OOM on long haul flights

[ZKOKQ 984]

Have you tried re installing CYUL with lower features like 1024 textures, no mist, and turning off Volumetric grass ?

FT CYUL is a heavy hitter with all the bells n whistles.

[Chrjs 61]

I think there are really two sides of the same coin.

First, being a graphic designer myself, i know that every developer tries to improve his work, every following project has to be better than the previous one. That's just normal and also needed for progress.

But then there is the other side: the customer. Just have a look at all those preview forums: Can we have this, this is a must, i want, we need, is has to have..... The quality of payware scenery has significantly improved over the last few years, but costumers still want more. Developers, that were state-of-the-art a few years ago but didn't keep up the pace of developers like FB, FSDT, FTX are today often criticised.

This seems to be a natural development, however problematic, because of the hard limit of FSX. Yes DX10 and maybe DX11 (P3D) can somehow push the boundaries a bit, but until FSX gets rid of the 32bit apllication-limit this line will be reached at some point.

So, who is to blame? the developers look at their product isolated and say it is fine - and they are rigth. if you have a vanilla FSX and just use this one addon, you are going to be fine - but what percentage of simmers does that?

Both developers AND costumer have to accept the limits, the fact that FSX/Flight Simulation in general has always been and will always be a a compromise. Formerly, FPS was the main concern, today, it seems as the most important problem to take into consideration when developing is VAS-load.

 

However, i see another negative effect of the improving quality - parallel to the more detailed products, the cost of theses products has risen sharply as well. Most of this price increase is certainly due to the increased  work load and effort, therefore justified. But especially young simmers that just dip into this new hobby are certainly scared off by the high costs. Flight Simulation is limiting its own basis and future.

[777simmer 117]

I have just taken 2 shots at KLAX from FSDreamteam at cargo gate (because I noticed this on my last T7 Emirates cargo flight) for you to proove this..

Thx for the pix! The unclear letters on the building were very noticavle.

 

Now it is a sim....so Letters are not a priority.

However if all textures are fuzzy....then that is not ok.

I dont think I have any HD scenery (Approaching Innsbruck/Fly Tampa Vienna/Aerosoft Paris Orly/Aerosoft Anchorage...?) and my airports look great.

I think there are really two sides of the same coin.

First, being a graphic designer myself, i know that every developer tries to improve his work, every following project has to be better than the previous one. That's just normal and also needed for progress.

 

Yes I guess you are right.

 

However in my opinion it is the obligation of the designer to make sure his product will work on a wide range of systems!

Not just a Vanilla system with default aircraft.

 

And therefore they SHALL provide options.

 

HD textures for those who want it.....with a clear warning that this can cause problems when combined with other memory intensive addons!

And 1024 for others.

 

Many are already doing that. Quite a few addons let you choose between 3D grass or not/airport traffic/etc.

 

But the above post, where things become blurry if you dont use 4096 textures...that would be an example of how not to do it!

[red259 31]

Have you tried re installing CYUL with lower features like 1024 textures, no mist, and turning off Volumetric grass ?

FT CYUL is a heavy hitter with all the bells n whistles.

I don't think I have the highest settings but it's worth a shot. Is there a way to reinstall cyul through the flytampa menus or do I have to dig up my download file to reinstall it?

[Bob Scott 7,722]

For those of you who may not have already seen it, I wrote a small utility called QuantumLeap that works through FSUIPC to allow repositioning an FSX plane at cruise ahead to a future waypoint to avoid spending hours droning.  It's been tested with the PMDG 777 and 737NGX and is in the AVSIM library.  In addition to eliminating many hours wasted at cruise, it has the added side benefit of eliminating hours and hours of slow memory leakage that, as many of you are now discovering, ruins a long-haul flight when the reduced VAS headroom contributes to an OOM that is triggered by the big spike in VAS demand when the destination scenery and traffic come into view.

Personally, investing an entire day into a flight and then having it OOM on final approach is a lot less satisfying to me than doing the heavyweight departure and climb to cruise, then leaping ahead, then flying the descent/approach/landing (in ~1-2 hrs total).  But to each his own.  For the purist die-hards who will insist that spending 15 hours at cruise is the only way to flight sim, best of luck to you!!

 

Cheers

[Matsu787 104]

For those of you who may not have already seen it, I wrote a small utility called QuantumLeap that works through FSUIPC to allow repositioning an FSX plane at cruise ahead to a future waypoint to avoid spending hours droning.  It's been tested with the PMDG 777 and 737NGX and is in the AVSIM library.  In addition to eliminating many hours wasted at cruise, it has the added side benefit of eliminating hours and hours of slow memory leakage that, as many of you are now discovering, ruins a long-haul flight when the reduced VAS headroom contributes to an OOM that is triggered by the big spike in VAS demand when the destination scenery and traffic come into view.

 

Personally, investing an entire day into a flight and then having it OOM on final approach is a lot less satisfying to me than doing the heavyweight departure and climb to cruise, then leaping ahead, then flying the descent/approach/landing (in ~1-2 hrs total).  But to each his own.  For the purist die-hards who will insist that spending 15 hours at cruise is the only way to flight sim, best of luck to you!!

 

Cheers

 

I've seen this and so far even with 16 plus hours of real time flying, my average VAS is 3.500 to 3.800 with no OOM on arrival. I'm not into saving or worp speed drive and if it fails during approach after long hours of real time flying...so be it.

 

 

Kin M.

(Klax)

[Manny 1,293]

We really can get around the OOM if we have a software where you enter a flight plan and it would select and deselect addons/scenery  based on the route before starting FSX.

 

I think I am begining to repeat myself.. Tsk Tsk  :lol:

[777simmer 117]

We really can get around the OOM if we have a software where you enter a flight plan and it would select and deselect addons/scenery  based on the route before starting FSX.

 

I think I am begining to repeat myself.. Tsk Tsk  :lol:

Didnt the PMDG intro guide mention such a software?

[red259 31]

Didnt the PMDG intro guide mention such a software?

No. It recommended something where you could setup scenery groups, but Manny is talking about something where you input your flightplan and its done for you. I'm not sure if what pmdg recommends is any different than going through the fsx scenery editor and selecting/deselecting on our own (other than it lets you setup pre-selected groups of scenery). I would be interested in hearing from people who use it.

 

In my own struggles I did two flights today one from cyul to kjfk and then back kjfk to cyul. I think I landed at kjfk with around 3.2 vas usage. On the flight back I took off from kjfk around 2.9/3.0 and most of cruise I was around 2.8 and landed at cyul and right at the end it jumped up to 3.4/3.5 so I didn't go OOM but this was in the 737ngx not the 777 (which uses more vas) and this is with traffic disabled and the weather was fairly clear, so flytampa's cyul appears to be a major vas hog as others have noted. I am currently running it at 2046 (I could go down to 1024 but I would really like to avoid that if possible - in the past I have always departed cyul instead of landing at it so that may be one of the reasons I never had issues before). I turned off the grass and mist features. Taking off from cyul takes me up to about 3.1 and then it drops down in flight to around 2.7. There is snow on the ground at cyul, so I am not sure if the winter graphics are a bit more intensive than the other seasons I have flown in. I did discover an aes feature today where they de-ice your plane for you, which was really cool. I'm going to run the same flights with the 777 and maybe add in some traffic as well to see how it holds up. Does 3.4 to 3.5 on a landing sound reasonable? I'm not sure how much my vas would jump up on a long haul cruise, since I mentioned earlier I notice the vas drop down after takeoff when I go in cruise mode and these spikes occur right at the very end when I am a few nm from landing. The goal of all my testing is to establish a base line of settings where I can fly long haul 777 without having to worry about OOM. I know I can save and do all that, but its not really convenient for online flying. 

[cmpbellsjc 2,963]

We really can get around the OOM if we have a software where you enter a flight plan and it would select and deselect addons/scenery based on the route before starting FSX.

 

I think I am begining to repeat myself.. Tsk Tsk :lol:

Dont know if software is really need for that. It takes me less than a minute to go into the FSX Scenery UI and uncheck the airports or photoreal not needed for my flight. Not saying you're lazy but doing it this way is really not that hard or time consuming.

 

If you keep most stuff off that your not using for your flight, when you plan your next flight it will only be a few clicks to uncheck your last airports used and select the new ones for this flight.

 

Jim Burke

[Manny 1,293]

 

 

If you keep most stuff off that your not using for your flight, when you plan your next flight it will only be a few clicks to uncheck your last airports used and select the new ones for this flight.

 

Hmm...You make an interesting point.

[red259 31]

Just completed a test flight with the 777 from jfk to cyul. Managed to land with vas around 3.6 - 3.7 with no traffic enabled. I will have to do some long haul flights to see if I managed to work out my OOM problems. I am content with my graphics at this point so if I can manage long haul flights and not OOM I will be happy. Long haul flights would probably be online anyway so I wouldn't have traffic enabled. The numbers come in a bit higher than the 737ngx. 

[biloo 20]

We had a heated discussion a little while ago about one possible cause for OOMs.

Memory leaks!

 

The topic was closed but I have decided to do some testing and I will report results within a week (I think) from now.

 

I have been doing overnight holdings for the past 10 days or so (up to 11hr holdings) to see if memory usage (VAS) increases during a flight even when you stay at the same position.

I have been doing this with various FSX slider settings (AI traffic/ Autogen)

 

It seems on my rig that VAS keeps kreeping up during flights.

So the lower My VAS usage at the beginning of a flight, the better!

(people please dont react to this yet and dont come with suggestions yet, as I am not done testing and tomorrow everything might be different)

 

To answere your question untill then.....Yes, you should disable things you dont need.

There are other things you can do to lower VAS usage also, and they have all be mentioned in similar threads already. (just search for VAS I guess).

 

But how much that lowers your memory usage (VAS usage) depends on how many addons you have. If you have lare photorealistic scenery addons over areas you dont fly or dont need it, then I would definately disable (untick in the library, and I would reboot FSX thereafter) those. Disabeling 3 or 4 addon airport hardly seems to help anything on my PC. I guess it needs to be a big package for it to do anything really.

 

If you save your flight just before you start your descend, then quit the flight and close FSX, then restart FSX and start your saved flight again...then you will have emptied and reset your memory also.

You should be able to finish your flight then unless you are going into something like ORBX global scenery and REX HD clouds in bad weather and Manhattan X and FSDreamteam KJFK with the PMDG 777, if you know what I mean.

 

I realise this is close/restart FSX is no fun...but it is better than an OOM with the flight not saved right?!

 

Thanks for the clarification.

I have a question in regards to how VAS works in FSX. I also got a Out of Memory error when I did a long haul flight NZAA to KLAX. I was using ActiveSky 2012, FSC 9.3, FSDT KLAX and AI traffic at 40%.

 

I did this flight without using time acceleration and when performing my approach into KLAX, my memory usage from task manager was exceeding 3gb. Eventually I got the error out of memory.

 

My question here is even if I disable the AI traffic and cut down on addon use, would there be lesser VAS usage if I use time acceleration and let FSX run for 7 hours as compared to leaving it running at 1x and let fsx run for 16 hours?

[777simmer 117]

My question here is even if I disable the AI traffic and cut down on addon use, would there be lesser VAS usage if I use time acceleration and let FSX run for 7 hours as compared to leaving it running at 1x and let fsx run for 16 hours?

That is a good question, and I do not know the answere.

 

What does work is to use a piece of software mentioned on the previous page called QuantumLeap. (post #95)

[red259 31]

Thanks for the clarification.

I have a question in regards to how VAS works in FSX. I also got a Out of Memory error when I did a long haul flight NZAA to KLAX. I was using ActiveSky 2012, FSC 9.3, FSDT KLAX and AI traffic at 40%.

 

I did this flight without using time acceleration and when performing my approach into KLAX, my memory usage from task manager was exceeding 3gb. Eventually I got the error out of memory.

 

My question here is even if I disable the AI traffic and cut down on addon use, would there be lesser VAS usage if I use time acceleration and let FSX run for 7 hours as compared to leaving it running at 1x and let fsx run for 16 hours?

Not a 100% sure but I don't think I ever went OOM with the 777 when using the acceleration feature, but I have gone OOM when doing it a the normal rate. I did not do extensive testing on this issue, but that has been my experience.