've seen a few posts about VAS usage being high but what I haven't seen is a single post reporting an OOM. Just because the VAS is higher than expected doesn't necessarily mean that something else isn't working to avoid OOM's like what Christopher Low suggested above.

 

There was one yesterday that reported an OOM, (I believe somewhere in this thread.) One report (Not a OOM) indicated 2.4GB VAS usage at KSFO in the default KingAir, I tested this in FSX, Set Max scenery water up high and got 1.4GB Usage. So that's a full GB more then FSX (and that was with FTX Global, and UTUSAX, also while all optional startup DLL's weren't loaded DLL's like FSUIPC, Addon Manager was.) in the same relative scenario. We all know there's not much wiggle  room between a successful flight and an OOM when you add detailed Hi Res scenery, AI, and a complex aircraft to the mix. So 1GB usage more on top of that is going to be significant. 

 

Edit: Couldn't find the one from yesterday, but here's some new ones from today!

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/427333-oom-assistance-please/

Also, I suggest before blindly speculating about performance that you head over to Word Not Allowed's blog and check out his performance analysis, great as expected

 

All default aircraft with basically min settings. When one adds autogen and complex scenery/ aircraft, it goes to it's knees. He also states he isnt going t keep it. Refund.

All default aircraft with basically min settings. When one adds autogen and complex scenery/ aircraft, it goes to it's knees. He also states he isnt going t keep it. Refund.

I think he actually provides a good balanced review. he admits he is only using a GTX580 and plans to test a Titan.

Hate to break the news, but I have a failry good rig (4770K and a GTX 780) and I did get an OOM message last night flying a Carenado over NYC with all sliders to the right.  I just posted in another thread, but I just simply do not see the reduction in OOM versus FSX.  Granted, that was with all scenery on... I suppose perhaps just as in FSX I can go in and disable the scenery I will not be flying over... but if I still need to do that, it begs the question of what complex add ons will do once they start hitting Prepar3d 2.o

 

For context I have FTX Global and REX Essentials + OD installed.  I was running max sliders in a Carenado over NYC.

 

 

LM have stated that memory management has been greatly improved in P3Dv2 with respect to FSX

 

Either I have not spent enough time in how to tweek this or the OOM issue may have gotten worse rather than improved. I am not 100% sure..but this is what I suspect too.

First thing to not get any OOM, reduce your textures to 1024 maximum! THis is a MUST for avoiding OOM

Hate to break the news, but I have a failry good rig (4770K and a GTX 780) and I did get an OOM message last night flying a Carenado over NYC with all sliders to the right.  I just posted in another thread, but I just simply do not see the reduction in OOM versus FSX.  Granted, that was with all scenery on... I suppose perhaps just as in FSX I can go in and disable the scenery I will not be flying over... but if I still need to do that, it begs the question of what complex add ons will do once they start hitting Prepar3d 2.o

 

For context I have FTX Global and REX Essentials + OD installed.  I was running max sliders in a Carenado over NYC.

 

So you were running LOD 6.5 and 4096 max texture resolution in FSX? Because those are max settings in P3D now and they are much higher then FSX (unless you change the .cfg). 

 

 

Max settings in FSX are just too different to P3Dv2 to just max it out and then compare the two. Set them similarly and then see what you get (no shadows but exterior aircraft, LOD at 4.5, Tesselation off, triple buffering off, HDR off, etc.)

 

See how VAS usage compares in somewhat like situations. I'd be curious to find out. I no longer have FSX installed.

 

First thing to not get any OOM, reduce your textures to 1024 maximum! THis is a MUST for avoiding OOM

 

Exactly.

 

But you'll find a lot of the people getting OOMs want to be running 4096 textures, max autogen, full shadows, and run with a 1 GB card.....

 

OOMs aren't a mystery;  they happen when you expect too much from your hardware.  

 

 

One report (Not a OOM) indicated 2.4GB VAS usage at KSFO in the default KingAir, I tested this in FSX, Set Max scenery water up high and got 1.4GB Usage.

 

Please, no more Apples to Watermelon comparisons - it really is just getting silly at this point.  That was my post, on my system with settings specific to me (which I posted early in the thread listing exactly what settings I was using with P3Dv2).  ,I can't emulate what P3Dv2 can do in FSX, because P3Dv2 does MORE than FSX could ever do.

 

Given that I can't emulate FSX setting to P3Dv2, the best I can do is edit FSX.CFG changes to get "close" (yet still far from what P3Dv2 supports) ... if I try to get close to the P3Dv2 visual quality settings in FSX (which can only be done via FSX.CFG edits), I'm at 3.6GB VAS in FSX, that's 1.2GB HIGHER in FSX than P3Dv2 (2.4GB). 

 

How do you think "popping" of scenery objects are eliminated in P3Dv2?  They must be loaded into memory first and not suddenly pop in and out of view like they do in FSX.  Obvious memory implications.

 

Sorry if I sound frustrated, but I'm seeing a lot of JibberJabber in terms of comparing FSX to P3Dv2.  Some of this JibberJabber comes form people that have selected "a path" in one product and then feel it necessary to post inaccurate information about another product because they either don't want to see 3rd party dev support move to that product instead of the path they have chosen.  Frustration increases the more I see people post negative comments about a product they have NOT used or purchased.

 

Is P3Dv2 perfect, no it's not, but is a huge step in the right direction and it's amazing it has brought forward as much compatibility as it has.

 

Rob

 

 

Actually, I think I just saw you raise your had to volunteer as a moderator and do exactly as you suggest. When can you start tonight?

 

I don't think it would be wise for me to be a moderator for this forum, my frustration might get the better of me.  Plus, I have plans to be a commercial member supporting P3Dv2 onwards, so there will be a conflict of interest and since it will be after hours and weekend efforts on my part, unlikely I'll have any time to monitor and minimize the jibberjabber.

 

I see threads like this an all I can do is shake my head ... often wonder if many (again not all thank goodness) of the posters are even Flight Sim enthusiast at all?  Many just side with "a path" they've chosen and proceed to bash other products they've never tried or purchased in the hope they get more developers supporting their "chosen path".

 

But in some ways I'm glad LM do have professional plus license options because clearly that seems to be the market I'm going to aim my efforts at and not the "everything is too expensive market".  Elitist perhaps, bad for business maybe, but I'm not going out on a financial limb, it's just weekend and late night work - and test the waters.

 

 Rob.

 

 

Given that I can't emulate FSX setting to P3Dv2, the best I can do is edit FSX.CFG changes to get "close" (yet still far from what P3Dv2 supports) ... if I try to get close to the P3Dv2 visual quality settings in FSX (which can only be done via FSX.CFG edits), I'm at 3.6GB VAS in FSX, that's 1.2GB HIGHER in FSX than P3Dv2 (2.4GB).

 

...and what aircraft and scenery were you using when you are at 3.6GB VAS in FSX? OrBX PMDG? Throw that into P3D 2.0 and see what happens. Remember DX11 doesn't shadow copy VRAM DX9 does, so the actual VAS FSX uses is actually less then the 1.4GB I posted.

I don't think it would be wise for me to be a moderator for this forum, my frustration might get the better of me. Plus, I have plans to be a commercial member supporting P3Dv2 onwards, so there will be a conflict of interest and since it will be after hours and weekend efforts on my part, unlikely I'll have any time to monitor and minimize the jibberjabber.

 

I see threads like this an all I can do is shake my head ... often wonder if many (again not all thank goodness) of the posters are even Flight Sim enthusiast at all? Many just side with "a path" they've chosen and proceed to bash other products they've never tried or purchased in the hope they get more developers supporting their "chosen path".

 

But in some ways I'm glad LM do have professional plus license options because clearly that seems to be the market I'm going to aim my efforts at and not the "everything is too expensive market". Elitist perhaps, bad for business maybe, but I'm not going out on a financial limb, it's just weekend and late night work - and test the waters.

 

Rob.

I agree the noise volume is frustrating. VAS in FSX and P3D are two completely different things. On my system I'm averaging 2.3 this is low. Know one knows apart from LM what the expectations for it are. We do not know how a high end add-on plane will use VAS.

 

Know one has even considered, that it might not use any at all. And by that I mean negligible.

I have said it before but will do so again:

 

Given LM's target audience, do you not think that VAS usage with addons would be a primary concern for them?

 

Is there anyone here who really thinks that pro training scenarios are going to be using default ANYTHING?

 

If its currently not where it needs to be you can bet that LM will be fixing it......they have to! Their business model relies on 3rd party addon content being able to run in the base sim.

 

I think everyone going on about this needs to calm down a little and let the dust settle a bit.

 

 

Sorry if I sound frustrated, but I'm seeing a lot of JibberJabber in terms of comparing FSX to P3Dv2.

 

Frankly your frustration frustrates me.

 

You may not like people making unfavourable comparisons of P3D but for those of us who can't afford to buy multiple simulators and associated add-ons and need to budget carefully for hardware upgrades etc., which one to commit to is a serious decision, and comparisons to platforms we're already using are very helpful in making that choice.

 

I see a balance of awe at the visual jump from FSX and frustration at the same old FSX stability issues so far, but as time goes on the inevitable fall in the frequency of problems being mentioned will persuade more people that P3D is a viable next platform.

Agree with the last few  points.  Some people complaining the VAS is high even though there is not the amount of corresponding OOM's that would have been there with FSX.

 

    We dont know how LM have handled the memory management.   It could be rubbish and you can continue to laugh at it or they might be grabbing more memory than is required at a one point in time to they can manage it better themselves to reduce fragmentation or who knows what.

 

   Until it's a problem, it's not a problem.

 

You may not like people making unfavourable comparisons of P3D but for those of us who can't afford to buy multiple simulators and associated add-ons and need to budget carefully for hardware upgrades etc., which one to commit to is a serious decision, and comparisons to platforms we're already using are very helpful in making that choice.

 

 

    Rob is pointing out the apples vs oranges comparisons.   They are not always valid and he has brought up some points to show why.   Comparisons are not the problem, just saying 'this should do that because the other one does' is not always right when the foundations are different.