The VAS is my issue

I am in the process of re-installing from scratch and I am using a famous guide to do so.

I came across something new (for me).

 

It is a Microsoft patch than can fix OOMs on SOME systems.

 

It does not fix the problem that FSX generally seems to keep filling up its VAS (the longer you fly the more VAS fills up).

And it does not fix the problem for those who dont want turn sliders down or deactivate things from their library.

 

I am no computer specialist, but I do not recommend running this unless you have OOM problems that you think others are not having and even though you are being reasonable with the ammount off addons you are trying to combine!

 

Here you go:

 

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/947246

 

 

I'll admit, part of this problem has to do with the scenery developer creating a scenery that uses a lot of VAS, however it doesn't make sense for me to uninstall and not use a scenery I paid a lot of money for just because I get an OOM with a single aircraft. I've flown multiple back-to-back-to-back legs between FSDT, Flightbeam and FlyTampa scenery with the NGX and had no VAS issue, so from where I sit the T7 is the problem. It is my hope that SP1 gives us code, or something, that is more optimized and lowers the VAS.

Thats why I shy away from buying such lavish expensive airports. To be honest some freware or "simple afcad" airports are not bad looking at all. If the airport has some things or elements (important) that are not represented, then I would buy the payware version. For example, MHTG with the default is horrible, even with the an a freeware afcad. However, the taxi 2 gate payware version is great because it helps you to accurately fly the approach using real landmarks etc. What good is it to buy say a fsdream team LAX that may hurt your 777 experience when a blueprint studios LAX or a freeware LAX from Glenn Johnson would do.

My point is that It is not pmdg's fault that you had bought a performance intensive airport when you possibly did not have to when there are decent alternatives out there that do the same job but without the same performance hit.

For my set up, I found that hd clouds drives me to ooms after two consecutive ngx flights and about one 777 flight. After that change back to reduced cloud sizes, I managed two back to back ngx flights and one 10 hour 777 flight and still no ooms. All this was before I did a major tweak to get an addition boost in frame rates.

VAS is not PMDG's fault. You're flying with an 8 year old program.

 

 

My point is that It is not pmdg's fault that you had bought a performance intensive airport when you possibly did not have to when there are decent alternatives out there that do the same job but without the same performance hit.

 

 

That is just silly to sit here and say it isn't PMDG's fault when their T7 uses more VAS than their NGX and every other aircraft on the market (that I own, and that is alot). Since I switched to FSX when the NGX came out I have never had an OOM error or CTD until purchasing the T7, and since others reported OOM issues with the T7 I know it isn't just me. Furthermore, to say I should buy a low quality scenery such as BP or use freeware for a single aircraft when FSDT KLAX was released and purchased by me far before the T7 was released, and works just fine with every aircraft except the T7, is absurd.

 

I'm going to try this OOM thing 777simmer posted and see if that helps or not.

That is just silly to sit here and say it isn't PMDG's fault when their T7 uses more VAS than their NGX and every other aircraft on the market (that I own, and that is alot). Since I switched to FSX when the NGX came out I have never had an OOM error or CTD until purchasing the T7, and since others reported OOM issues with the T7 I know it isn't just me. Furthermore, to say I should buy a low quality scenery such as BP or use freeware for a single aircraft when FSDT KLAX was released and purchased by me far before the T7 was released, and works just fine with every aircraft except the T7, is absurd.

 

I'm going to try this OOM thing 777simmer posted and see if that helps or not.

The choice is always ultimately up to you as the user of what you want to get out of fsx. Have you tried to shrink the 777's textures, I did, and I think it helps.

 

Just a thought. What would you think if the reason the 777 uses so much vas is because of the systems simulation? Remember, the 777 is a complex aircraft that has computers onboard to run its systems. Pmdg managed to get it down smaller to run on your pc.

I can VAS OOM at will in the T7 now....

 

All I have to do is keep switching views externally jumping back to the VC and going external again and within 15 mins at Cruise and BAM! OOM... !

 

And I'm not using the views excessively like a hyper active monkey. I am just viewing some different external views with the great EZDK cameras.

 

I have EZDock and about 12 external camera views set up. Apparently the T7 keeps filling the VAS when using a lot of external viewing.

 

This is without running any Photoscenery, a total of 6 add-on airports, UTX NA/Europe and GEX NA/Europe, Scenery Tech whole world, a half dozen AIG airports, ASN OFF/NO FSX Weather, UT at 45% and 25% and no mesh!

 

Running 4.5 LOD, Dense Autogen, No shadows/ No BLOOM, 4AA and 4AF, Textures no larger than 1024 and HIGHMEMFIX.

 

Happens when I'm not near any add-on airports as well!

 

Bummer!

I can VAS OOM at will in the T7 now....All I have to do is keep switching views externally jumping back to the VC and going external again and within 15 mins at Cruise and BAM! OOM...

You are not the first one to report this...

 

And I have tried this, outside inside outside inside outside inside, etc....On my system that did absolutely nothing at all.

Not over GEX/UTX area nor addon airports like Fly Tampa Vienna either.

 

My VAS did creep up over time, but not because of going outside.

 

It would be nice if we could find out what people with this problem have in common on their systems.

It would be nice if we could find out what people with this problem have in common on their systems.

Yes it would be! Perhaps a thread of its own for those with OOM problems, list system specs, scenerys installed and post a few pics of your FSX settings?

 

I'm testing out that fix you posted, not sure if it did anything or not. I'm flying LLBG - KEWR. The VAS was at 2.4 at take off and cruise up to when I entered my NAT. I didn't check it from then until now as I get ready to hit my ToD and VAS is sitting at 3.2, I'm sure that will go higher as I'm closer to KEWR and my JFK scenery loads in. Pretty much though, my VAS climbed from 2.4 to 3.2 while I crossed the UK and the Atlantic Ocean...weird since I didn't ever go external and I have no scenery of any kind in Europe or North Eastern Canada.

Well, VAS keeps creeping up as times goes by for everything it has to load.

Even if it just default FSX.

 

What I read about it is that the problem is not so much was go into VAS but more that not everything that goes in, is realeased again.

And those remainders just fill VAS over time.

I guess it will just fill faster (more that remains) the higher the graphical load is.

 

2.4GB is good/normal I would say.

 

But I usually saw VAS decrease quite a bit over the Atlantic.

 

What kind of cloud textures are you using?

Are they HD?

 

And turning off AI Traffic once in cruise might help too.

Are you using a traffic addon?

Often discussed, often mentioned, and still, i can - judging from mine and many, many other simmer's experience by now - only very highly recommend everyone encountering OOM's and so having issues with VAS to repeatingly recheck this blog entry from Word Not Allowed here and check out some of the infos and advices lined out there:

https://#####.wordpress.com/fsx-oom-and-addon-vas-usage/

 

Nothing new, as pointed out, but as this discussions always come back every now and then, why not mentioning again? :wink:

 

And one thing in advance (or again saying?).

The sad truth is:

There is no 100% cure for OOM's anymore in FSX if we want to fly add-ons of a certain high level and above various seceneries and all that simply due to FSX's 32bit/4GB VAS limitation...

So we can either spend precious time in hours and hours of turning down settings, fiddling around here and there and in the end ...- still run into an OOM again - or - we can follow some basic settings (as for instance outlined in the entry by Word Not Allowed mentioned right above), adjust them to our individual PC set ups and ... - well ...

... maybe considering to check out switching to DX10 ...

This can be done either on our own or with  - in my opinion also most fantastic and easy to use - Steve's DX10 fix.

Because under DX10, FSX - for whatever exact reason now - does much less likely exceed its "VAS limit" than it does under DX9.

So, in case interested to find out more, please feel free to take a look here:

http://forum.avsim.net/forum/644-the-official-dx10-scenery-fixer-support-forum/

 

http://forum.avsim.net/forum/569-dx-10-discussions-hints-and-help/

 

Sure:

Some issues may still exist under DX10 - just as they do with DX9 - due to FSX's aged code and "all-time" issues.

But overall there is really lots and even more to gain in a most positive way when finally getting FSX DX10 ready nowadays - especially when flying rather complex aircrafts on rather long flights, such as - well: The 777!

I know ... all nothing new, but ... well, why not mentioning/suggesting it all again every now and then.

:smile:

Don't FS9 AI AC like WOAI not display properly in DX10 mode? If so it would pretty much kill DX10 for me.

James Bennet

 

The only way is to buy both.

Don't FS9 AI AC like WOAI not display properly in DX10 mode? If so it would pretty much kill DX10 for me.

 

Honestly saying: I can't answer Your question because i don't use WOAI.

But when using the DX10 fix there are various factors/values which can be tuned easily via the DX10 fixer's GUI to Your likings/needs.

Some of them take care of "legacy" aircraft - so that may work - if needed, because maybe WOAI A/C even work without any issues at all.

Sorry, but i can't offer You a better answer.

Please consider asking Your question at the dedicated DX10 fix or DX10 support forums here at AVSIM though as i am sure You will find proper information there.

Often discussed, often mentioned, and still, i can - judging from mine and many, many other simmer's experience by now - only very highly recommend everyone encountering OOM's and so having issues with VAS to repeatingly recheck this blog entry from Word Not Allowed here and check out some of the infos and advices lined out there:

https://#####.wordpress.com/fsx-oom-and-addon-vas-usage/

 

Nothing new, as pointed out, but as this discussions always come back every now and then, why not mentioning again? :wink:

 

And one thing in advance (or again saying?).

The sad truth is:

There is no 100% cure for OOM's anymore in FSX if we want to fly add-ons of a certain high level and above various seceneries and all that simply due to FSX's 32bit/4GB VAS limitation...

So we can either spend precious time in hours and hours of turning down settings, fiddling around here and there and in the end ...- still run into an OOM again - or - we can follow some basic settings (as for instance outlined in the entry by Word Not Allowed mentioned right above), adjust them to our individual PC set ups and ... - well ...

... maybe considering to check out switching to DX10 ...

This can be done either on our own or with  - in my opinion also most fantastic and easy to use - Steve's DX10 fix.

Because under DX10, FSX - for whatever exact reason now - does much less likely exceed its "VAS limit" than it does under DX9.

So, in case interested to find out more, please feel free to take a look here:

http://forum.avsim.net/forum/644-the-official-dx10-scenery-fixer-support-forum/

 

http://forum.avsim.net/forum/569-dx-10-discussions-hints-and-help/

 

Sure:

Some issues may still exist under DX10 - just as they do with DX9 - due to FSX's aged code and "all-time" issues.

But overall there is really lots and even more to gain in a most positive way when finally getting FSX DX10 ready nowadays - especially when flying rather complex aircrafts on rather long flights, such as - well: The 777!

I know ... all nothing new, but ... well, why not mentioning/suggesting it all again every now and then.

:smile:

 

I'd love to switch to DX10 as I've heard most of the graphical issues in FSX have been fixed but PMDG Officially STATED that they will not support DX10 in the T7 or NGX despite the J41 having DX10 support...

 

I'd rather OOM than lose my VC shadows I'm afraid!

That is just silly to sit here and say it isn't PMDG's fault when their T7 uses more VAS than their NGX and every other aircraft on the market (that I own, and that is alot). Since I switched to FSX when the NGX came out I have never had an OOM error or CTD until purchasing the T7, and since others reported OOM issues with the T7 I know it isn't just me. Furthermore, to say I should buy a low quality scenery such as BP or use freeware for a single aircraft when FSDT KLAX was released and purchased by me far before the T7 was released, and works just fine with every aircraft except the T7, is absurd.

 

I'm going to try this OOM thing 777simmer posted and see if that helps or not.

 

Just for once I wish people would educate themselves about how software and computers actually work before saying things like this. At some point you appear to have gotten the idea that this all just works by magic and that you can have anything you want without limits. This has never been true with software and it never will be. The 777 is a FAR more complicated airplane systems-wise than the NG is and even then the VAS load is no more than 50-100MB higher in our testing. Do you think things like fully interactive electronic checklists, higher resolution terrain on the ND, the full EICAS logic, the fly-by-wire system etc that don't exist in the NG come for free without any processing or memory cost? That we can just miraculously make them use hundreds of MB less memory? We flat out said this would be the case before release and it's in the manual stated extremely clearly. For you to say that you will refuse to compromise on any part of the sim despite the extremely well known limitations of FSX as a 32-bit application is too much for me.

 

For what it's worth too - I run all the FSDT, FlightBeam, FlyTampa etc airports with the 777 without issue. It's not specifically the airports, it's the overall combination of stuff you're running. You can't have a bunch of 4096 textures, crazy dense weather, 100% AI traffic, photo scenery, super detailed mesh, high detail airports, and then load up the most detailed aircraft that exists for the sim and expect FSX to cope with all of that. Literally every single one of these things is something Microsoft never designed the sim to do. You're pushing it past the breaking point.

 

And lest you think this is something that is specific to us or FSX, go read the forums for games like Planetside 2 or Skyrim. Users have pushed past the 32-bit VAS barrier with those games too. The only solution to this besides compromising somewhere in the addons you're running is a 64-bit version of the game. This is obviously not going to happen for FSX so you are left only with the compromise option. The 777 in my testing takes up 700-800MB of VAS - that means 3+GB of VAS usage are coming from sources that are not us. You spend 95% of a flight in the cockpit, so why exactly should the aircraft be blamed for these issues when it's not even a quarter of the total usage?

QUOTE: You can't have a bunch of 4096 textures, crazy dense weather, 100% AI traffic, photo scenery, super detailed mesh, high detail airports, and then load up the most detailed aircraft that exists for the sim and expect FSX to cope with all of that.

 

 

 

I'm not running anything anywhere near that high (1024 Textures/0 weather/45% AI/0 Photo scenery/0 mesh/6 total HD AP's and I'm getting VAS issues with the T7, when I've never ever had them happen before? That dinging Windows Bell scared the heck outta me though!

 

DX10 has been documented as helping with VAS (see Mutley's Hangar review of Steve's DX10 Fixer, his VAS was 1 GB less!!!).

 

Mutley's PMDG 777 Quote:

 

But let’s consider an example machine: mine. I’m running an i5 760 overclocked to 4GHz (beyond that point the heat and the voltage both started to escalate dramatically) alongside a factory-overclocked Nvidia GeForce GTX 670 card. Immediately after implementing DX10 I found that my frames per second (fps) increased slightly, but only by around 3 - 5 fps. My VAS usage, however, dropped by getting on for 1Gb, so that I went from needing to think about what airports I landed at (DX9 VAS generally reaches its maximum when you touch down at your destination airport, only increasing beyond that if you summon deboarding from GSX) to being able to fly long haul trips for hours in my PMDG 777 into the most demanding airports in the world with no problems at all.

 

Anyway: the bottom line is that for me the performance increase in terms of fps was sufficient to allow me to tweak some other settings such as LOD_RADIUS to achieve significant improvements in what I see onscreen, so I’m an extremely happy bunny: my FSX has never looked so good, and hasn’t run out of VAS no matter how hard I tried to make it do so. (Can you take the PMDG 777 out of Orbx’s Southampton airport and land it at one of the advanced renditions of Heathrow, whilst using Orbx England and detailed mesh? I can (now) — but I certainly wouldn’t care to try that in DX9....).

 

 

I agree that the T7 should be blamed for issues but why not incorporate a known solution into the model when it was already done for the JS41? If all FSX developers did what they could to help their products lower VAS usage including adding support for DX10 this would be a very responsible approach across the board. Your right in that FSX will never go 64-bit but DX10 is already a known VAS benefit without the dreaded "Compromise Only" option. This is why I firmly believe that Dx10 is the only future for FSX...

 

So the BIG question for me is:

 

IS there any possibility that DX10 will be supported in the future?