Helsinki and the 777

[Nixon 30]

Olli thank you for your replies on this and the Aerosoft forum. On their forum you wrote:

"But the overall VAS usage of the T7 is "only" 0.8 GB as compared to 0.65 GB of the NGX"

By my calculations that's a 23% increase in VAS usage over the NGX. I have quoted below a part of my post no 24

 

 

My other point is that PMDG say OOM's are not an issue caused by the T7 and as I said above that's true but I also stand by the fact that every other add on producer can correctly say the same thing. As the memory usage in FSX will always be just over 4Gb there is the danger that each add on will want to have a "bigger part of a fixed sized pie".
 
I would think that each flight simmer will have his or her's preferred settings and if things carry on as I predict in the above paragraph there may will come a time for each of use when we are no longer willing to compromise. For me the NGX is fine but the T7 is precariously balanced on that tipping point. I accept that for others that will not be the case.

 

 

I still stand by that and now that I have your estimates of VAS usage for both the T7 and the NGX; then the extra 0.15Gb usage of the T7 means that it is taking a "bigger part of a fixed sized pie" than the NGX. 

 

Aerosoft have responded on their forum with helpful advice.

 

Olli you also mention on the Aerosoft forum and I quote:

"PMDG are planning to implement a 'performance tool' which switches between different texture sizes"

If that is the case then I am pleased that PMDG are doing their bit to make it easier for flight simmers to make VAS usage compromises that best suit them and I look forward to the release of the "performance tool"

 

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

See the mentioning of an upcoming 'performance manager', and the temporary 'uncheck high-res VC' here: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/418750-pmdg-777-issue-tracking-thread/

 

BTW, gathered from my own 'experiments' the T7 VAS usage may be closer to 0.9 GB than to 0.8 GB - but so what.

 

Your increase in % may be correct but still pls. note that a 0.2 GB increase in T7 VAS usage should be considered with respect to the overall VAS limit - which is 4.0 GB. A 0.2 GB additional VAS usage of the T7 (over the NGX) fills up another 5% (only!) of the maximum VAS possible.

 

Of course, if you're running 3.2 GB VAS already at the departure gate, you only have 0.8 GB left (without any safety margin), and the additional 0.2 GB due to switching to the T7 will cost you 25% of the difference remaining (0.2/0.8).

 

On a sidenote: Just completed a flight EGPK to some location in VFR Germany (FTX SCO, FTX ENG, VFR Netherlands, all four parts of VFR Germany installed and active) in the T7 myself. Started with a conservative graphics profile and would never have dared to set graphics any higher due to the amount of VAS already in use - still the scenery and clouds were looking quite good - and so was the AI traffic around (generated by both VoxATC and by Heli Traffic at the same time).

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Man, if only I'd known my...

...payware airports

...photoreal ground textures

...high res mesh

...gigantic cloud textures

...ground lighting

...UTX

...would cause this I wouldn't have bought it.

 

Oh, all I need to do is change some of my graphics settings by a primarily unnoticeable amount???

 

 

 

Nevermind, guys...you can put the pitchforks and torches away.

 

 

 

 

Seriously, though.  You can't have your cake and eat it, too.  Most of the changes to help your computer avoid hitting the VAS limit will be primarily unnoticeable.  Don't torch the plane just because it was the plank of wood that broke the lead-carrying camel's back.

[Nixon 30]

Kyle

 

Don't torch the plane just because it was the plank of wood that broke the lead-carrying camel's back.

 

if I may develop your analogy a little further. As a considerate camel owner I would have checked the weight of the plank before I purchased it. If the plank's weight is such that it would break the camels back I can then decide to either offload some other items and take the plank or instead just not purchase this heavy piece of wood.

 

In the case of the T7 I was unable to discover it's "weight" before purchase.

 

By stating that I am not torching the plane but I still think PMDG could and should make available thier VAS and OOM advice, given in the introduction, prior to the purchase of the plane.

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

Kyle

 

if I may develop your analogy a little further. As a considerate camel owner I would have checked the weight of the plank before I purchased it. If the plank's weight is such that it would break the camels back I can then decide to either offload some other items and take the plank or instead just not purchase this heavy piece of wood.

 

In the case of the T7 I was unable to discover it's "weight" before purchase.

 

By stating that I am not torching the plane but I still think PMDG could and should make available thier VAS and OOM advice, given in the introduction, prior to the purchase of the plane.

 

 

Nixon,

 

These three threads look like good reads to me:

 

1. This discussion here had been available on AVSIM before the T7 was released: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/412418-looks-really-great-but-i-cant-buy-it/?p=2706195
2. This is the discussion of the findings resulting from the a.m. thread, available before T7 release, as well: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/413244-some-changes-ryan-made-to-my-fsx/?p=2711172
3. Finally, this thread deals with the optimization of fps with MA Helsinki. Since there is some correlation between fps and VAS, it's kind of a 'be aware' as far as this particular MegaAirport is concerned: http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/58267-not-satisfied-with-your-frames-read-these-tips/

And ... yes, my graphics settings in the T7 are lower than in my Airbus. But the T7 has deeper systems (50% of the total T7 VAS contribution), and my scenery still looks good, judging from my T7 VC ...

[devgrp 1,233]

I'm doing a flight right now on vatsim from the aerosoft Helsinki airport to flytampa Loww in the T7. Those are the only 2 major airports activated plus some small orbx ones.

On the ground in the VC I was getting about 15-17 fps and my vas was 3.2gig. As soon as I took off my VAS went down to 2.9 and my frame rate went up to  29-30. Only 2 other planes on the ground at helsinki. I changed my LOD to 5.5 for this flight to do some tests but its usually at 4.5, but I'm confident I will be able to land at LOWW without issues.

 

I'll share my VAS when I get ready to land in LOWW

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

In the case of the T7 I was unable to discover it's "weight" before purchase.

 

Then shouldn't you be making the same request of the other scenery people, too?

 

Out of memory errors are so highly dependent on the system the individual is using that it's hard to say exactly how an add-on is going to affect it in the end. x86 and x64 are huge contributors to that issue, as far as I know.

 

Even if they gave notional values, it's not going to do much for you.

 

As far as memory hits and leaks, scenery is the biggest factor.

[Jude Bradley 659]

The way I see it, no scenery or aircraft developer is going to test with ALL other addons and end-user can have.

It's simply not possible or economic.

Coupled with that,there is the snob factor which tempts users into using the high settings because the manual states they have a high-end system and feel insulted if they have to lower their settings.

 

There are more and more Hi-Res sceneries on the market,because the users demand this sort of thing,which will only make the problem worse.

32bit application - compromises - simple as....

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

There are more and more Hi-Res sceneries on the market,because the users demand this sort of thing,which will only make the problem worse.
32bit application - compromises - simple as....

 

Bingo.

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

Actually it's a good thing you can max out anything you want: aircraft systems, liveries, clouds, autogen, ground photos, 3D objects, AI traffic - all you have to be aware of is that 'anything' is not quite the same as 'each and everything' (... at the same time).

 

There's also a saying around this forum stating, Microsoft should have left out the right hand side of the FSX slider settings: Everybody would be happy with the left hand side and no discussions would have come up ...

[devgrp 1,233]

Just landed at LOWW and my VAS was 3.5gig

[Nixon 30]

Then shouldn't you be making the same request of the other scenery people, too?

 

I know that before buying Mega Helsinki it's possible to download the manual and the same applies to most Aerosoft airports so I don't need to make such a request to them. As this topic is about Helsinki and the 777 the policy of other developers is not of relevance to this topic

 

Taking the above into account, it's not unreasonable to suggest that PMDG freely publish the part of the introduction relating to OOM's and VAS. Especially when they clearly state that no refunds will be given. Yes I do understand why refunds are not given so there is no need for anyone to post why. 

 

I am interested in what PMDG have to say and as I don't spend my time on these forums waiting for a release and I have no intention in reading the views of people about a product that has not been released.

 

I am at a lost as to why people find such a simple suggestion so upsetting.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

I know that before buying Mega Helsinki it's possible to download the manual and the same applies to most Aerosoft airports so I don't need to make such a request to them.

 

...and in these manuals they state the approximate VAS usage?

 

 

 

I am at a lost as to why people find such a simple suggestion so upsetting.

 

For what it's worth, you might want to read your original post again.  There are no suggestions contained therein.  All that's there is a multi-point rant on why you feel dissatisfied; ergo, people are responding to that sentiment with their own sentiments or fixes to help you out.

 

Sure, you mention the fact that you wouldn't have bought it if you had been able to read the manual, but other than that, there's no actual suggestion that it be made downloadable prior to purchase.  I highly doubt that it would've deterred you anyway.  As I mentioned earlier, I haven't come across a single developer who has put an estimated VAS usage figure in their manuals, or someone who has even attempted to offer ways to reduce VAS usage overall (this is different from those offering ways to increase FPS/performance).  That being said, I'm not convinced that content would've turned you away because most people would just assume it was for people with low-end machines.

 

What I'm getting is that this is just a rant about the manuals not being up and available to be downloaded prior to purchase, using the VAS/OOM issue as weak leverage.

 

I'm not against the suggestion of putting the manuals up for review prior to purchase, honestly.  I just highly doubt that it would've actually deterred you.  It's just a convenient rant point given the hindsight that you have.

 

For what it's worth, it's better to reduce your scenery complexity, detail radius, and other settings that are - again - often barely noticeable.

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

If PMDG had published the intro doc I would have wanted the T7 even more.

 

... but I wouldn't have bought FSX!   :LMAO:

Just landed at LOWW and my VAS was 3.5gig

 

 

There you have it!

 

VAS-wise it's more difficult "to land" than "to take off" (VAS used by scenery isn't completely freed when the scenery has been left).

 

Even though on landing your VAS was "pre-filled" with "older" scenery, FlyTampa's LOWW was considerably easier on your VAS than the other developer's Helsinki.

[pcubine 143]

or someone who has even attempted to offer ways to reduce VAS usage overall (this is different from those offering ways to increase FPS/performance).

FSDT released Version 1.1 of CYVR mainly to reduce VAS usage and reduce OOM errors. See this link http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=7837.0.