The thing with P3D2 and OOMs is .......

[mgh 89]

That would make sense because in DX11, that vram doesn't have to share in P3D's own memory space

VRAM didn't share memory space previously. People are using 4GB graphics cards with FSX.

[KingGhidorah 209]

VRAM didn't share memory space previously. People are using 4GB graphics cards with FSX.

 

This is complex stuff, and there is no guarantee I'm not mistaken, but I'm fairly sure that in DX9, the vram is included in that 4 gb vas limit of the 32 bit application using it.  Obviously that is a concern for FSX users on DX9, but not applicable to the DX11 P3D, so when High Tower reports that a "2GB card and DX11 makes a difference, I would say yes, that is very expected due to that limitation on the Vram no longer being there.

[mgh 89]

But people are using 4 Gb graphics cards with FSX on 64-bit Windows. If that counted against the available 4Gb VAS there's be no VAS left to run FSX.

 

 

Yes...I use a 4GB GTX680 in Win7 x64...no OOM issues here.

 

Cheers

[Q_flyer 766]

Is anyone even thinking about applying the 'largeaddressaware' patch on P3D's .exe file.  Is that possible or is it already applied seeing as 90% of users are using this sim on a 64bit OS.

 

 

Dillon, that was already there in either Sp1 or Sp2 of FSX, I forget which.  So FSX and it's successors have been able to use 4 gb address space for a long time.

 

 

But we're talking about P3D v2 here...

 

 

I know.   Again, FSX had that flag set in SP1 allowing it to address the full 4 gb.  Although I don't have the executable myself to check the flag, you can bet that that hasn't changed in P3D.

 

 

I've just checked this, using CFF Explorer suite, and yes, as KingGhidorah said, the large address is already flagged, so no further mileage with this one I'm afraid.

[Jim Young 2,356]

Fixes for OOM's are available and have been for some time for FSX and P3D is not that much different, just some better programming.  The problem with the "fixes" is that they do not work for everyone as everybody has a different setup (system and P3D/display driver configuration).  The max LOD_Radius setting in the P3D settings page will show 6.5 in the P3D.cfg.  A 6.5 brought down some FSX systems and this setting is known to cause OOM's if set too high and P3D is no different.  So, if one is having problems with OOM's, that would be the first "fix" I would try.  I would suspect some might have pumped that up to 7.5 or 8.5 by now!!! :Just Kidding: Pushing your display driver settings might cause problems too.  Make sure NI is set to P3D as well as inside the NVidia Display Driver page.  Tweaks have been known to cause OOM's too.  The Bufferpools tweak is just one of the main ones that causes OOM's if not employed properly.

 

But people are using 4 Gb graphics cards with FSX on 64-bit Windows. If that counted against the available 4Gb VAS there's be no VAS left to run FSX.

 

I understand that P3D was programmed to use more of the video memory so those with huge video cards with tons of memory will see some improvements. 

 

Best regards,

 

 

 

 

[Brian Doney 127]

But people are using 4 Gb graphics cards with FSX on 64-bit Windows. If that counted against the available 4Gb VAS there's be no VAS left to run FSX.

 

 

 

 

Used VRAM is mirrored in DX9, not the entire available buffer.

[mgh 89]

Used VRAM is mirrored in DX9, not the entire available buffer.

That implies all the VRAM can't be used in FSX?

 

[Brian Doney 127]

FSX really doesn't have any reason to, but no, it couldn't.

 

You can certainly balloon VRAM usage in FSX, or anything really, by using high SSAA levels/extremely high resolutions, but FSX itself isn't doing anything that would require that much to begin with on it's own. DX10 changes things a bit of course, but still nowhere near the degree that DX11 does.

 

P3D2 is very different, much more VRAM is reserved for the tasks that are actually being performed on the GPU, contrasted with FSX where most of these tasks were done by the CPU/in system RAM (terrain generation), or not at all (tessellation).

[Baylorguy 39]

I am no computer guru... but the way I see it is that it is not a hardware issue for me... it is the fact that we are trying to push the envelope on a 32 bit application.  I have a GTX 780 and i7 4770K. When I get OOM's it is not as if my computer is struggling... I was getting 40+ fps when it happened to me.  It seems to me the hardware is actually being held back by the software, not the other way around.

 

What is the use of fancy graphics if one cannot even use them?  Again, it is not a hardware limitation... the limitation is 32 bit, and that needs to change.  I get why LM wanted to fix the code first.  That being said, so many on here keep ignoring the obvious solution to the problem.  We should not have to spend more time tweaking than we do flying.  Just calling it like I see it.

[z06z33 763]

Its the shadows and the waves. I wish I could just get my rex water textures from fsx working in p3d once I installed rex the water looked even worse than stock.

[Noel 4,495]

 

 

I wish I could just get my rex water textures from fsx working in p3d once I installed rex the water looked even worse than stock.

This HAS to be on the v2.1 agenda.  Same here on water:  atrocious is the description I would use, and that as you say pre & post REX texture installation.   I would have assumed w/ DX10-11 water would be something that could really, I mean really, be done right.   

 

I'm puzzled about two issues:  

1.  I have yet to get an OOM in FSX and that is yes in the T7 or NGX, in FTXG AND FTX regional scenery, including FB KSFO & KPHX.  How come?  I have flow from KJFK to EHAM and plenty of other longer flights.  How come no OOM's?  I have yet to get an OOM in V2 either, however that is only w/ FTXG & REX E+.

2.  What is the relationship between VAS & VRAM utilization?  I must be missing something key because I thought VAS related only to system ram, not video ram.  If this were the case, this could potentially greatly improve the VAS issue, but apparently not.  While there is clearly much improved GPU utilization, including VRAM utilization, so doesn't this effectively increase total memory utilization over what FSX could utilize?

[Brian Doney 127]

What is the use of fancy graphics if one cannot even use them? 

 

I agree and disagree with this point.

 

On the one hand, I haven't even come close to an OOM, so it is entirely possible to fully utilize the features that are primarily GPU dependent, which is what I have been testing lately.

 

On the other hand, it really is never a good idea to let options be configured in such a way as to break the application during normal use, even without add-on content. The issue with that, though, is that you could easily do the same with FSX via the cfg.

 

I think it's a bit easier to take if you consider that while LM has been focusing on providing the capability to take advantage of new graphics hardware, the underlying engine is still just as fragile as it ever was, and there really is only so much they can do with it. If you absolutely couldn't do something in FSX without OOM issues, that will likely still be true in P3D.

 

A lot of this is our own fault, or rather, mismanaged and misguided expectations. 4096 textures are a prime example of something that could have been used to lessen IOPS by allowing 4 1024 textures to be combined into one read, but has instead been used so that we can count rivets, of course further exacerbating the VAS issue.

 

64 bits is certainly the only option going forward, but I will need to be convinced that a 64 bit version of this engine is a better idea than a new engine altogether. Not to mention, I am a bit frightened at what will reach the market with no VAS restrictions to consider, with the cavalier attitude the 32 bit environment has suffered.

[styckx 1,871]

 I am a bit frightened at what will reach the market with no VAS restrictions to consider

 

Day 1: 64Bit P3D released

Day 2: Carenado announces his next plane will feature 16384x16384 textures 

 

:lol:

[Brian Doney 127]

Day 1: 64Bit P3D released

Day 2: Carenado announces his next plane will feature 16384x16384 textures 

 

:lol:

 

 

If that is what happens, I swear I will think very bad things about all of you.

 

 

THIS USER SHOULD BE BANNED FOR THIS POST

 

 

 

 

AMONG OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

:biggrin:

[Jetman67 517]

pretty silly post