VAS usage = 1.1 GB+?

[Guest]

2+hr test with RAASPro, no issues, same VAS around 3.0-3.1 GB ... so it's not FSUIPC, not RAASPro, and not 777.

 

Hmmm...I'm not finding it yet ... I'm wondering if the issue was the FSX bug with loading Aircraft (i.e. need to switch a default FSX AC, then switch to the PMDG AC?

 

Still some more testing I can do, I'm determine to find the memory leakage cause, it's just to important to not know.  Will report back later.

 

 

 

LOD 6.5 will murder the VAS, I'm running 4.5 which is the default FSX max

 

Thanks Ryan, I'll check LOD settings also (along with textures).

[777simmer 117]

Just did a 2 hour test with FSUIPC v4.91 with FSWideClient enabled, about the same, stabilized around 3-3.1GB VAS usage ... so it does NOT appear to be FSUIPC causing the problem.

 

Going to enable RAASPro now and do another 2+ hr test.

 

 

 

 

Thank you for the input, could you share you LOD and Max Texture settings?  I'm currently running at LOD = 6.5 and Texture at 1024 with REX textures at 1024.  FYI, I'm running 2560 x 1600 resolution in DX10 with Steve's fixes.

 

Rob.

Hi,

 

You are running DX10.

 

The manual says DX10 is not supported.

Could that be the problem?

[steve inwood 67]

Scott, this wasn't "marketing speak". I personally ran the tests that produced the figures we printed - I will show you screenshots if you want, but I hope you can trust me that it is what I saw and not some attempt to deceive anyone. I spent a lot of time writing that section of the manual.

I have ran tests and many flights. Ryan is correct what you read in the manual is spot on. If i disable the scenery that im not going to be using for my planned flights i do not! get OOM

[Guest]

 

 

The manual says DX10 is not supported.
Could that be the problem?

 

I've been running DX10 this entire test period, since I've been able to stop the memory leak and still using DX10, then DX10 can't be the problem.

 

I think I've narrowed the memory leak down ... it has something to do with the FSX bug where two versions of the PMDG aircraft get loaded.  See my thread here:

 

In every test after I noticed the memory leak, I do this process now:

1.  Start with FSX Default C172

2.  Switch to a PMDG 777 House

3.  Switch back to C172

4.  Switch to PMDG 777 Delta

 

I've successfully added all my key Add-On back and moved REX up to 2048 with LOD 6.5 and I'm still around 3.1GB  VAS usage, which is fine, plenty of headroom for weather and airports and longish (2hr) flights.

 

Just want to be clear VAS isn't the problem, I was getting a memory leak that would consume all my VAS.  This process is to identify that memory leak.

[lodestar 186]

The Ryan's last numbers are correct, i see arround 2,800,000KB in process explorer when i load 777. On my system it seems that was a problem with addon airport HD textures only, it was the first time for me to hear FSUIPC VAS alert I lowered Airport resolution and tried same flight 2 more times without problems

[777simmer 117]

 

I've been running DX10 this entire test period, since I've been able to stop the memory leak and still using DX10, then DX10 can't be the problem.

 

Just want to be clear VAS isn't the problem, I was getting a memory leak that would consume all my VAS.  This process is to identify that memory leak.

You know, that sounds logical.

The only problem with that is, that if there is one thing I have learned about FSX and PC problems in general, is that very often they are not logical!

 

Just because you prevent the memory leak from happening now, does not mean DX10 is not doing something in the background that causes this anyway.

Or maybe one of the fixes you have put in to make DX10 work.

As they say, fixes and tweaks fix something here....and mess up something there, and sometimes this does not show for a long time, untill the right conditions are met.

 

By no means am I trying to convince you not to use DX10!

Neither do I want to start a discussion about DX10 being good or not.

I like the progress that has been made with DX10, but thus far I am happy with DX9.

 

The thing is, in my opinion, when you have problems you should first go back to basics.

That means, no overclock, a clean .cfg file, and no DX10.

This way we are all on the same page and are not gessing what is wrong, deinstalling things, putting tweaks in, etc etc while in the mean time you have for instance a corrupt overclock.

(I am not saying that is what you have....does not look to be the case)

 

I am just saying that if I was using DX10 I would try what happened by switching back to DX9.

 

 

Can you post a link to the tread you referred to please (two versions of the PMDG being loaded)?

I never heard of that (unless you mean not to manually load the same PMDG model onto itself) and would like to read about that.

[Guest]

The only problem with that is, that if there is one thing I have learned about FSX and PC problems in general, is that very often they are not logical!

 

I can assure you that computers are very logical, they can be nothing more than states of 1 or 0.

 

 

 

Just because you prevent the memory leak from happening now, does not mean DX10 is not doing something in the background that causes this anyway.

 

This does not sound like solid reasoning, it sounds more like a DX9 bias.  So why can't you or I say the same about DX9?

 

 

 

The thing is, in my opinion, when you have problems you should first go back to basics.

 

Agree, and I progressively did start going back to the basics and eliminating variables.  During that process I was able to no longer get a VAS memory leak without having to reduce overclocking or switching back to DX9 or re-installing my OS or re-installing FSX from scratch.  I think my process was reasonably efficient ... if I had to re-install my OS and/or FSX (aka going back to the basics) that would be a 3-4 week process for me ... but I was able to identify (close enough for me) the problem without doing that.

 

 

 

I like the progress that has been made with DX10, but thus far I am happy with DX9.

 

Ok, but you really have nothing to fear of DX10, try it after Steve's Fixer app is available, I think you'll like it.

 

 

 

Can you post a link to the tread you referred to please (two versions of the PMDG being loaded)?

 

Yes, sorry it wasn't in my post, Tom's servers were/are having some issues and I couldn't edit my post.  http://forum.avsim.net/topic/419793-ground-connections-not-disconnecting/

 

Rob.

[777simmer 117]

I can assure you that computers are very logical, they can be nothing more than states of 1 or 0.

Yes :-)

Ok I will refrase: sometimes the solution to a problem or the reason why there is a problem can seem to be verry illogical.

 

 

 

 

[777simmer 117]

This does not sound like solid reasoning, it sounds more like a DX9 bias.  So why can't you or I say the same about DX9?

You cant say DX9 is at fault for the memory leek because FSX was presented with DX9 "certified" by the ACES team.

You might as well say FSX is at fault then....which gets us nowhere either.

 

DX10 however never got finished (it is a preview) and cant be finished completely it seems (unless P3D....) because we dont have access to the hardcoded part of FSX.

All we can do is try to fix things and some have done a marvelous job at that, but for me that is not the same as the ACES team saying DX10 is now finished and good to go.

 

Yes I am DX9 Biased.

I dont think that is bad though (just carefull) nor do I think being DX10 biased is bad (some call it the future, and that is fine with me).

It is a choice.

I might change my mind if my performance with new addons (that I absolutely must have) is so bad that I have to do something more than adjusting sliders.

I have stated somewhere else before, that I still learn everyday how FSX works and I keep being amazed at all the problems that surface as soon as a new addon is introduced.

For me having DX10 in the equasion is just one thing I'd rather not have.

At the moment I am good with DX9.

[Guest]

problem can seem to be verry illogical.

 

LOL, yeah, that's the human part ... garbage in = garbage out.  Now don't get me started on the topic of AI (artificial intelligence)

 

But my thread was never really about the limitations of 4GB VAS and how to keep the 777 under that limit (I know how to do that), it was about memory leakage of my VAS when using the 777.  As it turns out, what I may have learned here is that it's a known FSX bug and is more a problem with heavy VAS usage Aircraft like the 777 ... clearly something was not right when hitting the chklist button and it took 400MB VAS.  I don't claim to know the exact details of this FSX bug and exactly how it would cause a memory leak, but it apparently does (at least on my setup).

 

So long as I follow this process below (and I'll do it for every AC I have) prior to hitting the Fly Now button, I've seemed to have solved my memory leakage problems.  Of course that doesn't mean they can't be re-introduced with other add-ons, but for now this is the solution that's working for me.  Ironically, the LOD 6.5 and 2048 textures (with FSDT and REX textures at 2048) has made little to no dent in my VAS usage ... but I'm leaving myself enough headroom 900MB for weather and AI traffic and FSDT airports.

 

 

 

In every test after I noticed the memory leak, I do this process now:

 

1. Start with FSX Default C172

 

2. Switch to a PMDG 777 House

 

3. Switch back to C172

 

4. Switch to PMDG 777 Delta

 

Rob.

[Scott434 12]

Scott, this wasn't "marketing speak". I personally ran the tests that produced the figures we printed - I will show you screenshots if you want, but I hope you can trust me that it is what I saw and not some attempt to deceive anyone. I spent a lot of time writing that section of the manual.

 

Sorry Ryan I did not mean to imply this. I meant to imply that things that are pre-release sometimes are not the same as release ... "Some specifications are subject to change on the final released product."

 

My delta VAS numbers between the NGX and the 777X are more like 300-350 and not 185. Other peoples number vary as well and the question is why? It is hard to converge on a number in FSX but the swing is large. Perhaps it is something small that crept in during the last push of bug fixing prior to release.

[Scott434 12]

 

 

Ironically, the LOD 6.5 and 2048 textures (with FSDT and REX textures at 2048) has made little to no dent in my VAS usage ...

 

LOD settings is very influential in VAS for me. In fact that is how I throttle things up/down (along with Traffic levels). I would be very concerned if I changed this value and did not see a difference - meaning something is not right here! FSX changes LOD back to 4.5 automatically every time you change display settings within FSX so perhaps it has always been at 4.5. LOD multiplies "everything" so it has more of an exponential effect from my understanding.

[Guest]

 

 

Other peoples number vary as well and the question is why?

 

Assume you are doing the 4 step program (above) ... really just need to be FSX any default AC, PMDG any variant, FSX any default AC, PMDG variant you plan to fly.

 

 

 

I would be very concerned if I changed this value and did not see a difference - meaning something is not right here!

 

I should be more specific going from 4.5 to 6.5 and 1024 to 2048 didn't make much difference in VAS (very minor), this could be several reasons -- I'm testing on MSE WA 2.0, so no AutoGen which is why I'm probably not seeing much impact.  FYI, I always edit my FSX.CFG, DLL.XML and EXE.XML manually (notepad or UltraEdit) ... I never go to the FSX configuration screens.

[alepro21 154]

Assume you are doing the 4 step program (above) ... really just need to be FSX any default AC, PMDG any variant, FSX any default AC, PMDG variant you plan to fly.

 

Just making sure I get this right: so you need to do this 4 point procedure even if your FSX default flight uses a default AC, and you want to set up a flight with the T7 right after starting the sim?

 

I am asking because I still leak all my VAS. Started a flight from EDDP to LIME last night, which is only a one hour flight and by the time I landed my VAS had decreased from 1.8 GB to 480 MB. This is with pretty low settings and pretty basic sceneries btw. I have have Fsuipc log the mem usage and it decreases continuously even after take off from a fairly detailed add on airport to a default one.

 

Something is not right.

[mosteen 111]

I use res 2560x1600x32 and after a EGLL-KORD flight (UK2000 Heathrow X v2 / FSDT KORD), with UTX "world", FTXG, FSGRW with Rex 1024 textures and 1024 in cfg (DX9), I was at 2,8 Gb VAS.

 

So not much of a memory problem here