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.

 

First, I don't see any of what you're talking about - at all - in terms of him implying anything other than the hard fact that you have to compromise.  Sure, you might be able to stretch the "[j]ust for once I wish people would educate themselves about how software and computers actually work before saying things like this," but that's a stretch at best, particularly since your first post did indicate you have a rather poor understanding of the concept of VAS usage (evidenced again by your "have the systems run external to FSX" comment).  That, and you did, in fact, say something about PMDG: "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)."  Funny how we block out the things we say in an effort to eliminate cognitive dissonance, eh?

 

You're really not politely putting anything out there, really.  Believe me, I know a thing or two about caustic delivery.  Apparently I have a reputation for it or something...

 

Saying "I have a problem and it would be nice to have a solution" is one thing.

It's quite another to come out with "I have this problem.  It's your fault, clearly.  Here's the evidence on why it's your fault.  Now fix it for me."

 

Both are true.  The latter example (paraphrased from how I, personally, interpreted your post) really doesn't fit in the polite category.  It may be fully true, but it's not going to garner a lot of support from people.

 

 

 

Either way, your argument is pretty absurd:

You have $4000.  You spent $500 on the sim itself, and $3000 on visuals within the sim (weather, airports and so on).  Keeping the sim running requires a certain amount of input over time.  We'll go with $100 per hour.  The 777 cost about $700.

 

Of course, since the 777 is the latest player to that game, and the $700 put you over budget, clearly it's PMDG's fault.

 

 

 

...and of course they have a control over how much VAS it uses.  So does FSDT.  So does ImagineSim, and FlyTampa, and REX, and orbx.  You just have to make compromises in order to pull that VAS use back.  Of course, those developers who are of lower quality also tend not to have as many people complaining about OOMs.  Curious...

I've just taken off from default EGLL, in the T7, with GEX, UTX, and ASN...

VAS was 2.4 GB. Seems quite good to me.

My slider settings are set at a sensible level.
 

Just tried the same with the Baron. My VAS over KJFK was 1.4 GB. With GEX, UTX, and ASN was generating weather.

 

At the end of the day, we can't have it all, we can't have our cake and eat it. I'm tempted to say that there are too many products, that some people think they MUST have. Have your fancy scenery, or airport add-on by all means, but disable something else to compromise. FSX has a limit, accept that and don't be greedy.

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). Did he say you're stupid, or did he say he'd wish people would educate themselves on 32bit apps and VAS limits? 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 Uncheck the high-res VC option as an intermediate fix.), 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 I'd think most people (like me) wanted it as complex and realistic as possible. 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. Even external applications "inject" stuff into FSX that has to be rendered by FSX - thereby increasing VAS usage anyway. (Check the VAS discussions on GSX for an example.) 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. The reason I fly complex airliners is to study their systems. So I'd rather remove some complexity from my scenery.

 

This is obviously going no where, so I'll just go back to patiently waiting for SP1 and testing different theory's and fixes. I'd suggest scaling down texture sizes (for clouds, for example), defining different graphics profiles and using Scenery Config Editor for disabling unnecessary (photo)sceneries on a per-flight basis as the more crucial (and rather convenient) ones.

It all boils down to Dx10 becommming mandatory for FSX regarding increased VAS headroom and add on developers integrating Dx10 support into their products....

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?

 

No, this does not happen.

Having almost all of their sceneries purchased and installed i can assure this.

They do add VAS, indeed, but most likely won't be a showstopper as - overall - they are mainly based on generic, repeating textures built around/above vector data and landclass rather than individual photolayers for instance.

 

As sometimes pictures can tell more than a thousand words:

Please feel free to take a look at this little set of screenies i once took on a testflight from PANC to CYVR while getting myself acquainted to the 777.

They are with ORBX, Aerosoft and FSDT sceneries in use + OPUS and REX textures - and(!) - set up in DX10 with Steve's DX 10 fix + SweetFX and scenery config editor in use ...

 

My sliders were also set carefully and i did turn off AI - okay so much for the compromise, but as AI and ATC in FSX do not act to well in my opinion (and only my opinion, so please no one feel offended now, really not necessary!) i do not use it very often.

Flying online is another story, but this does not effect VAS, so no need to worry about that.

And i am sure that - if set properly - AI can also be added as well, so:

Here are the shots just to proof that actually quite lots of stuff can be added into FSX while flying the 777, but sure:

All needs to be tuned properly:

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/429729-in-the-t7-from-anchorage-to-vancouver/

 

Now i am not writing all that down here because these pics above are that super or anything, but because again saying:

Getting DX 10 working (sorry for repeating myself) as wanted maybe taking - let's say one afternoon or so - maybe two ...

But ... how long does it take in average to write another post about OOM's for instance here?

Now everything to everyone's liking - really - and certainly absolutely nothing wrong with some dedicated talks here, but:

Isn't it also lots of fun to rather go flying instead?

So if there is a real high chance that the chances of running into an OOM are lowered significantly (what a sentence :lol: ...) - why not considering giving it (DX10) a serious try - once at least?

Especially when keeping in mind that going back to DX9 is still a valid option anytime.

 

Still 1 GB VAS left over.

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

 

The VAS numbers on my end here are often quite high in the beginning too ...

The important question though is:

Will it stay safely under 4GB til the end of a flight?

And so far i did never encounter an OOM anymore since i switched to DX10.

So for whatever specific reason the VAS numbers just do not tend to rise that much and that fast under DX10 than they seem to do under DX9 - hence lowering the chance of running into an OOM noticeably.

Sure though (i know, repeating):

No 100% cure for avoiding OOM's in FSX, but they at least can be kept away to a certain extent/level.

No more - but also no less.

:smile:

If I cant complete my flights with the compromises I am willing to make (see above) I probably will be trying DX10 eventually.

 

First I have to finish waht I am doeing now.

Which is setting up a well working DX9 system....then I can make an image backup.....and then I would try DX10.

If I cant complete my flights with the compromises I am willing to make (see above) I probably will be trying DX10 eventually.

 

First I have to finish waht I am doeing now.

Which is setting up a well working DX9 system....then I can make an image backup.....and then I would try DX10.

 

Good luck with/for all Your new install/set up procedures!

Very much looking forward to see how things will turn out to work for You afterwards then!

...what i do preventing against OOM`s is simply deaktivating all not needed scenerys for the flight together with moving all other addon planes from "simobjects / airplanes" to a backup folder. creating and loading the initial situation is also much much faster this way.

 

JG

Just tried the same with the Baron. My VAS over KJFK was 1.4 GB. With GEX, UTX, and ASN was generating weather.

 

Wow that is low.

 

I took of from KJFK, R31R and then turned south along the Jersey shore.

Sliders maxed.

Fair weather.

Baron58.

 

Over NJ I had 2.3GB VAS.

 

That is OK, but almost 1GB more than you have!!

 

So, where exactly are your slider at Martin.

 

Thx

The VAS!!! Aargh always the VAS. The nasty VAS-limit made my flight with KLM MD-11 EHAM-CYUL ctd on approacH!! ON Approach!

 

Can you believe it? Really, just a few minutes from leaving the damned sim, the game just stops working, because of some virtual f....n limit!! Come on, I swear I was pulling my hairs of my head because it was a nice smooth approach like no other. I was infuriated like a mad dog, I wanted to destroy my whole PC and eat the SSD with my bear teeth!! :diablo:  :t0103:

 

----------------It was time for action! Eventually, this also could happen to the T7 after 8 hours of flying.

 

 

What I did:

 

FSUIPC, Logging, type in one of the boxes S32, other box 024C, and I made it appear in the FSX window.

 

When the remaining bloody hateful VAS drops fast, I save the darn thing. Otherwise all my efforts are spent for nothing. Some cheap VAS issue will not, I REPEAT, not RUIN, my flightsim endeavour.

 

 

 

P.S.

 

After the VAS-usage caused the CTD I cursed the VAS by writing it down on a paper and EAT it! :angry:

 

 

I calmed down a bit

 

FSUIPC, Logging, type in one of the boxes S32, other box 024C, and I made it appear in the FSX window.

 

When the remaining bloody hateful VAS drops fast, I save the darn thing. Otherwise all my efforts are spent for nothing. Some cheap VAS issue will not, I REPEAT, not RUIN, my flightsim endeavour.

FSUIPC has an auto-save option. Maybe you can try using that. I have the auto-save set to every 2 minutes for maximum of 10 saves. If/when the flight crashes on approach I can almost immediately get back into the flight.

FSUIPC has an auto-save option. Maybe you can try using that. I have the auto-save set to every 2 minutes for maximum of 10 saves. If/when the flight crashes on approach I can almost immediately get back into the flight.

Autosave will put hundreds and hundreds of files (saved panel states if I remember correctly) inside the PMDG737/777 FMC.

 

If only FSUPC or PMDG could fix that :-(

The VAS!!! Aargh always the VAS. The nasty VAS-limit  

FSUIPC, Logging, type in one of the boxes S32, other box 024C, and I made it appear in the FSX window

Yes....that about sums it up....how we all feel.

 

Thx for the FSUIPC tip by the way.

So, where exactly are your slider at Martin.

I recall sending you my settings a while ago didn't I Rob? Unless I'm getting mixed up with someone else.

 

Some are high, some are medium. AI is at only 10%, water is one notch below max. shadows are off. Certainly don't have them high, but eye candy looks great to me.

Autosave will put hundreds and hundreds of files (saved panel states if I remember correctly) inside the PMDG737/777 FMC.

 

 

Yes, unfortunately true. However, you can write a simple batch-file in order to delete these files. After successfully completing a flight, you could just run the batch-file and delete all those files that are no longer of any use.

 

 

Autosave will put hundreds and hundreds of files (saved panel states if I remember correctly) inside the PMDG737/777 FMC.

 

Yep. Not really a problem. Just go delete them after your flight. It never bothered my FMC to open 357 pages of saved panel states :lol: