Version 2.1 OOM and possible memory leak.

[ChaoticBeauty 6,692]

I think it's likely more to do with the fact that I haven't EMT-stuffed my install full of things of questionable compatibility. 

 

We have people here reporting issues with addons from companies that have flat out stated they do not/will not support the platform.

 

FTX everything has been incompatible, in one way or another, since day one.

 

In any case I'm not going to rehash all of that, we went over much of it with 2.0 release, and most of what was said then was ignored, and would likely be again. All I will say is that once again, while there are definitely, without a doubt, issues with P3D2 that need some attention, a very large part of what gets reported has more to do with people that just can't be without their $widget, consequences be damned. The real shame is how much those voices tend to overpower those with actual core issues.

 

Yo know what, let me stop myself, as there is little point in going down this road again.

 

You do know that there are users who still get OOMs with stock Prepar3D 2.1 (no add-ons at all), don't you.

[Brian Doney 127]

You do know that there are users who still get OOMs with stock Prepar3D 2.1 (no add-ons at all), don't you.

 

I've read those reports sure.

 

But I've also read a number of threads where it wasn't until 10 posts later that we finally read "Oh well of course I had X installed, I can't be without it". Members here have been disingenuous enough about that to the point that I take any "no-addons at all" claim with a huge grain of salt. No one ever wants to admit it could be their Favorite Thing causing a problem.

 

So I don't know.

 

Maybe ( ? ) there is an issue with higher autogen settings ? I don't know, but I will give it a shot on another overnight trip.

 

Finally, I already said that P3D needs some work, I've never said otherwise, ever since the initial release. It just seems that way too often, people will do everything they can to exacerbate the issue, and then point and yell. It isn't helpful, and more often than not, it makes it even harder to find the root cause of some of these things. 

 

The only other explanation is that my PC is made of pure magic.

I don't know ... I'm pretty sure LM are capable to separating fact from fiction.   Program maintenance is extremely different, as a software engineer I much much much prefer NEW projects vs. updating old projects.

 

 

 

 

That's most likely because the developer(s) have moved on to something else and there is no one willing to take over because they don't see the revenue rewards from doing such.  Now if the rewards are big $$$ then you can bet "will not support" turns into "will support" ... money talks.  But we're a small community and a big part of this community wants something for nothing as if somehow they're "owed" it ... that in itself is a big 3rd party deterrent.

 

But regardless, LM need to find a stable product ... IMHO, that will only come when they either severely restrict graphics options in their existing V2.x line, OR they release a 64bit product (in addition to their 32bit product).  Slowly 3rd party will be "the first" to release a true 64bit add-on and reap the rewards ... then the ball will start rolling.  We can only hope ... and yes, this is moving on a different path for this thread (not like that never happens)

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

All due respect, seriously, but I think we are speaking to entirely different points. 

 

I was speaking as to how I was able to make such a long flight, because I'm simply not doing any of the things I mentioned. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Other than the potential issue with higher AG settings, which I admittedly haven't tested, what is more likely ? That whatever number of addons are causing problems ? Or that via pure magic I was able to fly for 13 hours OOM free ?

 

That's really all I am saying, and it is the same things I was saying 2 months ago when I was flying cross country without issue.

 

I notice a pattern. I'm sorry that offends so many.

[ChaoticBeauty 6,692]

I've read those reports sure.

 

But I've also read a number of threads where it wasn't until 10 posts later that we finally read "Oh well of course I had X installed, I can't be without it". Members here have been disingenuous enough about that to the point that I take any "no-addons at all" claim with a huge grain of salt. No one ever wants to admit it could be their Favorite Thing causing a problem.

 

So I don't know.

 

Maybe ( ? ) there is an issue with higher autogen settings ? I don't know, but I will give it a shot on another overnight trip.

 

Finally, I already said that P3D needs some work, I've never said otherwise, ever since the initial release. It just seems that way too often, people will do everything they can to exacerbate the issue, and then point and yell. It isn't helpful, and more often than not, it makes it even harder to find the root cause of some of these things. 

 

The only other explanation is that my PC is made of pure magic.

 

The thing is, while add-ons might make the situation worse, you can't deny that there isn't a problem with the core. There is, along with other reports of slow texture loading and limited autogen radius (things that were supposed to be optimised with 2.1).

 

The culprit of the OOMs seems to be the vegetation slider.

[Brian Doney 127]

The thing is, while add-ons might make the situation worse, you can't deny that there isn't a problem with the core. There is, along with other reports of slow texture loading and limited autogen radius (things that were supposed to be optimised with 2.1).

 

The culprit of the OOMs seems to be the vegetation slider.

 

See that's just it though, I have never said that there are no issues with P3D.

 

Never. Not once.

 

I even reported an issue after doing everything I could to narrow it down.

 

I only mean to say that if P3Dv2 is as unusable as some claim, how did I make it through yet another long haul with mid to high settings across the board ? 

 

That's it. That is my only question for today. No disrespect to anyone intended.

[Guest]

To remove any doubts: after doing my tests (see my topic about it) I uninstalled FTX Global and completely uninstalled P3D v2.1 (manually removing every trace of it). After a reboot I wiped my P3D disk and reinstalled P3D2.1. I loaded the flight I had used for testing (see my topic about it) and it resulted in an OOM. Even sooner than I expected and a lower VAS too (3.0).

 

So it's not an addon problem: P3D itself already has problems.

 

 

VAS NEVER got above 1G What the heck??? 3+ hours no OOM, no high VAS, perfect smooth flight. What am I doing wrong??

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding your post but take note that the FSUIPC VAS monitor doesn't show VAS but the remaining free VAS! So when VAS is 3 GB, FSUIPC will show 1 GB and when VAS is 2.6, FSUIPC will show 1.4.

[ChaoticBeauty 6,692]

I only mean to say that if P3Dv2 is as unusable as some claim, how did I make it through yet another long haul with mid to high settings across the board ? 

 

Everyone's mileage varies. There are some who have absolutely no issues with 2.1, and it's working better for them compared to 2.0.

 

Also, did you test with high vegetation settings and in an area that has plenty of autogen?

[Brian Doney 127]

To remove any doubts: after doing my tests (see my topic about it) I uninstalled FTX Global and completely uninstalled P3D v2.1 (manually removing every trace of it). After a reboot I wiped my P3D disk and reinstalled P3D2.1. I loaded the flight I had used for testing (see my topic about it) and it resulted in an OOM. Even sooner than I expected and a lower VAS too (3.0).

 

So it's not an addon problem: P3D itself already has problems.

 

 

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding your post but take note that the FSUIPC VAS monitor doesn't show VAS but the remaining free VAS! So when VAS is 3 GB, FSUIPC will show 1 GB and when VAS is 2.6, FSUIPC will show 1.4.

 

If you don't mind me asking, what AG and LOD settings are you running ?

Everyone's mileage varies. There are some who have absolutely no issues with 2.1, and it's working better for them compared to 2.0.

 

Also, did you test with high vegetation settings and in an area that has plenty of autogen?

 

I don't run high AG as I prefer a higher LOD. This is something LM commented on before release, that while they provided us options to increase both, that we would certainly have to choose between them.

 

This was the entire point of the new profile system.

 

I'm wondering if some aren't trying to have their cake and eat it too.

 

I might test this tonight. It may very well be a bug. My personal experience so far says otherwise, though, as I've yet to have a single OOM with P3Dv2.

[Petraeus 147]

how did I make it through yet another long haul with mid to high settings across the board ?

 

As I said a few posts earlier, if you get up high in a tubeliner, and so are not watching trees popping up as you fly along, then it may be quite possible to avoid an OOM - I've done that myself many times now. However, even on those flights, you may observe your VAS decreasing, although not to the OOM threshold. But try a 'long haul' flight at 5000 feet, with trees popping up all along the way. If your VAS remains constant, you've got the 'silver bullet' and we just need to figure out what that is.

 

A number of posts are focussing on the role of various addons, and how these may be a factor. Whilst these may bring their own problems, in the context of the vegetation slider and VAS depletion, I think they are a red herring. i say this because my own system, which has the 'usual suspect' addons, runs perfectly fine in 2.0. I can fly for an hour or so (until I get bored, to be honest) at 5000 feet with the Captain Sim 757 or whatever, and once I have left an airport area my VAS display remains rock solid. So with all my addons, and version 2.0, no problem. Do the same thing in 2.1, and the VAS number gradually winds down. Conclusion - something has changed in 2.1 that causes the problem. Now it's possible that one of my addons is making things worse, but that does not make it the primary cause. The primary cause is whatever has happened between 2.0 and 2.1.

 

An analogy is two men crossing the road and being hit by a speeding motorist. One of them is ultra fit, looks after himself, recovers and survives. The other is an overweight smoking boozer who dies from his injuries. Now the latter may have reduced his chances of survival, but it's not the booze, cigs and fatty food that killed him, but the speeding motorist. No speeding motorist, and he would have lived longer.

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

Fraps now reports a different fps than the internal fps counter (this didn't happen in V2.0).

 

 

 

I use EVGA Precision for the OSD of the frame rate and it has consistently showed far less variation in FPS using the unlimited setting, than when using the P3d 2.x internal counter. I'm guessing that has something to do with time averaging. EVGA-P also reports somewhat higher frame rates in general (37 vs 34, for example).

[Brian Doney 127]

This is kind of why I might avoid going any further, as just like last time, the goal posts are constantly being shifted.

 

Now I have to fly at 5000 ft for 13 hours, 13 hours wasn't enough on it's own.

 

There very well could be a bug. I really feel like I've said the same about 40 times just in this thread alone ?

 

So if I were to fly this 5000ft long haul, what will be the next goal post ? Wouldn't this all be much easier if we ruled out addon compatibility first ?

[Guest]

 

 

If you don't mind me asking, what AG and LOD settings are you running ?

 

For testing purposes (see that other topic once more) I was using autogen at Extremely dense and LOD full right. The main point of my test was to see if it made any difference if you would use Orbx trees or default trees. There clearly is a difference but both options lead to an OOM with these high settings. Obviously I usually fly with a lower AG setting: I refuse to go lower than Dense because I think Normal and lower looks awful and so I have to lower a few other setttings or stop using certain addons. I now manage do complete my usual flights without OOMs but it takes a few compromises.

 

I never had OOMs in FSX but obviously P3D v2.1 shows more autogen onscreen so it's no surprise that VAS hits the roof sooner. However, in my last test I had an OOM when VAS was 3.0 and that shouldn't happen, so there still is an actual problem with P3D v2.1. If I would ONLY get an OOM when VAS would hit 4 GB you could say there isn't a problem and we just have to lower settings and expectations.

[Nemo 1,305]

Just to put me on the list. Got an OOM in Seattle area after 30 minutes with default beech baron. Only addon is FTX Global. Moderate-high settings.

 

Harry

[Qatsimo 7]

I found it quite funny at first when I saw this little circle of AG below me from 35k feet. Wonder why they decided to let AG constantly being drawn even when it has no purpose above 30k feet, the more if that contributes to growing VAS.

[Brian Doney 127]

For testing purposes (see that other topic once more) I was using autogen at Extremely dense and LOD full right. The main point of my test was to see if it made any difference if you would use Orbx trees or default trees. There clearly is a difference but both options lead to an OOM with these high settings. Obviously I usually fly with a lower AG setting: I refuse to go lower than Dense because I think Normal and lower looks awful and so I have to lower a few other setttings or stop using certain addons. I now manage do complete my usual flights without OOMs but it takes a few compromises.

 

I never had OOMs in FSX but obviously P3D v2.1 shows more autogen onscreen so it's no surprise that VAS hits the roof sooner. However, in my last test I had an OOM when VAS was 3.0 and that shouldn't happen, so there still is an actual problem with P3D v2.1. If I would ONLY get an OOM when VAS would hit 4 GB you could say there isn't a problem and we just have to lower settings and expectations.

 

I have to ask, am I the only one that remembers LM talking about how they opened up the sliders quite a bit over FSX/1.4, and that the entire point of the profile system was to allow us to choose between high AG or high LOD or w/e, based on the type of flight ? 

 

That maxing both together would assuredly result in a bad time ?

[Petraeus 147]

Now I have to fly at 5000 ft for 13 hours, 13 hours wasn't enough on it's own.

 

If you fly high enough where you can't see the trees, then the vegetation slider is obviously going to be irrelevant. That's not moving the goalposts, it's just looking for evidence which actually test the theory, one way or another.