On my PC the OOMs went away when I disabled the anti autogen popping.

 

That doesn't surprise me: as I said above, this change probably is one of the main reasons for the change of VAS usage. But at the same time this feature is one of the main reasons I like P3D! I rather lower autogen than to get popping autogen again. 

 

Up to now I never really understood what the buzz was all about, but yes… we need 64 bits!!!  ^_^ (Amongst others…)

Just making an observation. I never questioned anybody else's decision to change, just noting that from the outside right now (certainly for me) there seems little point on jumping onto a visibly listing ship till the hole is patched. Unless you just fancy the possibility of a quick swim, in which case its not very shocking if you get wet.

 

Especially if the old ship (FSX) is still quite seaworthy, for now.

 

Thread after thread with problem after problem with this and that and generally just about anything third party, followed by a tidal wave of tweaks with results just as random as in FSX. I just wonder why people don't hold off a bit on installing addons till the difficulty is tracked down and the all clear given. It seems like almost nobody is doing that though. Instead its a litany of OOM's.

 

So now people are talking about putting P3Dv2 aside for a while or even returning it. Meanwhile I'm reading all these threads trying to decide if jumping to the new boat and trying the next big thing is an attractive idea, and....... from what I'm gathering, right now its just not. I'm already a paying beta tester on Xplane.  :unsure:

 

At this point, after watching the adventures of the early adapters, if I still had an urge to jump ship I would probably just chill and enjoy default, or accept that If I cant do that then I shouldn't be shocked if issues arise.

 

I thought it only fair to explain why I gave your comments a dislike as follows:-

 

1. I do not feel that P3Dv2 could in anyway be compared to a listing ship, especially with regards to your follow up comment (2)

2."The old ship (FSX) is still quite seaworthy". Not bad for a 7 year old product that is no longer being developed

3. Problem after problem? Do you just focus on the negativity, because I am seeing a lot more positive comments than negative.

 

And finally, I like your signature although, (with regards to your comments), quite ironic - "An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?" Rene Descartes.   :lol:  :lol: 

Rob I'm running the same resolution as you, 2560x1600 on a 30" monitor. Is there a reason why you're not running with 'wideview aspect' checked? I also notice on your shadows you have "noshadow flagged content" checked, what is that for? You're on a 6gb GTX 780 Titan right?

1. I do not feel that P3Dv2 could in anyway be compared to a listing ship, especially with regards to your follow up comment

 

For my purposes it is. I pretty much want to fly, not tweak. The main draw of the sim for me would be that it simply works. Right now, the eagerly awaited patch argues that there are acknowledged issues to be resolved.

 

 

The old ship (FSX) is still quite seaworthy". Not bad for a 7 year old product that is no longer being developed

 

No, its actually quite good, and a tribute both to the programmers that made it and the third parties that expanded it. For me, the fact that something new has come along doesn't automatically invalidate the continued usefulness of the older program, especially when the vendors are still creating for it so prolifically.

 

 

Problem after problem? Do you just focus on the negativity, because I am seeing a lot more positive comments than negative.

 

And I see enough issues to cause reasonable doubt in my decision to blow $200

 

 

And finally, I like your signature although, (with regards to your comments), quite ironic - "An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?" Rene Descartes.

 

A bit of a stretch since I noted that I wasn't questioning anyone else's decision to change nor did I say the program sucked or could not be redeemed. Pessimistic? I would answer that I've spent years tweaking FSX and don't see a reason to start that again when my absolute main reason for switching in the first place would be to finally leave that as far behind as realistically possible. That's not ironic at all.

Autogen vegetation is down to 'very dense' and scenery complexity to 'very dense'. 

 

No crash from YPMQ to YSSY! However, it was a clear night, so no clouds.

 

It seems vegetation may be the biggest factor in VAS! 

have you guys applied any of the tweaks available in the LM folder of P3D2?

Well, I tested the various autogen settings on my PC.

 

Extremely dense VAS 1.940.xxx

Very dense VAS 1.796.xx

Dense VAS 1.678

 

There indeed are differences but 1. this is one step too far for me: autogen at Dense just doesn't cut it, it's as if a hurricane has gone over the country and you totally lose the feeling of flying over real forests, and 2. I can't believe going from a startup VAS of 1.796 to 1.678 will prevent OOMs completely. Add one addon to the bunch and you already are passed that Very dense VAS. I will stick with Very dense, that's for sure.

have you guys applied any of the tweaks available in the LM folder of P3D2?

 

AffinityMask=14 (for my 4-core i7 2700K with HT disabled), and FFTF=0.15 - not 0.33 as used in LM's example.

2. I can't believe going from a startup VAS of 1.796 to 1.678 will prevent OOMs completely. Add one addon to the bunch and you already are passed that Very dense VAS

 

I think so to!

I highly appreciate all the info here in this very interesting thread and all the testing which is done by all the many various users here, but fact still is that

lowering autogen settings can just be some kind of first aid and maybe some hint for LM to recheck the VAS useage of autogen in P3D.2. and see if things can be improved here.

It certainly is no sustainable solution to keep clear of OOM's though, as overall autogen is not (or should not be) a very VAS demanding component at all.

Anyhow, again saying though:

Every idea/suggestion and info which helps to improve the situation is most welcome and highly appreciated!

 

But P3D.2 certainly needs some more tuning "under the hood" regarding its handling of VAS to really improve this situation noticeably, so that in some future maybe not that far away, great, but also VAS demanding add ons such as, let's say FSDT's CYVR and PMDG's 777 for example can be used properly within it.

Cheers, Christoph

 

 

Well, as it is right now I don't HAVE to do it because I don't have any OOMs with my current setup, but if I add more add ons in the future and specially when I get a new PC and want to run some higher settings, I might have to give this a try.

 

Yeah, I loaded up the scene pretty good (lots of 3rd party, etc. etc.) an pushed the envelope ... I can live with the settings, not ideal and certainly restricting the products potential - but it is what it is.  The solution is obvious and I can only hope history doesn't repeat itself and things don't get prioritized out of convenience rather than problem solving.

 

Beau (LM) responded in my thread with some good information and they will look into possible fragmentation issue around the new AutoGen system ... so it sounds like there is an issue LM feel is worth investigation.  And if they include their memory manager UI, it should help many tune in a balance to fit the shackles of a 32bit address space.

 

 

 

2. I can't believe going from a startup VAS of 1.796 to 1.678 will prevent OOMs completely

 

You need to fly around for a while and change views do a full 360 in the various views etc. etc. -- startup doesn't manifest the problem or maybe more accurate to say show the difference in VAS usage.  It might make sense for LM to add a more granular settings for AutoGen rather than what appears to be drastic changes in AutoGen.

 

The good news is that my texture settings don't seem to impact VAS (if you have lots of VRAM) and have no impact of fps even when I know 4096 textures are present in the scene (REX 4 clouds for example, lots of them).  Also, I can run 32bit REX water/clouds etc. rather than compressed DXT without much of an impact on VAS -- which makes sense to me since these should be living in VRAM ... in fact, I got a slight fps increase using 32bit rather than DXT.  So turning these two Autogen settings down has allowed me to turn a few other settings up.

 

 

So turning these two Autogen settings down has allowed me to turn a few other settings up.

 

It's the usual balancing act... ^_^

 

The next time I test something I will recreate a few of my old FSX testflights in which I actually flew. Simply starting a flight and standing still on the tarmac isn't the best testing method indeed...

+1 If this doesn't get solved, the future of P3D v2 will be looking grim.

 

++1.  Couldn't have said it better myself.  I purchased P3D V2 opening day and was flamed on here because I took issue with how badly the memory management was.  Needless to say I got a full refund and hopped on over to the "other" simulator.  P3D V2 needs to go 64 bit... bottom line.  Once this happens I will happily purchase a license.  Until then, I see the same issues (if not slightly worse) regarding OOM's that FSX had. 

Right now I see the "64bit is an absolute must," which is safe to use as an immediate focus for complaint, but I wonder...

 

...when P3DvX.X is finally made 64bit, what will be the next thing to seized upon for a whipping boy? :LMAO:

 

 

ANZ121, on 10 Jan 2014 - 9:34 PM, said:
Problem after problem? Do you just focus on the negativity, because I am seeing a lot more positive comments than negative.
 
And I see enough issues to cause reasonable doubt in my decision to blow $200
 

 

I can see your point here, for sure. I still see it as money well spent because, teething problems to one side, I am getting my monies worth, now, today.

Well, I tested the various autogen settings on my PC.

 

Extremely dense VAS 1.940.xxx

Very dense VAS 1.796.xx

Dense VAS 1.678

 

There indeed are differences but 1. this is one step too far for me: autogen at Dense just doesn't cut it, it's as if a hurricane has gone over the country and you totally lose the feeling of flying over real forests, and 2. I can't believe going from a startup VAS of 1.796 to 1.678 will prevent OOMs completely. Add one addon to the bunch and you already are passed that Very dense VAS. I will stick with Very dense, that's for sure.

 

Apparently, it is not just the amount of VAS showing on the monitor, but "heap fragmentation issues" that can cause a sudden, massive spike in VAS that does not even show up on a VAS counter. LM has said that this is a bug that occurs at high autogen settings and is likely the reason that OOMs have been eliminated for me by moving from very dense to dense (my OOMs always occurred with lots of free VAS showing on the counter). In any case, LM is on it, and we can hope for a fix.