Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Petraeus

Version 2.1 OOM and possible memory leak.

Recommended Posts

What good would flying a known incompatible aircraft with VAS issues of it's own do ?

 

Over yet another forest ?

 

I genuinely do not understand how that would help ?

 

All right, for your next experiment... fly a large compatible aircraft over the same forest.

 

We'd have figures comparing large incompatible aircraft vs small compatible aircraft.

 

(On version 2.0 the airbus had a tiny VAS depletion, but its compounded on 2.1 with the veggie autogen.)

Share this post


Link to post

All right, for your next experiment... fly a large compatible aircraft over the same forest.

 

We'd have figures comparing large incompatible aircraft vs small compatible aircraft.

 

(On version 2.0 the airbus had a tiny VAS depletion, but its compounded on 2.1 with the veggie autogen.)

 

I'll likely not be doing any more testing after this, not publicly anyway, as what I have done just in this thread should be more than enough to make my point.

 

I'm fully aware that it won't be, but since no one else can be bothered, it will have to do. I'm not going to hop all over the world to make sure I've literally viewed every tree in the sim to satisfy those that aren't even contributing.

 

Why don't you run your test and post the results ? Why do I have to do it ?

  • Upvote 1

Regards,

Brian Doney

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


Yes!

 

I was hoping it may have somehow been and AU issue, but it seems to be a wider P3D issue instead... I've only seen it in AU but that is most likely as it has the areas of densest agn I fly over. Those making scenery in P3D have seen it, and as far as I know they are only placing default agn using the SDK tools, and not some exotic re-textured stuff, that could cause problems.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


I think that where many of us aren't seeing eye to eye, is that this seems to be working as designed. Max AG sliders simply require a huge amount of VAS to operate. If you need more VAS to make room for your scenery/aircraft to operate under the limit, then you must compromise on AG levels/LOD radius. There is no alternative, unless you like using Autosave.
 
Today's test is even more conclusive in my mind that there is no leak, not in any way. A leaking system does not return free VAS. 
 
2h30m in, and if this isn't stabilized I don't know what is:

 

Brian, thanks for taking the time (again) to show the obvious. I hope your head is not too sore from all that bashing against a brick wall !!   :t0152:

 

I do seem to recall that prior to and during the release stage, LM had even put it more bluntly by saying that with the increased autogen levels and most sliders fully to the right would indeed cause OOMs on even the top line systems / GPUs etc. I am quite sure that any training scenario set up to the maximum possible levels within the sim will be conducted over a shorter period of time and a much more restricted area than you have done today and I have to agree with you in that the sim is working as designed ...... for their core market.

Share this post


Link to post

Same situation in FSX with Fsuipc showing 2631 Mb free VAS

Not sure P3Dv2 is worth all the hassle at the moment to be honest, something is not quite right for the default Baron and a fairly simple landscape to be using up as much VAS as Brian is showing, it does not leave much room for simulating a complex aircraft over parts of Europe that tend to have a lot going on.

Throw in a decent amount of Ai and overflying a few payware airports its just not going to work unless P3D is dialled back to very sparse settings.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Now at the 3 hour mark, with the water dead ahead. 

 

7g7l.jpg

 

31cs.jpg

 

m9qy.jpg

 

Should be just one more update, and we'll call this test concluded.


Regards,

Brian Doney

Share this post


Link to post

I am quite sure that any training scenario set up to the maximum possible levels within the sim will be conducted over a shorter period of time and a much more restricted area than you have done today and I have to agree with you in that the sim is working as designed ...... for their core market.

 

This will probably be LM's fall back position in the end, because the expanded sliders we have been given will never fit our 32bit Sim once we add our complex addons.

Share this post


Link to post

Same situation in FSX with Fsuipc showing 2631 Mb free VAS

Not sure P3Dv2 is worth all the hassle at the moment to be honest, something is not quite right for the default Baron and a fairly simple landscape to be using up as much VAS as Brian is showing, it does not leave much room for simulating a complex aircraft over parts of Europe that tend to have a lot going on.

Throw in a decent amount of Ai and overflying a few payware airports its just not going to work unless P3D is dialled back to very sparse settings.

 

I respectfully disagree, in the sense that only when you run at ludicrous levels of autogen many times above levels that FSX can generate, will this be much of an issue, or, when you (collective you) do exactly what they tell you not to do, you will have a bad time.

 

YES, it is a lot of VAS, but the number of objects is just WAY over the top for regular usage.

 

Remember, this is at Extememly Dense settings in P3Dv2.1, which results in an absolutely insane number of objects.

 

Having said that, I will agree that even with conservative settings, P3Dv2 still uses more VAS than I'd hoped, but that is an entirely separate issue.

This will probably be LM's fall back position in the end, because the expanded sliders we have been given will never fit our 32bit Sim once we add our complex addons.

 

Isn't that more of a user base with no self control issue, than an application issue though ? To me it's like complaining to your GPU manufacturer because your AA slider goes higher than you can run.


Regards,

Brian Doney

Share this post


Link to post

Brian, I am looking at your screenshots and I would not describe the number of objects as insane and the radius that they are drawn does not look very large given you are only at 2500 ft AGL.

So we scale the AG back to FSX levels then what do we have, A platform not massivly different to a well running FSX but with most of our addons left behind because backwards compatability is largly broken.

Share this post


Link to post

Brian, I am looking at your screenshots and I would not describe the number of objects as insane and the radius that they are drawn does not look very large given you are only at 2500 ft AGL.

So we scale the AG back to FSX levels then what do we have, A platform not massivly different to a well running FSX but with most of our addons left behind because backwards compatability is largly broken.

 

Well, I have both installed, and while I will agree that the radius is reduced versus 2.0, the actual density is way above anything FSX can do.

 

Not even in the same league.

 

lmq1.jpg

 

Everything you see that looks like a tree in that shot...is a tree...all I mean is it's not the FSX style with a tree every 5 feet and a ground texture that looks like a tree in between. I don't know, might have to see it in motion to understand.

 

The rest of your post I can't argue with. As I said in another post, my interest in P3Dv2 was purely in DX11 and it's ability to make better use of GPU resources. So far, when run at comparable (as much as can be) settings, we are left in about the same situation we were in to start, which certainly is a bit of a disappointment.


Regards,

Brian Doney

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

 

 


Brian, I am looking at your screenshots and I would not describe the number of objects as insane and the radius that they are drawn does not look very large given you are only at 2500 ft AGL.

 

I was thinking that too. It looks like a medium forest at Dense or maybe Very dense autogen and nothing like the Extremely dense forests I have seen in FSX/P3D where it is impossible to see ground textures. And it indeed seems the autogen distance is quite low, specially considering you are flying at 2.500 ft. I usually can hardly see where the autogen ends.

Share this post


Link to post

I was thinking that too. It looks like a medium forest at Dense or maybe Very dense autogen and nothing like the Extremely dense forests I have seen in FSX/P3D where it is impossible to see ground textures. And it indeed seems the autogen distance is quite low, specially considering you are flying at 2.500 ft. I usually can hardly see where the autogen ends.

 

What LOD do you usually run, and aren't you usually running some form of FTX-something ?

 

This is a default sim, no addons other than FSUIPC.


Regards,

Brian Doney

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

Everything you see that looks like a tree in that shot...is a tree...all I mean is it's not the FSX style with a tree every 5 feet and a ground texture that looks like a tree in between.

 

Hm, well, that's what I see on that screenshot.. Lots of groundtextures with seperate trees on them... Here is an old screenshot of mine, made in FSX above FTX England. That's what I would call a lot of trees. But I have to add now I type this that this of course also has to do with the texture as well as the season.

 

8194161824_3caf3f1e1e_o.jpg

What LOD do you usually run, and aren't you usually running some form of FTX-something ?

 

This is a default sim, no addons other than FSUIPC.

 

The highest setting but afaik the LOD doesn't affect the autogen, only the ground textures.

 

BTW Do you use a low anisotropic filtering setting?

 

I might have a look at that location tomorrow to see how it looks on my PC.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I'm not going to explain the differences between FTX and default...nor should I have to  :lol:

 

This test has been done entirely at LOD 4.5, specifically because I am running max autogen. If you'd like to give me a non-FTX location that you are familiar with I will check it out. 

 

EDIT: I take that back, show me a shot at any of the locations I shot at, with default scenery, and the same season, that shows an appreciable difference in density.

 

These aren't mountainous forest areas, and it is winter-ish there. The trees are thin in the sense that they don't have the full leaves of summer. This is simply where I was told by Rendi I would have an OOM at default settings, not an area I chose. I did him one better by maxing out autogen. Not really sure where we're going with this.

 

I went back to the same spot and changed to summer, and also moved out of the VC for a clearer view. 

 

g591.jpg

 

Maybe your FSX can do that, but mine never could. Methinks it's simply been far too long since some of you have run a default sim, FSX or P3D.


Regards,

Brian Doney

Share this post


Link to post

Brian, in case no one else mentions it, I'd like to thank you for doing these tests. 

 

Hook


Larry Hookins

 

Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    31%
    $7,965.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...