Terrific solution !

 

My Saitek modules (BIP, Radio panel, Switch panel and AP control) even though all connected

to powered hubs would freeze when I loaded sceneries and UT2 to high settings.

 

Just flew the PMDG 737 from KOAK to LAX with high settings on traffic and scenery and all went smoothly

with none of the previous  freeze or CTD.

 

Thank you

Naturally, I call placebo unless statistics prove me wrong or I see a VAS comparison between before and after (preferably after a two hour jetliner flight or so).

 

Using a 1024 setting for 2048 textures just means that FSX uses the 1024 px mip level (the first or second, depending on the source texture file).

I could be that, when textures are saved without mip maps and FSX is told to use the 1024 or 2048 mip only, that FSX resizes any textures that are biiger than that on the go. This might involve loading the source texture, resizing it and using the resized version for rendering the final image. This puts two versions of the texture into the VAS. By giving FSX free reign in terms of maimum allowed texture resolution, it could very well be that only the high res version is used which in turn saves VAS.

It's just an uneducated thought though. Don't quote me on it.

A 3.75 hour continuous flight is not a placebo effect, but a rubber-meets-the-road hard tangible! ORBX regional usage to boot! My .cfg file is no feature 'lite weight' in conjunction.

Terrific solution !

 

My Saitek modules (BIP, Radio panel, Switch panel and AP control) even though all connected

to powered hubs would freeze when I loaded sceneries and UT2 to high settings.

 

Just flew the PMDG 737 from KOAK to LAX with high settings on traffic and scenery and all went smoothly

with none of the previous freeze or CTD.

 

Thank you

There you go...we can add your post-thread experience to my uninterrupted 3.75 hour, full-bore Orbx NCA/SAK flight in the Carenado C377 SkyMaster.

but the big test is fly the PMDG 777-200, into a big airport, like KJFK, CYVR, KORD, etc. I have the C337 from Carenado its a fantastic plane, but everybody has a different system as well, we all have different addons. as well. Just my thoughts.

I think a lot will depend on how the scenery developer builds the textures. My quick and dirty with the default Cessna, no AI, WX and LOD 4.5 and Autogen Normal, taking off from FSDT KJFK, Rwy 31L, head west to Manhattan w/Drzewiecki NYC loaded and fly north down the center of the island. I found using 4096 TML vice 2048 caused JFK to consume 159MB MORE VAS, but Drzewiecki NYC consumed 6.7MB LESS. Go figure.

You do know the setting will return to 1024 the next time you start the sim? So you have to change that in your cfg. file each time you  fly unless you use a neat little utility that allows you to set your TML and each time you start the sim it will do it for you.

Just Google "Frosty TML" it's free and works great.

Bob G.

 

The TML setting will only reset if you make changes to the settings in the sim and confirm them, I believe, so as long as you stay out of your settings and make changes in the fsx.cfg instead, it won't reset.

@MDF86. Please check post #10 above. I corrected myself.

Bob G.

The TML setting will only reset if you make changes to the settings in the sim and confirm them, I believe, so as long as you stay out of your settings and make changes in the fsx.cfg instead, it won't reset.

It looks to be that way!  I set mine to 4096 and have made several start-ups of FSX and made

 

short flights and then exiting the program.  It's still sitting at 4096.

but the big test is fly the PMDG 777-200, into a big airport, like KJFK, CYVR, KORD, etc. I have the C337 from Carenado its a fantastic plane, but everybody has a different system as well, we all have different addons. as well. Just my thoughts.

Sure...and each has to see if this will enhance their FSX experience, or out-right cure the CTD/OOM cycle.  It did for me...in fact...it has shown OOM and CTD the door......

I have seen it implied by a scenery developer that this setting does not affect scenery because the game will render what the dev specified, regardless.

 

As far as default scenery this setting will have zero effect because it is all mostly 1024 -  no setting can magically make the default textures increase their resolution.

 

The only airport I know for sure that can have 4096 textures is FSDT - CYVR because you get to choose what you want when you install it. I'm sure some others do like the Flightbeam HD airports but is their version of HD 2048 or 4096 or (more likely) a mixture of all different.

 

As far as aircraft, all the Carenado "HD" aircraft appear to have 2048x2048 textures (per their website)

 

Bottom line is that unless you have something that would actually use 4096x4096 you will not see an impact on FPS or VAS.

I have seen it implied by a scenery developer that this setting does not affect scenery because the game will render what the dev specified, regardless.

 

As far as default scenery this setting will have zero effect because it is all mostly 1024 -  no setting can magically make the default textures increase their resolution.

 

The only airport I know for sure that can have 4096 textures is FSDT - CYVR because you get to choose what you want when you install it. I'm sure some others do like the Flightbeam HD airports but is their version of HD 2048 or 4096 or (more likely) a mixture of all different.

 

As far as aircraft, all the Carenado "HD" aircraft appear to have 2048x2048 textures (per their website)

 

Bottom line is that unless you have something that would actually use 4096x4096 you will not see an impact on FPS or VAS.

We are not saying here, that it will CONVERT textures to a higher rez...no..but that FSX runs better on the whole for memory and VAS management with this setting as default REGARDLESS of what texture rez, the scenery or plane needs to produce, at any given time.  FSX runs better as the whole....with this as set, rather than with the lower two other options.  Without my setting Max Load to 4096, my 3.75 hour flight would have been impossible to run as per my past FSX user experience.  Changing to 4096 and then leaving it as such, was the key into the door (VAS) lock......

Changing to 4096 and then leaving it as such, was the key into the door (VAS) lock......

Ok, I just loaded a PMDG T7 @ KMIA latinVFR using the UA livery from Alex Farmer who does hi res paint jobs, and I lost about 400MB VAS @ 4096.  compared to 1024. I would not make it to NY, in fact, I would be pushing it to make it to Tampa :)

I think a lot depends on what is the resolution of your native textures. If you use 4096 textures for sky and terrain (like ORBX PNW) then setting it to 4096 is probably appropriate as there will be no down/up scaling on load. Where as if you set TML to 4096 but use 1024 res textures, then the system will upscale which will eat VAS. Vice versa, if you use 4096 textures, but your TML is lower like 2048, or 1024 then it has to do down scale processing, also eating VAS.

I intended to test with FSUIPC and the VAS monitor tonight, but instead ended up flying over last nights Chicago (ASN historical weather) through fantastic electrical storms, with 50% car traffic filling those busy Chicago streets. Excellent.

 

Then I challenged my son just to 'take off' from one of the African Adventures airstrips in Kenya. No way could he do it, even after I'd shown him the rpm, fuel mixture lever and recommended flaps! But I digress....

I think a lot depends on what is the resolution of your native textures. If you use 4096 textures for sky and terrain (like ORBX PNW) then setting it to 4096 is probably appropriate as there will be no down/up scaling on load. Where as if you set TML to 4096 but use 1024 res textures, then the system will upscale which will eat VAS. Vice versa, if you use 4096 textures, but your TML is lower like 2048, or 1024 then it has to do down scale processing, also eating VAS.

FSX does not upscale any textures no matter what.

I was just trying to make a point that some people may notice a difference and some may not. It definitely matters what addons you have and what textures they loaded into your sim. Personally I've been using 4096 for a while now, I never get OOM's but use lower settings on traffic.