There are screenshots on their site of an airliner with GPU, stairs, etc attached as well as ground service vehicles around it. So GSX must provide a GPU object to put near the sim.  If that's related to the sims logic all the better.  Therefore there is a GPU in GSX.  I never suggested it could provide ground power to a sim. 

 

Having GSX myself, I've never seen one, so I'm not sure what that's referring to.

Ok, well I have GSX. I can tell you with absolute certainty that there is no GPU which is part of GSX. The only screen shots I see that have one are of the NGX, and show the NGX's GPU.

I see now I misread the statement on their site.  I saw GPU and chocks mentioned under features without reading the context properly.  Kyle saying "I've already addressed that..." when I mentioned a GPU in GSX reinforced that idea.

 

Anyway it's a moot point.  Ryan has said why stairs can't be done in the 777.  Personally I don't think the eye candy of animation of the Korry switches is really worth the effort and resources used, but that's just my opinion.  Especially if it contributed to the VAS limit problems.  The 777 should have been a much simpler 3D flight deck to model than the 737NG, had the same standards been maintained.  The 777X is undoubtedly a work of art, but is it too refined for FSX to handle?

 

 

Kyle saying "I've already addressed that..." when I mentioned a GPU in GSX reinforced that idea.

 

Sorry  :ph34r:

 

 

 

The 777 should have been a much simpler 3D flight deck to model than the 737NG, had the same standards been maintained.  The 777X is undoubtedly a work of art, but is it too refined for FSX to handle?

 

There's a lot more to VAS usage than the aircraft.  I'm actually seeing about the same in the 777 as I do with the NGX, all else constant.

 

I think one of the issues is inherent in the operation of the aircraft itself:

1. Longer flights, which, I believe FSX itself just continuously eats through VAS over time, even if you just left it stationary.
2. Intercontinental routes - FSX is notoriously terrible at cleaning scenery out of the cache after you've left it behind.  As such, whereas the NGX normally only flies in one area, requiring only one cache load, the 777 flies over multiple areas, increasing that each time.

Not disagreeing with you, really.  Just saying there is a different issue at play, too, that's tough to control.  Who knows what scenery people have on their systems, or what their settings are.

Sorry  :ph34r:

Not your fault, it was the way I took your comment having misread the GSX product page.

 

 

 

 

 

But you can take the blame if you like. :lol:

 

There's a lot more to VAS usage than the aircraft.  I'm actually seeing about the same in the 777 as I do with the NGX, all else constant.

 

I think one of the issues is inherent in the operation of the aircraft itself:

• Longer flights, which, I believe FSX itself just continuously eats through VAS over time, even if you just left it stationary.
• Intercontinental routes - FSX is notoriously terrible at cleaning scenery out of the cache after you've left it behind.  As such, whereas the NGX normally only flies in one area, requiring only one cache load, the 777 flies over multiple areas, increasing that each time.

Not disagreeing with you, really.  Just saying there is a different issue at play, too, that's tough to control.  Who knows what scenery people have on their systems, or what their settings are.

 

For my part, I see VAS rock steady the whole time with the 777 loaded, just over 2.1GB for the whole system. So the issue for me (with a 32 bit OS) is the additional memory the 777 uses which pushes things nearer the limit. But so far I've only taken short flights. I've seen the memory problems you mention on long hauls with various addons. I've long thought FSX has a form of memory leak.

 

The main problem I've seen with my 777 is an OOM for no obvious reason soon after takeoff. Usually after a longish preflight. If I get into the air quickly the OOM doesn't happen, so a long period on ground static seems to be an issue. I think PMDG are going to have to address VAS usage because potential customers will be put off buying the 777 if they think they might only be able to use it away from complex scenery and for short flights. The 777 needs to be able to fly long hauls from hub airports.

Sorry  :ph34r:

 

 

 

 

There's a lot more to VAS usage than the aircraft.  I'm actually seeing about the same in the 777 as I do with the NGX, all else constant.

 

I think one of the issues is inherent in the operation of the aircraft itself:

1. Longer flights, which, I believe FSX itself just continuously eats through VAS over time, even if you just left it stationary.
2. Intercontinental routes - FSX is notoriously terrible at cleaning scenery out of the cache after you've left it behind.  As such, whereas the NGX normally only flies in one area, requiring only one cache load, the 777 flies over multiple areas, increasing that each time.

Not disagreeing with you, really.  Just saying there is a different issue at play, too, that's tough to control.  Who knows what scenery people have on their systems, or what their settings are.

 

I agree with Kyle.  The addition of ground services features on a per-aircraft basis is just one more thing to support that is not directly part of the aircraft flight model itself.  With the same reasoning, one could ask why PMDG doesn't include custom airports free gratis along with the plane?  Like KJFK and/or KSFO?  Answer:  Those are separate products that work with other airplanes as well?

 

There is no question that for $90, you get so much value in the Triple 7.  Is it a lot easier to fly than the NGX?  In some ways, definitely so.  Is it the biggest thing I've ever flown?  YES.  Does it make many airports look tiny by comparison?  YES.  It's the King Kong of airplanes, notwithstanding the 747.

 

I do notice that when I activate GSX after landing at KSFO, or AES, I do encounter a definite and substantial impact on frames.  Just that many more objects to draw and display, along with the upgraded airport itself (Flightbeam Studios).  That said, the T7 looks appropriate at International airports, not so much at the little