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

The T7 works fine in DX10 (Fixer ).  I assume PMDG won't offer support if you get issues because of DX10. That is highly unlikely that you would need PMDG support in DX10 anyway.

If you have other tech issues you will still get support, just not getting it to run in DX10. I do not stop using DX10 because PMDG don't support it, that would be silly.

People really:  you simply cannot blame PMDG for the faults of FSX.  FSX is broken code.  All we can do is work around it.

The T7 works fine in DX10 (Fixer ).  I assume PMDG won't offer support if you get issues because of DX10. That is highly unlikely that you would need PMDG support in DX10 anyway.

If you have other tech issues you will still get support, just not getting it to run in DX10. I do not stop using DX10 because PMDG don't support it, that would be silly.

Yes, but the T7 VC shadows were written for DX9 and don't work/display at all in DX10...

 

The JS41 has working DX10 VC Shadows!

 

Although, the last Developer post does prove a point that it's always easier to lay the blame game on the stupidity of the end user and their insatiable greed for addons and the laziness of all the scenery makers than actually taking the time and effort in instituting options in a product of their own that will help considerably lower VAS...

 

I just want to fly the T7 from one addon Airport to another w/o weather/ w/o mesh /1024 textures and little to no AI without VAS'ing...

 

And I had the NGX on my list next (after beholding the beauty of the T7) but can't deal with these VAS issues all over again with another beautiful AC that I can not fly anywhere!

People really:  you simply cannot blame PMDG for the faults of FSX.  FSX is broken code.  All we can do is work around it.

Yes and DX10 is the ULTIMATE work around regarding VAS!!! All we need now is PMDG to support it!

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.

 

Oh brother. For the record I do not have 4096 textures on anything other than maybe the repaint or FSDT textures, I don't have 100% AI traffic because I don't use AI traffic I am on Vatsim and only see a plane to or here or there, and I have no photoscenery or mesh (I know somebody that has around 7-8 photoscenery's installed and they don't get OOM with the T7 so it isn't that) and my water uses low res textures and a low quality setting. I have 25 scenery's installed, that is including my FSDT and FB. Further more when I fly the T7 over the Atlantic (no autogen, no anything) the VAS can creep its way up from 2.4 to 3.2 yet when I fly another aircraft (QW 757 SP3) from New Jersey to San Diego the VAS stays in the same ball park and never creeps up despite crossing all these different airports and terrain. For the record, I know PMDG is more complex, that in't the point, the point is all of my other aircraft maintain a VAS in a certain area including PMDG products but the T7 will creep up over time, and it isn't what is on my system either, you've got somebody a few posts up saying the VAS creeps up on a vanilla FSX. 

 

So since I am so uneducated please tell me why this is, what makes the T7 continue to eat up large amounts of VAS over time when no other product does. What on the T7 eats up that much VAS over time? Perhaps it is a fsx.cfg setting that doesn't mesh well with the T7? Maybe it is the high res terrain (that we don't even need in high res), or perhaps it is the electronic checklist we can't disable or remove if we'd rather follow a paper check list.  Maybe it is the...who knows, I don't because I guess I am uneducated and have not spent a lot of time researching VAS since the release of the T7. Post #68 proves it is something with the T7 if this happens with a stock FSX. But hey, it works for some people, and it works for PMDG so I guess the rest of us that paid you $90 must just be uneducated people that are trying to push FSX beyond its limits and there is no point in trying to dig deeper into the issue and find a solution, after all you've got my money so who really cares anyway? Lets just respond to them by acting as if they aren't as smart as PMDG. 

 

 

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?

 

I use 1024 textures for everything except water which I use 512. I may try a lower texture resolution on some of the sky stuff. I don't use AI traffic, I fly on Vatsim so the AI traffic I do see is very limited and sometimes not at all present. 2.4GB is just fine, I just don't understand how the VAS will climb randomly over the Atlantic. I'm curious if it may be the FMC, I did a lot of work in the FMC over the Atlantic because I had to prepare positions reports. I didn't feel like using the position report page so I was flipping between the legs page and prog page a lot. Maybe that is it..to much messing about in the FMC..did you do anything in the FMC?

 

 

Yes, but the T7 VC shadows were written for DX9 and don't work/display at all in DX10...

I doubt very much that we will see VC shadows implemented.  If I'm wrong, you can call me Mary

Oh brother. For the record I do not have 4096 textures on anything other than maybe the repaint or FSDT textures, I don't have 100% AI traffic because I don't use AI traffic I am on Vatsim and only see a plane to or here or there, and I have no photoscenery or mesh (I know somebody that has around 7-8 photoscenery's installed and they don't get OOM with the T7 so it isn't that) and my water uses low res textures and a low quality setting. I have 25 scenery's installed, that is including my FSDT and FB. Further more when I fly the T7 over the Atlantic (no autogen, no anything) the VAS can creep its way up from 2.4 to 3.2 yet when I fly another aircraft (QW 757 SP3) from New Jersey to San Diego the VAS stays in the same ball park and never creeps up despite crossing all these different airports and terrain. For the record, I know PMDG is more complex, that in't the point, the point is all of my other aircraft maintain a VAS in a certain area including PMDG products but the T7 will creep up over time, and it isn't what is on my system either, you've got somebody a few posts up saying the VAS creeps up on a vanilla FSX. 

 

So since I am so uneducated please tell me why this is, what makes the T7 continue to eat up large amounts of VAS over time when no other product does. What on the T7 eats up that much VAS over time? Perhaps it is a fsx.cfg setting that doesn't mesh well with the T7? Maybe it is the high res terrain (that we don't even need in high res), or perhaps it is the electronic checklist we can't disable or remove if we'd rather follow a paper check list.  Maybe it is the...who knows, I don't because I guess I am uneducated and have not spent a lot of time researching VAS since the release of the T7. Post #68 proves it is something with the T7 if this happens with a stock FSX. But hey, it works for some people, and it works for PMDG so I guess the rest of us that paid you $90 must just be uneducated people that are trying to push FSX beyond its limits and there is no point in trying to dig deeper into the issue and find a solution, after all you've got my money so who really cares anyway? Lets just respond to them by acting as if they aren't as smart as PMDG. 

 

 

 

I use 1024 textures for everything except water which I use 512. I may try a lower texture resolution on some of the sky stuff. I don't use AI traffic, I fly on Vatsim so the AI traffic I do see is very limited and sometimes not at all present. 2.4GB is just fine, I just don't understand how the VAS will climb randomly over the Atlantic. I'm curious if it may be the FMC, I did a lot of work in the FMC over the Atlantic because I had to prepare positions reports. I didn't feel like using the position report page so I was flipping between the legs page and prog page a lot. Maybe that is it..to much messing about in the FMC..did you do anything in the FMC?

 

I too have been using the FMC quite a bit when I OOM'ed. I was selecting divert AP's, changing STARS, ALTs and RWY's...

 

You might have something there! There's got to be a memory leak somewhere (FMC?)...

 

 

So since I am so uneducated please tell me why this is, what makes the T7 continue to eat up large amounts of VAS over time when no other product does.

 

If you leave the default trike on the loading screen long enough it'll OOM.  Again, it's the sum of all factors.  When you have many products taking up a bunch of VAS, then you're going to hit your VAS limit eventually.  If each product takes up a higher amount, you'll hit that limit faster.

 

By the way, if you really want help from people, it's better it not take shots at them.  When I saw "oh brother," my initial thought wasn't "oh hey, I feel like I should help this person," rather, it was "man, let me see if I can pick his arguments apart for being a(n) [insert choice word here]."

If you leave the default trike on the loading screen long enough it'll OOM.  Again, it's the sum of all factors.  When you have many products taking up a bunch of VAS, then you're going to hit your VAS limit eventually.  If each product takes up a higher amount, you'll hit that limit faster.

 

By the way, if you really want help from people, it's better it not take shots at them.  When I saw "oh brother," my initial thought wasn't "oh hey, I feel like I should help this person," rather, it was "man, let me see if I can pick his arguments apart for being a(n) [insert choice word here]."

 

But it was fine for Tabs to imply that I am stupid, uneducated, and have no clue what I am doing without knowing anything about me (mistake on his part). Right. Insult for an insult. I never did or said anything about him or PMDG, I am simply (and politely) putting my problem out there and trying to figure it all out. He was the one who asked, prior to that I kept it to myself and said nothing more than I was anxious for SP1. PMDG CAN fix this, but they refuse to look into the issue and offer up a solution like allowing us the ability to lower the resolution of the screens etc like the NGX does (I think I heard that was coming tbh), allow us to lower the res of the terrain display, give us the ability to remove the electronic checklist or remove RAAS (removed manually) etc. PMDG knew full well the limitations of FSX and they knew that the plane was complex and would use a lot of VAS yet they decided to release it this way anyway rather than look into alternative methods such as having a lot of the systems run external from FSX as Majestics Dash does and FSLabs A320 will. They released the plane without the ability to remove VAS hogging features that we can do without if we have to. It is on them, like it or not.

 

This is obviously going no where, so I'll just go back to patiently waiting for SP1 and testing different theory's and fixes. 

Don't know why some people have  troubles  with  ooms  with the t7  where as others like myself havn't  had  any issue at all with any aircraft installed on my pc.  And I only got  a just a mid range pc not o/c at all.  My only thought  that it  is the way  you install it maybe is the only  thing I can think of,  but sure  that many will disagree with this assumption.

Maybe that is it..to much messing about in the FMC..did you do anything in the FMC?

No, I use accelerated flight to get across the atlantic quickly, or I leave it in normal flight and come back to my PC after a few hours. But I dont do any FMC manipulating during that time.

 

 

Look, I dont want to get into an argument or discussion about who is polite and who is not.....but lets try to change the tone of this discussion a little please.

 

Ryan is usually very helpfull and not someone who calls people stupid.

So I dont think he meant it that way.

We have had VAS discussions before and I think PMDG/Ryan might be a little annoyed by people complaining about VAS while saying they dont want to compromise.

But you said you are compromising (afterwards) so ok...that is taken care of then.

 

There is some stuff in the fixed bugs list that should reduce VAS.

So PMDG is aware of the problem and want to reduce VAS as much as possible.

Also, PMDG has posted before that most of the PMDG777 IS running outside FSX.

I guess what they will not do, because it is not their thing, is create a lite version of the 777.

If you buy a PMDG then you should realize that the primary reason to buy this kind of addon is to discover the airplane and its systems. Not an airliner which pupose it is to discover beautifull scenery.

 

On the other hand it never hurts to try to push/motivate them to do even more.

To have them look into matters like VAS kreeping up due to FMC usage, etc.

I think some of the suggestions made (ability to turn things on/off to reduce VAS) are good ideas too.

Also DX10 compatibility with its VAS reducing capability, is almost a must it seems if we want to go further with FSX (and that is coming from someone who is not using DX10).

 

But lets try to stay nice to each other here.

Officially STATED that they will not support DX10 in the T7 or NGX despite the J41 having DX10 support

 

I - and many others - run the 777 under DX10 (with Steve's DX10 fix) and so i dare to guarentee:

No issues at all with it - in fact:

The 777 works like a charm with Steve's latest DX10 fix version.

Only thing i noted that does not work (and as already mentioned i think), are VC shadows - they also don't work in the NGX, but - neither do they work in DX9 - so nothing lost in DX10 at all so to speak, but lots to gain!

^_^

 

The T7 works fine in DX10 (Fixer ).

 

+1

 

PMDG knew full well the limitations of FSX and they knew that the plane was complex and would use a lot of VAS yet they decided to release it this way anyway rather than look into alternative methods such as having a lot of the systems run external from FSX as Majestics Dash does and FSLabs A320 will.

 

The FSLabs A320 is not available yet, so it's hard to say anything truely reliable about it in regards to VAS or so, tested on a broad user base.

I am not saying that it won't work, but it's just hard to talk about an A/C not released yet.

 

And in regards to the Majestic Dash:

Personally speaking i think comparing the great Majestic Dash with the great PMDG 777 is a bit like comparing apples and oranges:

Two complete different aircraft and so two different needs/demands in regards to resources.

One thing from my personal experience though - and no kidding here:

I once ran into an OOM with the Q400 - but - never(!) with the NGX (all under DX9 back then) ...

So what to do now?

 

It is, as already noted - and back to the beginning - FSX and its limitations.

FSX just can't cope anymore with all our fancy add-ons in use nowadays running altogether with super high settings.

It was never ever designed to do that!

And there is no 100% proofed workaround/way to solve this.

 

Indeed:

Some users have good luck and never encounter an OOM - happy for those really - but i am sure that even then it is mainly about aircraft/scenery/weather and so in use, rather than due to specific settings applicable to all(!) PC's.

And i'd even go that far saying that if running an airplane "outside" FSX would be the one "magic" cure for all our issues in regards to VAS or whatever, many more developers would already use this option, but it appears to not be the case.

It may help, no doubt - but in the end it all still needs to work properly under FSX's limitations and flows ... and here we get back - again - to proper settings, specific hardware/software in use and so on ...

Or in other words:

Running an A/C "outside" FSX certainly helps under certain, specific situations, but will definitely not get around all(!) the problems still existing "inside" FSX and therefore it is only an alternative to a certain extent.

Don't know why some people have troubles with ooms with the t7 where as others like myself havn't had any issue at all with any aircraft installed on my pc. And I only got a just a mid range pc not o/c at all. My only thought that it is the way you install it maybe is the only thing I can think of, but sure that many will disagree with this assumption.

Yep, me too. Never had an OOM at any time, during years of flight simming. To be honest, I don't even know what one looks like, what happens.

 

I do know that scenery bugs can cause them though, so do wonder if many of you are affected in that respect perhaps.

Yep, me too. Never had an OOM at any time, during years of flight simming. To be honest, I don't even know what one looks like, what happens.

 

I do know that scenery bugs can cause them though, so do wonder if many of you are affected in that respect perhaps.

 

... not only/solely scenery related - simply a matter of VAS "useage/management" instead and more like a combination of various factors comming/playing together.

Whatever that may be in detail then, does vary from one scenario to another scenario though - and that's the tricky part why it is almost impossible to really track it all down and find the "one" cause for it ...

 

So sometimes even a weatherupdate loading lots of clouds into the sim while flying a complex A/C with real world weather in use and as provided by a dedicated 3rd party weatherengine for instance, may be "too much" to suddenly cross the 4GB VAS limit of FSX ...

Another day it may be a scenrey and to much traffic around there

another day it could be ... well, whatever

and then an annoying window appears on the screen telling that "Your computer has run out of available memory and that the flightsim has to be restarted"

... now imagine that after a long haul flight on final ... :blink: :angry: :wacko:

... It was one of "these moments" that made me switch to DX10 almost immediately afterwards!

:smile:

For what it is worth...

 

I just installed everything (Win7 and FSX) fresh.

The only addons I have installed at the moment are GEX (worldwide except Australia) and UTX (where available).

I am using only 1 monitor at the moment.

 

777 NOT yet installed.

 

Initial flight testing with those addons alone in a default FSX Baron58....shows around 2.3GB of VAS in use over New Jersey along the beach.

 

That is with:

FSX sliders for LOD, autogen and scenery complexity at MAX

(yes I am willing to reduce them (to a point) if needs be with the 777)

AI traffic 45% airlines/ GA 35% (I am willing to turn that down too)

Fair Weather ( this actually will be OPUS real world weather soon, so that will probably consume more VAS than Fair Weather).

 

I find 2.3 GB quite high already.

 

I mean add the 700MB the 777 needs and I am now at 3GB!!

OVER THE BEACH IN NJ !!!

 

And, that is not even considering the VAS filling/bad VAS release as time goes by!

 

I have decided to use UTX/GEX as my base install.

Without those two addons I find FSX looks horrible and I dont enjoy it at all.

Some will say who cares about GEX/UTX in FL380.

My answere to that would be; you might as well skip cruise flight altogether then, and just do a T.O. and a Landing! What if I need to divert enroute over Afrika? I still want it to look descend then.

Many fellow simmers use this package.

(or something similar, like ORBX, which I am afraid to even look at. Although beautifull, that stuff must be consuming VAS like there is no tomorrow. Right?)

 

And I think that aircraft addon developers should plan at least for such well made and well balanced (as in quality vs VAS use) global addons!

 

Still 1 GB VAS left over.

Now add a nice Airport at Departure and destination....eh voilla 4GB is getting pretty close.

And addon airports are important too. If alone for accurate rwy layout and Navigation facilities!

 

And that is where the addon scenery developer is asked to not go completely crazy with the detail of their Addon Airport Sceneries!

HD textures...if optional sure....but if I cant turn them off, then I can not use them as one can easily calculate.

 

 

Those 2.3GB VAS are WITHOUT the follow Addons that I had installed in my previous setup on the same PC. These are the addons I am willing to sacrifice for the sake of the PMDG777 (or any other nice addon airplane) if required. we will see:

- My Traffic (I am thinking about leaving that out completely as for me AI is the least important part of FSX) (but I have also hear that some AI produkt are optimized and actually reduce VAS use compare to default FSX AI traffic)

- REX clouds (FSX does not look that bad with those default clouds as I expected)

(And with OPUS FSX installed soon, it might look even better)

- 10 or so addon airports from AEROSOFT and FLY TAMPA

- 70GB of worldwide FSGenesis mesh (FSX does not look that bad in NJ and Europe without it actually)

Your "missing" addon mesh and addon airports won't add much to your VAS in use, as there isn't much photoscenery in them.

Addon AI traffic probably will, even with traffic sliders more to the left. (Overall increased traffic volume.)

REX won't add much necessarily; you can try 512bit cloud textures, they look rather nice and realistic.

 

With some crucial sliders maxed out (autogen, LOD), 2.3 GB actually looks pretty o.k.