Oh boy... just had an OOM with autogen at Dense...?!?! I don't know what I like more right now: P3D v2 or FSUIPC's autosave... :blink:

 

Anyway, what some of us (including me) tend to forget, I think, is that almost all OOMs we get are 'false OOM's', meaning we get them while VAS is somewhere around 2.5 - 3.5. This clearly IS a problem that LM will (have to) solve and when they have done that, I do believe most of our OOM problems will be gone and things will be more similar to FSX. I mean, how often does my VAS get close to 4 GB...? Hardly ever! So I shouldn't be getting OOMs at all! P3D v2 itself should be fine and I should be able to use various addons without problems but as it is now something is causing problems and that something will (have to) be solved. Simple as that. It's not that P3D v2 will have OOM problems as long as its 32 bit: 64 bit would be nice but P3D v2 should be able to run just as well as FSX in 23 bit and that is only a matter of time.

 

I wasn't aware of that. If this issue is real, then Lockheed Martin must definitely fix it. Have they acknowledged that problem?

Maybe I missed something, because I didn't get that at all.  Beau was simply explaining (with some frustration, perhaps) that a flight sim platform (be it FSX, XP19, or P3D2) is a whole different animal from a FPS game, with entirely different coding needs ... so being able to run a modern FPS game at max settings, does not mean that you should be able to run P3D2 on max settings.  Plus he also said something that I've been trying to explain (only he did a much better job of it) . . .

I was more thinking about him stating that much of the feedback cover a narrow user case (read gamers) and that there are users not using aircraft in P3D at all. And his frustration is obvious, and I share it, because so much of the feedback is related to using P3D v2 with addons - something out of control of LM. Most of the feedback is just nonsense and obviously from users not using P3D for professional simulation or training at all. For those trying to keep track of the bugs, and test things on our own setup, it is very difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff in their forums.

I was more thinking about him stating that much of the feedback cover a narrow user case (read gamers) and that there are users not using aircraft in P3D at all. And his frustration is obvious, and I share it, because so much of the feedback is related to using P3D v2 with addons - something out of control of LM. Most of the feedback is just nonsense and obviously from users not using P3D for professional simulation or training at all. For those trying to keep track of the bugs, and test things on our own setup, it is very difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff in their forums.

 

Ok, thanks for explaining that in a way that I now understand. I completely agree with what you just wrote.  

 

This is not meant to be any kind of comparison to what LM must be dealing with . . . but just my way of showing that I do understand your point: I make huge overhaul mods for some popular games and I just release a major update that I've been working on for three months. I'm the only beta tester for my mods, so I always encourage feedback ... especially if anyone discovers a bug that I missed. But then I spend 90% of my support time, trying to help users who are having problems with my mod, spending hours trying to recreate their bug, only to eventually learn that they were trying to use it with another mod that was not even compatible with mine.

 

Chasing down bugs can be a very difficult process, especially with a sim as complex as P3D2.  And feedback can really muck up the waters unless someone is in charge of separating the few meaningful posts from the barrage of not-helpful ones.

Yep, it is a tedious process. As software becomes more complex, bugs become more numerous and complex to recreate too. I see this at work where we 10-20 years ago had almost no bugs at all in our systems, but now users have issues weekly. As a user it is extremely frustrating.

I wasn't aware of that. If this issue is real, then Lockheed Martin must definitely fix it. Have they acknowledged that problem?

 

Well, they have acknowledged that a few things are going wrong with the memory (autogen not loading as it should, double textures being loaded) but they have not yet simply said, at least afaik, 'VAS is acting odd' or something like that. When it comes to VAS LM says you may have to use lower settings etc. and I didn't yet read an official reply stating that something is going wrong with VAS and that they are working on it. I just hope that the things they ARE working on, will work out well for the VAS. They DO however know (because it has been posted again and again) that most people who have problems with VAS, get OOMs long before VAS reaches 4 GB so long before they SHOULD get an OOM. I think LM is clever enough to figure out something is wrong in that regard.

I was more thinking about him stating that much of the feedback cover a narrow user case (read gamers) and that there are users not using aircraft in P3D at all. And his frustration is obvious, and I share it, because so much of the feedback is related to using P3D v2 with addons - something out of control of LM. Most of the feedback is just nonsense and obviously from users not using P3D for professional simulation or training at all.

 

Completely disagree.

 

Gamers -- that's seems pretty judgmental to me and if that is even accurate why use Microsoft's ESP in the first place since it was aimed at entertainment??  

 

But if we're not who they want to sell the product to, then crank up the cost and don't make it available on a public web site -  problem solved for LM.  I do sense frustration from LM and some is justified ... like 3rd party asking for FS8 compatibility (aka Virtuali) and other various comments -- there are some rather strange posts, but did they expect anything different?

 

In P3DV2's current state, I honestly can't see any professional or training facility using it ... there are some really obvious issues regardless of how an end user implements or what that end user's purpose/intent is.  

 

I can and have demonstrated OOMs with base LM installation even with just a single monitor (2560 x 1600) ... I have not tried using 3 monitors yet because I know it'll only be more likely to OOM sooner.  If LM's product is not about flight simulation at it's core, then they probably should consider removing all those images that include aircraft and the process of flight on their web site (I've only seen 3 images that weren't about flight). 

 

One can still point out a product's issue and still be helpful and enjoy the product ... just because someone points out it's problems doesn't mean they hate the product, the work that went into the product, or the people supporting the product.  It's just feedback ... so what's better feedback or no feedback?  It's only $9.95 to try out P3DV2.  They can close the door if they want to and feel it's better for them to do so ... but clearly it's not.

 

If LM want to avoid many of the things being reported in their forums then they should consider extending Beta testing cycle and/or open it up to more than just 3rd party because clearly there was some type of disconnect between real users and 3rd party (not surprisingly because 3rd party tend to have a very specific focus) -- or maybe 3rd party did indeed report some of the more obvious issues and LM decided to release anyway.

 

But blanket statements about suggesting all their customers are "Gamers", and don't know what they're doing, and they're using it wrong, is probably a lot less helpful and certainly not constructive ... that's LM frustration showing.  

 

An honest response from LM would be "yes we know we have memory issues, we're a small crew doing the best we can, sorry 64bit is NOT in the cards at this point and we're not sure when/if it will be" ... that's honesty and IMHO that'll work better than calling everyone "gamers".

 

Cheers, Rob.

You're free to disagree Rob. I'm not using gamers in a judgemental sense - I'm one myself - not using P3D in a professional sense. I play pretend pilot and love to learn about geography and the heavier than air machines that takes us around it since I can't do that in real life.

 

P3D is far less professional if you look at the price per license compared to ESP which was extremely expensive and not sold to single users. I'm in no doubt that LM put the back door open for gamers like me to enter the party, but I'm also sure it could be shut pretty quick if things get out of hand at their support forum.

Gamers -- that's seems pretty judgmental to me and if that is even accurate why use Microsoft's ESP in the first place since it was aimed at entertainment??

Um Rob, ESP was never "aimed at entertainment." Microsoft only marketed ESP1 and ESP2 to professional users for integration into certifiable hardware simulation products, and their pricing reflected that!

 

At $799/machine license, it was certainly not for the general masses... 

 

Shoot, just the SDK cost me $99!!!

Let me give a further quote from Beau Hollis's  post

 

Even if there are some members of this community who happen to be subject matter experts in computer programming with a specialization in graphics and rendering, they wouldn’t be able to answer any the above questions without a working knowledge of our baseline spanning more than 4 million lines of code. While I’m sure they are well-intended, request to thread out x or move y to the GPU aren’t really helpful to us and tend to confuse the community further as the ensuing responses get more bogged down in technical details.

 

 

 

And P3D2 (32-bit) runs better, and looks better, than X-Plane 10 64-bit. 

 

From what I've seen from videos and screenshots I'd agree that P3D2 does fog better, but what else do you think looks better in terms of visuals?

 

As for running better, the fact you posted this on page 9 of a thread about OOMs should be proof enough that's not true. You might be able to tank your frames by setting all sliders to max in XP10, but one thing you don't need to do is spend your flights worrying about when the sim is going to CTD or OOM.

From what I've seen from videos and screenshots I'd agree that P3D2 does fog better, but what else do you think looks better in terms of visuals?

 

As for running better, the fact you posted this on page 9 of a thread about OOMs should be proof enough that's not true. You might be able to tank your frames by setting all sliders to max in XP10, but one thing you don't need to do is spend your flights worrying about when the sim is going to CTD or OOM.

 

When I bought a new computer this past summer, the first software that I bought for it was X-Plane 10, but I was very disappointed! I owned X-Plane 9, so it wasn't like I was unfamiliar with this sim, but I had expected a LOT more from this new version. X-Plane 10's "plausible world" never felt very plausible to me, and flying a small plane just felt wrong (it got blown all over the place, like it weighed nothing). The only thing I really liked about X-Plane was it's night lighting (but I rarely fly at night) and the flight model of helicopters.

 

Until P3D2 was released, X-Plane 10 was my primary sim, (I also used MS Flight, mainly as a break from X-Plane's horrid GA flight model). But I had invested in X-Plane 10, so I really wanted it to work for me ... but it didn't,

 

Once I purchased P3D2, it was the only sim I flew for like the first 3 weeks. But then I fired up X-Plane, which I updated to the latest version, because I wanted to see if I have been just imagining that P3D2 was really that much better. I flew around for a while, and I immediately missed P3D's feeling of reality . . . both in the way the small aircraft feel and in the way the scenery looks, and in all the other little things the are just better in P3D. BTW: running X-Plane 64-bit, I was averaging about 34 FPS in my home area . . . in P3D I'm getting 60 FPS (which is the max I can get on my current monitor, with vertical sync locked). And I have both configured as close to the same as I can get them.

 

I'm not saying that X-Plane is a bad sim, just that I personally prefer P3D. I'm VERY right brain dominant (most of the left side of my brain was damaged when I was little), so my opinions about the visuals could be very different than that of others, but P3D just works for me, in a way that no other flight sim does (and I've been flying sims for many years).

 

As far as the memory issues with P3D2 (since that is the topic of this thread), as I posted earlier, I haven't had an OOM error in weeks, and the only CTD was when I mistakenly hit the wrong key (to change my IFR flight plan, which is a known bug, that LM has supposedly fixed in their upcoming patch). So I don't spend my flights worrying that P3D2 will crash.

 

I have followed X-Plane 10 very closely (before it was even released), so I know that its initial release was far from bug free, and I have personally experienced CTDs in X-Plane, so please don't try to represent it as a bug free sim.

Show me where I said XP10 is big free.

 

You not getting CTDs or OOMs doesn't invalidate the experiences of other that do. And as for god comparisons? Two different sims so really an apples and oranges comparison but since you brought it up (sigh) if you reduce sliders to the degree you seem to have to in P3D2 to avoid OOMs I'm sure fps in XP 10 will be comfortably higher than 60.

 

But you can easily compare performance by seeing which sim's forums have the most threads about issues since this forum started. Want to pop over to the XP forums to see how many threads there are about CTDs and OOMs over the last couple of months?

Sorry, that should be 'bug free' and fps comparisons'. Shafted by autocorrect again...

Look, I'm not going to ague about this, but P3D2 does honestly run better than X-Plane 10 does on my PC.  Do you actually think that I don't know how to adjust sliders in X-Plane??? My P3D2 settings are posted HERE, with a few screenshots. As you can see (if you take the time to look), I'm not exactly running P3D2 on low settings. There is NO WAY that I can get X-Plane 10 (64-bit) to look like P3D2 does on my system, with anything near the same FPS,

 

X-Plane 10 was released on November 2011, how about we pick this debate up again in Nov. 2015, after LM has had 2 years to improve its initial release?

 

 

X-Plane 10 was released on November 2011, how about we pick this debate up again in Nov. 2015, after LM has had 2 years to improve its initial release?

 

Is that fair - after all Lockheed Martin's the largest defence contractor in the world?

Whichever platform can help me "train" to do this as accurately as possible -- wins!!

 

 

Fair deal?  

 

I gotta go fly Wales now and find this little gem of a spot!