FSX-MS Default Flight planner takes 400 mb VAS

[Boeing or not going 578]

Auto flight plan load won't cause a problem unless the flight planner window (and especially the map one) is opened. That's what kills the VAS.

 

I'm loading plans via the extra option now available in Addons once the option in FSUIPC4 is enabled. No loss of VAS at all.

 

Thanks oh darn was hoping for that easy fix for vas issues.

 

Rick,

 

v4.948e on the Misc tab.

fyi 4.949 is the latest version now

[Ray Proudfoot 9,051]

There is an easy fix. Turn your scenery settings down.

 

Thanks for the info. I'll update.

[kevinh 409]

I just tried this in FSX-SE and only saw a 63 MB increase in VAS after creating a long haul flight plan and getting ATC clearance. It's not really surprising that FSX uses more VAS creating a flight plan as that will require it to load more data.

 

It was interesting that FSX-SE, despite having better memory handling, didn't release the VAS once the planning was complete and the planner window closed.

 

After reloading FSX, loading an existing flight plan and starting ATC had no impact on VAS. So unless you use the flight planner during a flight (and why would anyone want to do that?) it's a non issue.

[Ray Proudfoot 9,051]

So unless you use the flight planner during a flight (and why would anyone want to do that?) it's a non issue.

It's definitely not a non-issue for FSX:MS users who also use a heavyweight aircraft such as FSLabs ConcordeX as I do. I lost 1000Mb when opening the flight planner and switched to map view. And I don't load a plan during a flight but at the gate.

 

The reason I load a plan into FSX is so Air Traffic Manager can use it to limit the number of Ai aircraft thereby giving me a 3-4fps boost. That is the only way ATM can read a flight plan until I discovered the option to load one via FSUIPC4.

 

Yes, you would expect more VAS to be consumed if the flight planner is opened but I lost 1000Mb by so doing. My available VAS of 1230Mb fell to 230Mb and the FSUIPC warning started and I hadn't even started the engines! That's how much of a killer it is with FSX:MS and a complex aircraft.

[kevinh 409]

It's definitely not a non-issue for FSX:MS users who also use a heavyweight aircraft such as FSLabs ConcordeX as I do. I lost 1000Mb when opening the flight planner and switched to map view. And I don't load a plan during a flight but at the gate.

 

The reason I load a plan into FSX is so Air Traffic Manager can use it to limit the number of Ai aircraft thereby giving me a 3-4fps boost. That is the only way ATM can read a flight plan until I discovered the option to load one via FSUIPC4.

 

Yes, you would expect more VAS to be consumed if the flight planner is opened but I lost 1000Mb by so doing. My available VAS of 1230Mb fell to 230Mb and the FSUIPC warning started and I hadn't even started the engines! That's how much of a killer it is with FSX:MS and a complex aircraft.

When I said open the planner in flight I meant after loading the aircraft from the free flight screen, so that includes at the gate. If you create the flight plan externally from FSX then loading the flight plan shouldn't cause the VAS hit. I only saw a VAS hit when creating a flight plan, not when loading one.

 

1GB of VAS seems enormous for flight planning but it might be related to the complexity of the flight you were planning. I chose a long overland route, nothing that might confuse FSX like a transatlantic route. FSX-SE and FSX box have essentially the same code so the flight planner should use the same amount of memory when it's loaded. DTG fixed memory handling for scenery but I saw no decrease in VAS when I closed the planner so nothing seems to have been done there.

 

Concorde X is notorious for its VAS usage so is it possible that something about opening a new window (such as the flight planner, caused it to use a larger amount? Have you tried experimenting with a less memory hungry addon?

Note, I was using Process Explorer to monitor VAS, I don't have the licenced FSUIPC so can't see the amount of spare VAS it detects.

[Ray Proudfoot 9,051]

When I said open the planner in flight I meant after loading the aircraft from the free flight screen, so that includes at the gate. If you create the flight plan externally from FSX then loading the flight plan shouldn't cause the VAS hit. I only saw a VAS hit when creating a flight plan, not when loading one.

 

I create my Concorde plans using PFPX. The waypoints are added manually to avoid flying beyond Mach 1 over populated areas. Plans tend to be small as waypoints are often several hundred miles apart. When you travel at 20 miles a minute it eats the distances very quickly. I still had a VAS hit when avoiding the Edit (Map) option but it was around 300Mb.

 

1GB of VAS seems enormous for flight planning but it might be related to the complexity of the flight you were planning. I chose a long overland route, nothing that might confuse FSX like a transatlantic route. FSX-SE and FSX box have essentially the same code so the flight planner should use the same amount of memory when it's loaded. DTG fixed memory handling for scenery but I saw no decrease in VAS when I closed the planner so nothing seems to have been done there.

 

I appreciate it seems a staggering amount but it is reproducible with Concorde. Whilst distances are significant Concorde's range was 4000nm so with waypoints around 200-300 miles apart the plans aren't that large. You don't say what aircraft you had loaded for this experiment. PMDG or default?

 

Concorde X is notorious for its VAS usage so is it possible that something about opening a new window (such as the flight planner, caused it to use a larger amount? Have you tried experimenting with a less memory hungry addon?

 

The v1.3 update has reduced VAS usage by around 300-400Mb which is very welcome. No, I haven't tried it with other aircraft as I have no other 3rd party ones.

 

Note, I was using Process Explorer to monitor VAS, I don't have the licenced FSUIPC so can't see the amount of spare VAS it detects.

For the price and extra features it give you it's a very useful and popular addon. Indispensable many would say. PE is useful but its large interface is a nuisance when you can just read available VAS in the FSX Title Bar.

[kevinh 409]

I create my Concorde plans using PFPX. The waypoints are added manually to avoid flying beyond Mach 1 over populated areas. Plans tend to be small as waypoints are often several hundred miles apart. When you travel at 20 miles a minute it eats the distances very quickly. I still had a VAS hit when avoiding the Edit (Map) option but it was around 300Mb.

 

 

I appreciate it seems a staggering amount but it is reproducible with Concorde. Whilst distances are significant Concorde's range was 4000nm so with waypoints around 200-300 miles apart the plans aren't that large. You don't say what aircraft you had loaded for this experiment. PMDG or default?

 

 

The v1.3 update has reduced VAS usage by around 300-400Mb which is very welcome. No, I haven't tried it with other aircraft as I have no other 3rd party ones.

I can't see how the FSX flight planner VAS usage can be affected by the addon you have loaded. It is loading FSX airways, navaids and waypoint data, all of which are independent of the aircraft you have loaded. I used the default FSX C172 to eliminate the possibility that a complex addon was changing VAS usage as well as the flight planner. I also loaded clear skies to eliminate weather effects. However if the effect is repeatable with Concorde X loaded then there is no way around that, apart from avoiding invoking the planner. As you have no other addons to load, you could try a default aircraft to see if you get the same VAS hit. I can't try Concorde on my system as it doesn't work in FSX-SE yet.

 

I completely understand why you want to edit a Concorde flight plan, but If you can't edit individual waypoints in PFPX, then you could try editing the flight plan file in a text editor to avoid invoking the Flight Planner in FSX.

 

For the price and extra features it give you it's a very useful and popular addon. Indispensable many would say. PE is useful but its large interface is a nuisance when you can just read available VAS in the FSX Title Bar.

I do have the licenced version of FSUIPC for FS9 but never use the additional features, so I don't see the point in buying the licence for FSX and not use them there too. Anyway it is beside the point as Process Explorer gives you the same information, but in more detail.

[honanhal 1,427]

Sorry to be obtuse--I understand that opening the flight planner in flight apparently eats about 300 MB of VAS. But what about if from the free flight screen I load a flight plan (for ATC and weather app purposes), then hit "fly now": does that also kill some amount of VAS (either 300 MB or less)? Or is it ONLY if you open the flight planner from inside the engine that the VAS hit applies?

 

James

[Ray Proudfoot 9,051]

I can't see how the FSX flight planner VAS usage can be affected by the addon you have loaded. It is loading FSX airways, navaids and waypoint data, all of which are independent of the aircraft you have loaded. I used the default FSX C172 to eliminate the possibility that a complex addon was changing VAS usage as well as the flight planner. I also loaded clear skies to eliminate weather effects. However if the effect is repeatable with Concorde X loaded then there is no way around that, apart from avoiding invoking the planner. As you have no other addons to load, you could try a default aircraft to see if you get the same VAS hit. I can't try Concorde on my system as it doesn't work in FSX-SE yet.

The planner may be independent of the aircraft being used but anything loaded into FSX memory will reduce the available VAS. It was minor at the default screen but if you switch to the option showing the map that had a huge impact. I can only assume it's a giant bmp file Microsoft use.

 

And of course now I have the option via FSUIPC4 I can avoid the planner. I might try a default aircraft (737-800) and see what the impact is like with that.

 

I completely understand why you want to edit a Concorde flight plan, but If you can't edit individual waypoints in PFPX, then you could try editing the flight plan file in a text editor to avoid invoking the Flight Planner in FSX.

 

No, I don't want to edit a Concorde flight in FSX's planner. I manually create each waypoint in PFPX. I just enter the two airport ICAOs and then press Edit. It brings up a separate window and bottom-left is the area where you enter either the waypoint name or a lat/lon such as 42N67W. I press Build for each one added to confirm it's a valid waypoint then when finished choose Export.

 

That then becomes the plan I input into Concorde Performance Systems (a 3rd party Concorde-only planner) which calculates fuel, engine settings, V speeds etc. It also generates the 'cards' you enter into Concorde's INS system. Highly recommended piece of software. Free but donations are accepted.

 

I do have the licenced version of FSUIPC for FS9 but never use the additional features, so I don't see the point in buying the licence for FSX and not use them there too. Anyway it is beside the point as Process Explorer gives you the same information, but in more detail.

 

Well apart from the fixes for some g3d crashes it does allow you to allocate custom commands such as the warning bell cancel in Concorde to a button on the yoke. Each to their own of course.

 

Sorry to be obtuse--I understand that opening the flight planner in flight apparently eats about 300 MB of VAS. But what about if from the free flight screen I load a flight plan (for ATC and weather app purposes), then hit "fly now": does that also kill some amount of VAS (either 300 MB or less)? Or is it ONLY if you open the flight planner from inside the engine that the VAS hit applies?

 

James

 

James,

 

I tried entering a flight plan via that Free Flight option and it is better in that it doesn't eat much VAS as the program hasn't fully loaded. I didn't try it with the map option showing as the FSUIPC option suits me.

 

But via the FSUIPC extra menu item it has zero footprint.

[Ray Proudfoot 9,051]

I did some tests all using the default Trike at Stand 421, EGLL by Aerosoft. Time was 14:25GMT.

 

After making my selection of gate on the Free Flight menu I started FSX. Once stablised Free VAS was 2122612.

 

I then opened Flight Planner in FSX at the default Create option. I chose Load and selected and loaded a plan then pressed OK.

 

Free VAS fell to 1831136. That's a drop of 291476 or 284.6Mb.

 

Exited FSX and started again. Same gate, same time, same aircraft. This time I opened the planner and selected the Edit option. This is the one with the map.

 

VAS Free at the start was 2137532 but after loading a plan and returning to FSX the available VAS had dropped to 1080612. That's a reduction of 1056920 or 1032Mb.

 

Staggered? I am. The aircraft you use is irrelevant. It's the action of going into that Edit option with the map that will kill available VAS.

[kevinh 409]

The planner may be independent of the aircraft being used but anything loaded into FSX memory will reduce the available VAS. It was minor at the default screen but if you switch to the option showing the map that had a huge impact. I can only assume it's a giant bmp file Microsoft use.

 

And of course now I have the option via FSUIPC4 I can avoid the planner. I might try a default aircraft (737-800) and see what the impact is like with that.

 

 

No, I don't want to edit a Concorde flight in FSX's planner. I manually create each waypoint in PFPX. I just enter the two airport ICAOs and then press Edit. It brings up a separate window and bottom-left is the area where you enter either the waypoint name or a lat/lon such as 42N67W. I press Build for each one added to confirm it's a valid waypoint then when finished choose Export.

 

That then becomes the plan I input into Concorde Performance Systems (a 3rd party Concorde-only planner) which calculates fuel, engine settings, V speeds etc. It also generates the 'cards' you enter into Concorde's INS system. Highly recommended piece of software. Free but donations are accepted.

Yes I realise more complex addons will use more VAS, but I wouldn't expect the increase in VAS usage due to the flight planner would be different with a complex addon compared to a default aircraft. It will be interesting to hear if you get a different result if you try a default plane.

 

Sorry, I misunderstood, I thought you were invoking the flight planner to edit the plan, not just loading an FSX flight plan. As I said, I didn't see any VAS hit with simply loading an existing plan. I don't recall the flight planner as being one of the fixes in FSX-SE. However it's quite possible the recompilation of FSX code by DTG made the flight planner more efficient and reduced the VAS hit.

 

I have the Concorde Performance System, but sadly my Concorde is grounded until the v1.3 update is released by FSL.

 

Well apart from the fixes for some g3d crashes it does allow you to allocate custom commands such as the warning bell cancel in Concorde to a button on the yoke. Each to their own of course.

Is that the only way to assign keys and buttons in Concorde X? It's been so long since I flew it I've forgotten. It would be worth considering in that case.

Cheers,

 

Kevin

[Ray Proudfoot 9,051]

Yes I realise more complex addons will use more VAS, but I wouldn't expect the increase in VAS usage due to the flight planner would be different with a complex addon compared to a default aircraft. It will be interesting to hear if you get a different result if you try a default plane.

See my test results above. The VAS consumption is identical with a Trike  or Concorde. As you might expect.

 

Sorry, I misunderstood, I thought you were invoking the flight planner to edit the plan, not just loading an FSX flight plan. As I said, I didn't see any VAS hit with simply loading an existing plan. I don't recall the flight planner as being one of the fixes in FSX-SE. However it's quite possible the recompilation of FSX code by DTG made the flight planner more efficient and reduced the VAS hit.

 

Try the test I did and see what results you get. It's possible a recompile has fixed that problem. I am very surprised it's taken so long for me to spot this problem. Not many others seem to have either suggesting the planner is not really used much.

 

I have the Concorde Performance System, but sadly my Concorde is grounded until the v1.3 update is released by FSL.

 

You shouldn't have long to wait. Testing is progressing well but with multiple FS versions it's taking longer than usual. You'll be pleased with the results and I can now fly EGLL-KJFK (both 3rd party airports) without running out of VAS and without requiring a save and reload. :smile:

 

Is that the only way to assign keys and buttons in Concorde X? It's been so long since I flew it I've forgotten. It would be worth considering in that case.

 

AFAIK, yes. You can use a keyboard combo of course but FSX can't give you that button command as it's not as clever as FSUIPC. :smile:

 

[kevinh 409]

See my test results above. The VAS consumption is identical with a Trike  or Concorde. As you might expect.

 

 

Try the test I did and see what results you get. It's possible a recompile has fixed that problem. I am very surprised it's taken so long for me to spot this problem. Not many others seem to have either suggesting the planner is not really used much.

 

 

You shouldn't have long to wait. Testing is progressing well but with multiple FS versions it's taking longer than usual. You'll be pleased with the results and I can now fly EGLL-KJFK (both 3rd party airports) without running out of VAS and without requiring a save and reload. :smile:

 

 

AFAIK, yes. You can use a keyboard combo of course but FSX can't give you that button command as it's not as clever as FSUIPC. :smile:

 

I tried loading an existing flight plan after loading the aircraft and the VAS usage did increase (by about 115 MB). Oddly, that's more than it increased when I created a new flight plan from scratch after loading the same plane yesterday (63 MB). My VAS usage with no flight plan loaded is lower today for some reason. Can't think why, as it's the same aircraft, same airport, same time of day, same weather.

 

I then tried loading the plane and planning a new flight. Same VAS increase (about 115MB). So the flight planner map has no effect on VAS for me.

 

Finally I tried loading the flight plan in the free flight screen before loading the plane and that way I had no VAS increase at all.

 

So it does look like the flight planner has much less impact in FSX-SE than in FSX box if our experiences are typical. No impact at all if you preload the flight plan in FSX-SE.

 

Good news about the forthcoming Concorde update, thanks.

[Ray Proudfoot 9,051]

Hi Kevin,

 

Looks like the problem is fixed in Steam. Not enough for me to switch though. I have a workaround that works for the foreseeable future.