=0 because I wanted to experiment with performance! 

 

 

I believe you when you say "NEVER HAD AN OOM, NEVER HAVE I HAD AN OOM BEFORE IN FSX". I believe you when you say "I am a very experienced FSX user, I know what kind of tweaks influence what, how and when." BUT ...

 

You are comparing apples to oranges - or in this case NGX to 777X. And you are making the assumption that both are the same and then concluding that the results should be the same. But they are not! The evidence being that the result is not the same with the same platform. We all agree that the 777X has a different memory "foot print" than the NGX. Different meaning different and not necessarily for the worse. It might very well be that the 777X has a slightly larger memory foot print and it might very well need and deserve it. But that is not the issue.

 

FSX has a FINITE capacity. We are piling on crazy amounts of very large and complex scenery, aircraft, mesh, traffic, weather, clouds, ancillary add-ons etc.  With the faster hardware we turn the sliders/options up where as before, if we did that, we would have a low FPS so we compromised and turned things down until we obtained acceptable results. So, we have faster hardware that can handle more and more load, we have increasingly bigger and more complex add-ons and what has remained the same? FSX's memory usage limit (size) and scenery management capability (or lack thereof.)

 

If you are a FSX "Power User", we are at a point that we simply cannot continue to load FSX with EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE EVERY-TIME. We need to make some budgetary memory based priority decisions. Everyones' priorities will be different. Some like airports, some like traffic and some like lots of cars on the roads. Some fly the default aircraft with killer maxed scenery. If we want it all but cannot have it all (OOMs) then we need to take steps to arrive at a working compromise.

 

The 777X Introduction Manual (Pages 021-025) addresses this EXACT issue by pointing to memory usage tools to empower the FSX "Power abUser" to make informed decisions regarding the level of detail/sliders/traffic/LOD etc. which is acceptable for ones own priorities so that OOMs do not happen.

 

It might be that the 777X needs a larger memory footprint then the NGX. In a couple of years we might be having the same discussion that the PMDG 787X has a larger memory footprint than the 777X. The same solution will apply and that is to manage your finite memory usage by turning things down a notch to allow a stable no OOM FSX. Until another platform comes along, this is today's FSX REALITY.

 

My own personal priority is to fly "real" aircraft and therefore scenery and airport eye candy are secondary. I would always trade more aircraft for less scenery and that is exactly what I do and what needs to be done.

 

So in conclusion, IF PMDG eventually find an optimization for lowering the 777X memory foot print then that is great and a bonus. If PMDG cannot do so without compromising the depth/detail and fidelity of the 777X then my vote would be not to do so and I/we can simply turn things down a notch and enjoy the 777X in all its glory. It is a wonderful joy to just be in the cockpit and absorb and appreciate the lengths that PMDG have gone to, which, of course has NOTHING to do with how many cars are on the roads or how many boats are at the local marina below.

[SimonC 116]

I for one am also experiencing OOMs on some longer flights that were successful previously with NGX (the hardest aircraft when it comes to memory footprint).

I will agree with Scott Ball, I like all the bells and whistles T7 has, but FSX being limited as it is, we don't have unlimited space. We can't have developers making us super-detailed aircraft when we can't fit them into a normal FSX environment. Yes, running it in a naked FSX environment is doable, but who of us has that?

And if talking numbers, we are talking some 300mb more with T7. That is a lot considering FSX limit is 4000.

[777simmer 117]

I believe you when you say "NEVER HAD AN OOM, NEVER HAVE I HAD AN OOM BEFORE IN FSX". I believe you when you say "I am a very experienced FSX user, I know what kind of tweaks influence what, how and when." BUT ...

 

You are comparing apples to oranges - or in this case NGX to 777X. And you are making the assumption that both are the same and then concluding that the results should be the same.

You know, I get what you are saying.

But if you start the same flight twice.

Once with the 737 and once with the 777.

And you notice VAS at the beginning of the flight....lets say FSX with the 737 is using 3.0GB and FSX with the 777 is also 3.0GB.

 

If when flying for 3 hours or so the 737 is still well below 4.0GB but the 777 OOMs out.....would that then not indicate a problem with the 777?

Don't know yet, that's why I'm parked watching the sun rise

Please let us know what visual effects this had!

Interesting comment, Robin. I make most of my VFR flights at dawn, because (IMO) that is when FSX looks its best. I will try that DAWN_DUSK_SMOOTHING=0 trick, and see what happens.

Please let us know what the visual effect of this is!

[Scott434 12]

I for one am also experiencing OOMs on some longer flights that were successful previously with NGX (the hardest aircraft when it comes to memory footprint).

I will agree with Scott Ball, I like all the bells and whistles T7 has, but FSX being limited as it is, we don't have unlimited space. We can't have developers making us super-detailed aircraft when we can't fit them into a normal FSX environment. Yes, running it in a naked FSX environment is doable, but who of us has that?

And if talking numbers, we are talking some 300mb more with T7. That is a lot considering FSX limit is 4000.

 

I am not saying what your post implies. I am saying we need to choose our FSX priorities and mine is aircraft and I DO want developers to make us super-detailed aircraft where I decide what my FSX "normal" is by tuning down the ancillary add-ons if I have/want to.

 

Most scenery developers offer an ability to reduce the memory footprint of their products. I am too new to the 777X to know if PMDG offer the ability to do this on the 777X but if they cannot do so without compromising the depth and detail of the 777X that is ok, and something else gets turned down and not the level of the aircraft simulation.

 

"Yes, running it in a naked FSX environment is doable, but who of us has that?" Not naked but optimized to suit your own FSX priorities. The point is you are going to have to sooner or later since FSX is not changing and all developers are packing in the detail and expanding scope of their products so that they are the biggest and best ...

 

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Keep piling on a finite old and tired FSX platform with ever expanding number of ever expanding add-ons and expecting it to perform the same is "_____" no?

[Peacedivision 4]

Well I watched the night/dawn/day transition with smoothing=0 and it seemed normal to me. ground tiles switched from night to day as the sun came up, about a minute later ai and airport textures switched to day.  Seemed like it always has.

[lodestar 186]

I tried DAWN_DUSK_SMOOTHING=0, no difference on my sim. 777 on FSDT CYVR, FSX set to day, fair weather - 2.5GB in both cases(DAWN_DUSK_SMOOTHING=0 and to 1). Measured with process explorer

[alepro21 154]

I will agree with Scott Ball, I like all the bells and whistles T7 has, but FSX being limited as it is, we don't have unlimited space. We can't have developers making us super-detailed aircraft when we can't fit them into a normal FSX environment. Yes, running it in a naked FSX environment is doable, but who of us has that?

And if talking numbers, we are talking some 300mb more with T7. That is a lot considering FSX limit is 4000.

+1

 

Had I known that the 777 had an even higher memory footprint then the NGX I would have held on to my $90 for a little longer to see how this issue plays out.

 

I followed the development updates by PMDG and the beta testers statements after the NDA was lifted, and all I heard was people telling us that the 777 would not be worse then the NGX in regards to system load. Now that appears to be not the case.

 

We all know that FSX has its limitations and we all need to live with them. I'm hoping PMDG will give us some tools to reduce the 777 eye candy (such as cabin interior visible in external view and so on) to bring the 777 back into line with the NGX.

 

This is an ongoing trend (look at FSDT Vancouver, FSLabs Concord, that new NYC scenery that was released a few weeks ago and so on).

Dear devs: you don't always have to build bigger/better/more detailed. I would have been happy with a Vancouver scenery at the same level of LAX. And I also would have been happy with a 777 at the level of the NGX. While we're stuck with FSX we have to respect that we have now reached the bounds of that platform. I'm not likely to spend any more money on add-ons that I can only use when I disable virtually everything else (given that I am already using very conservative settings: LOD@4.5, clouds at 1024 and not BMPs, water and autogen at about mid level, and very little traffic).

[ArjenVdv 190]

 

 

You are comparing apples to oranges - or in this case NGX to 777X. And you are making the assumption that both are the same and then concluding that the results should be the same. But they are not! The evidence being that the result is not the same with the same platform. We all agree that the 777X has a different memory "foot print" than the NGX. Different meaning different and not necessarily for the worse. It might very well be that the 777X has a slightly larger memory foot print and it might very well need and deserve it. But that is not the issue.

I am not thinking the NGX and 777X are the same, my whole point is that they should be the same in terms of VAS usage. This is what all customers would expect, and not all us have the time to start tweaking FSX - once again - for a new product install. I expected a similar VAS usage the NGX, even if that comes at the cost of eye candy.

[Scott434 12]

You know, I get what you are saying.

But if you start the same flight twice.

Once with the 737 and once with the 777.

And you notice VAS at the beginning of the flight....lets say FSX with the 737 is using 3.0GB and FSX with the 777 is also 3.0GB.

 

If when flying for 3 hours or so the 737 is still well below 4.0GB but the 777 OOMs out.....would that then not indicate a problem with the 777?

 

Please let us know what visual effects this had!

 

Please let us know what the visual effect of this is!

 

No and not necessarily. You are assuming that the conditions (weather, traffic, exact scenery location etc) are exactly the same 3 hours later in two DIFFERENT FSX sessions. And you are assuming that the 737 AND the 777 are the same. This is unlikely so therefore it hard to arrive at the conclusion that the 777 IS the problem. It might be that the 777 does have a problem or it might be that it has a slightly larger memory footprint which just pushed things over the edge memory wise that are very particular to your unique FSX add-on combination and set up.

 

I can at will, set up my FSX to yield OOMs both with the NGX and the 777X. But I choose not to. I have noticed that I have to tune down my FSX a bit more with the 777X. But I still fly into FSDT's CYVR with ORBX with the 777X and with no OOMs.

 

Many many many 777X users and a large extensive beta team do not have OOMs. I HIGHLY doubt PMDG would release an aircraft that "all of a sudden" developed OOM problems.

 

In the end, there may be an opportunity for PMDG to optimize the 777X a bit and that may reduce OOMs somewhat but in the end it is only a matter of time until the FSX abUser cranks up the sliders/settings again with the next complex add-on and the entire discussion/cycle starts again.

[alepro21 154]

But I still fly into FSDT's CYVR with ORBX with the 777X and with no OOMs.

 

 

I would really appreciate if you could share your settings for this particular scenario. Are you running any AI traffic?

[Scott434 12]

 

I am not thinking the NGX and 777X are the same, my whole point is that they should be the same in terms of VAS usage. This is what all customers would expect, and not all us have the time to start tweaking FSX - once again - for a new product install. I expected a similar VAS usage the NGX, even if that comes at the cost of eye candy.

 

Should of, would of could of ...

 

They "SHOULD" be the same????? Why should they be and who guaranteed they would be?

 

Until the NGX and 777X are similar (if ever), turn down a slider/setting or three ( a 10 second adjustment) and fly without OOMs. Or, continue flying with the same setup and endure the OOM frustrations. Choice is pretty clear to me.

+1

 

Had I known that the 777 had an even higher memory footprint then the NGX I would have held on to my $90 for a little longer to see how this issue plays out.

 

I followed the development updates by PMDG and the beta testers statements after the NDA was lifted, and all I heard was people telling us that the 777 would not be worse then the NGX in regards to system load. Now that appears to be not the case.

 

We all know that FSX has its limitations and we all need to live with them. I'm hoping PMDG will give us some tools to reduce the 777 eye candy (such as cabin interior visible in external view and so on) to bring the 777 back into line with the NGX.

 

This is an ongoing trend (look at FSDT Vancouver, FSLabs Concord, that new NYC scenery that was released a few weeks ago and so on).

Dear devs: you don't always have to build bigger/better/more detailed. I would have been happy with a Vancouver scenery at the same level of LAX. And I also would have been happy with a 777 at the level of the NGX. While we're stuck with FSX we have to respect that we have now reached the bounds of that platform. I'm not likely to spend any more money on add-ons that I can only use when I disable virtually everything else (given that I am already using very conservative settings: LOD@4.5, clouds at 1024 and not BMPs, water and autogen at about mid level, and very little traffic).

 

You do realize that YOU CAN tune down things and DO NOT have to run the full Monty. You are still the master of your own FSX destiny. 

 

It IS very possible to enjoy the 777X as is released today (and possibly optimized down the road) with a ton of other scenery and add-ons. Just not 2 tons.

 

Of course developers are going strive for the biggest and the best that is the reality. It is up to the FSX abUser to decide what and how much they are going to utilize to arrive at a working and reliable FSX platform.

[Brian_A_Neuman 198]

Has anyone found that if you reduce autogen, texture load and disabling scenery that you are not using will actually stop the OOM issues? I certainly will reduce autogen as I really only see it when departing or landing. My OOM (if that's what my problem is) only has happened at KLAX (FSDT).

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[ArjenVdv 190]

 

 

Should of, would of could of ...
 
They "SHOULD" be the same????? Why should they be and who guaranteed they would be?
 
Until the NGX and 777X are similar (if ever), turn down a slider/setting or three ( a 10 second adjustment) and fly without OOMs. Or, continue flying with the same setup and endure the OOM frustrations. Choice is pretty clear to me.

Scott, why do you keep misunderstanding every single post? With "should" I don't simply mean: PMDG creates the 777 and it should by default simply have the same VAS usage as the NGX.  No I mean, PMDG creates the 777 and SHOULD tweak it so that its VAS usage will become on par with the NGX more or less, even if that means we'll lose detail.

Of course, you can play with sliders. But I'm living in 2013, I have sorta gotten tired or constantly playing with settings. When I bought the 777 from PMDG, I expected them to have tweaked the VAS usage so it's on par with the NGX, simple. I'd rather have slightly lower detail in my cockpit and the same detail in my scenery as I had before, than I have to keep playing with sliders all the time.

[HighTowers 1,436]

Has anyone seen my post #138?   Im in the middle of nowhere and the 777 in congo is 1.7gb. The previous pic tells you the difference. Its at or very close to the NGX. What are you looking to be optimized from the 777?  You dont think PMDG spent a great deal of time to optimize this as best as possible without compromising too much? They are very well aware of the VAS and limitations, thats why Ryan went into great deal with it in the intro. 

 

The NGX and the 777 are practically the same for VAS usage. Use the combinations of your addons wisely. LOD is a big factor as it is applied too everything in use or will be used.