Does Pepar3D work in 64-bit mode ?

[Highiron 21]

Even if P3D was 64 bit, you would have to give up your PMDG 777 to get the benefits. It is designed not to work in Prepar3D so you will be stuck with your issue.

 

P3D with it's new DX11 engine and vast VAS memory usage improved would likely fix the problem around Vancouver but it's moot as PMDG will not allow you to benefit from it.

[Kaboki 437]

Hmm, odd. Perhaps your VAS memory is maxed out before FSDT CYVR can even fully load up. Perhaps Vancouver +3 is the tipping point as I do not have that package due to problems as they stand. First visual signs I get of running out of VAS is black texture squares appearing on the ground. You should bring this issue up with Umberto on the FSTD forums if it won't install properly. First I would disable the Vancouver + scenery and see what happens, just to eliminate that variable.

 

Don't bother trying to help me on this issue, already have a support thread going on the FSDT forum.... I even tried installing it on a vanilla FSX install(only default FSX), same issue, also tried it with my previous hardware setup(different mobo, GPU and RAM), everytime I have reinstalled FSX I have tried this scenery first, also tried lowering settings to minimal, with tweaks, without tweaks...Pretty much tried all there is to try.

I have stop bothering with this scenery, because it's not worth the time and I'm soon switching too prepar3dV2 so I have pretty much given up on fixing it.  Umberto suggested helping me with teamviewer but haven't gotten time to do that and since FSX soon is being removed from my computer there is no need to get it fixed..

 

Thanks anyway :rolleyes:

[Kaboki 437]

I have FSAddons for CYVR coverage. I must say the Vancouver + with stuff turned on does cause my machine to "slow" to 16 fps so I have to turn back setting in the area of the city only.

 

Try having Orbx PNW enabled and Vancouver+ and fire up the most demanding GA plane you have, and turn booth autogen settings to Extremely dense and have water on highx2 with decent traffic, bad weather and fly over the city and then tell me you don't get OOM's....

(look away from the FPS as it's not the point what frames you get, the point is to trigger an OOM, I get excellent frames with these settings but the VAS limit is what keeps me away from using them. That's my point with your hardware never gotten you to use such high settings because you say you turn settings down when getting low frames and therefore your less likely to encounter OOM).

[Kaboki 437]

I have FSDT airports for Hawaii...fly these areas mostly.

 

Also may be a reason because If I understand you right you keep away from the areas in FSX notoriously famous for bad performance, e.g Seattle, Vancouver, New York, London etc and that you mostly fly short trips, and not 12 hour + with complex planes like PMDG over complex sceneries and destinations like Seattle, New York, London etc? And you reduce settings in the worst areas?

[JoeDoeIII 0]

Running FSX in DX9 caused me regular OOMs due to its memory model of mapping all the contents of the graphics card memory onto the system RAM, causing it to regularly hit the 4GB code limit in FSX. In DX10 using the fixes, I never get any OOMs at the same close to maxxed-out settings, and FSX RAM usage is greatly reduced and never gets close to the 4GB wall.There is my 2 cents for what its worth.

[Highiron 21]

With DX11 and the total rework of how P3D handles memory, I believe V2.0 will finally put the smackdown on OOM errors, at least for the foreseeable future anyway.

[Christopher Low 5,353]

I assume that P3DV2 will have considerably better memory management than FSX? You know....clearing the memory of stuff that has been left far behind? I have never understood why FSX is so rubbish at this. I mean, why on Earth would anyone design a flight simulator to retain scenery data in memory that is no longer required? It just doesn't make any sense.

[Highiron 21]

The Microsoft FS franchise was an evolving product. They likely figured they would just get to the issues at a later date. Seeing how a lot of problematic code got carried through revision after revision its probable the focus was always on the next release.

The fact that is took L.M. over 2.5 years to yield an FSX equivalent that was stable and nearly bug free is a testament of how much was wrong within FSX. That's a lot of man hours and money just to create a version of Prepar3D that ran as FSX should have. It makes one think about how much of a mess it was. They completely ripped out the DX10 preview mode and even somewhat simplified the simulator just in part to achieve this. I'm just glad it's finally cleaned up and for once in many many years we will have a simulator we can spend more time using than time fiddling with. It will also hopefully decrease the amount of time developers need to spend in support forums trying to fix issues that are more at the core of FSX than with the product they created. I have always taken note that most Prepar3D support forums for products are a fraction of the size of the ones for FSX. Coincidence or smaller user base? Perhaps, but there just does not seem to be the same amount of problems. Lets hope this becomes the norm so developers can spend more time making things and fixing real issues in their software than trying to figure out if the problem is on their end or with FSX.

[1st fltsimguy 466]

Try having Orbx PNW enabled and Vancouver+ and fire up the most demanding GA plane you have, and turn booth autogen settings to Extremely dense and have water on highx2 with decent traffic, bad weather and fly over the city and then tell me you don't get OOM's....

(look away from the FPS as it's not the point what frames you get, the point is to trigger an OOM, I get excellent frames with these settings but the VAS limit is what keeps me away from using them. That's my point with your hardware never gotten you to use such high settings because you say you turn settings down when getting low frames and therefore your less likely to encounter OOM).

 

 

I guess i'll have to frustrate the hell out of myself to replicate the OOMs.  I'll skip that.  Life is already got plenty of challenges for me.  Maybe when I get my new computer or when the wife lets me get the new computer...lol.

[Highiron 21]

Keep dreaming about that new computer...

[Kaboki 437]

I guess i'll have to frustrate the hell out of myself to replicate the OOMs. I'll skip that. Life is already got plenty of challenges for me. Maybe when I get my new computer or when the wife lets me get the new computer...lol.

 

 yeah, probably no point to bother doing that. But you should try ease up your wife some when Prepar3dV2 gets out(if you get it that is), because then you probably want it ASAP to get it to run properly with all the new eye candy :biggrin: After hearing some of the "reports" I think even my GTX680 would struggle, but atleast now with prepar3dV2 getting a better GPU will help.(I hope, time will tell).

 

I find it a bit frustrating that all the beta testers do not talk so much about performance and rather focus on the eye candy...The most important thing for me with Prepar3Dv2 is how it performs compared to FSX with similar settings... :huh: Couldn't care less about all that eye candy if it's the same old stuttery mess...

[CarlosF 1,239]

...or you could switch to Xplane 10 64 bit, no OOM there guaranteed!!!

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG Note 2 using Tapatalk

 

[1st fltsimguy 466]

...or you could switch to Xplane 10 64 bit, no OOM there guaranteed!!! Sent from my SAMSUNG Note 2 using Tapatalk

 

Yes I know....I am thinking about this whole issue again now that P3D v2 is on the horizon.  I'm subscribed to the newsletters for .org and see lots of good products for it.

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

I have never understood why FSX is so rubbish at this. I mean, why on Earth would anyone design a flight simulator to retain scenery data in memory that is no longer required? It just doesn't make any sense.

well FSX was never designed for textures larger than 1024, nor to have the LOD extended past 4.5, or its cloud density setting extended beyond the slider max that some people do. If you use FSX with the correct size textures, whether you resize devlelopers addon textures or use addons that use DXT format 1024 or smaller and dont extend LOD radius or cloud density, FSX is hard to OOM. Wheb you try to use it beyond its design you run into trouble as some people do who dont understand how it works.

[Kaboki 437]

well FSX was never designed for textures larger than 1024, nor to have the LOD extended past 4.5, or its cloud density setting extended beyond the slider max that some people do. If you use FSX with the correct size textures, whether you resize devlelopers addon textures or use addons that use DXT format 1024 or smaller and dont extend LOD radius or cloud density, FSX is hard to OOM.

 

I never used more than default LOD and textures larger than 1024 and never use higher settings than max default cloud density, but still get OOMs sometimes at complex sceneries with complex planes and such at moderate settings, but I guess FSX was never designed to use hundreds of complex sceneries and planes either... If I run a vanilla FSX install it will run perfect and never OOM, but no matter how we look at it, the way it's designed that the VAS just grows and grows the longer we fly is still an issue for most of us using complex scenery and planes and also want the sim to look nice without castrating the settings too much and the need to disable scenery not being used at the moment and such...

Anyway it is what it is and the project got abandoned by Microsoft so it will never be fixed in FSX. Really hope Prepar3Dv2 will solve this issue that for some people isn't an issue...