I'm a little apprehensive about spending $90 and then find myself with a product unusable with my system

I hate to say it but it depends on a lot of factors - FSX Settings, ASN seetings, other sim software installed such as payware and non-payware airports, various scenery enhancements, and your computer's hardware. Some members never had OOMs, some have eliminated them and some never will.

 

In my case I never had an OOM until after I flow the plane for 15 months and like a bolt out of the blue I got one last December five hours into a KJFK-VHHH flight. It seems to be corrected now with settings as they were before the first OOM but you figure if it did once it could do it again.

In my case I never had an OOM until after I flow the plane for 15 months and like a bolt out of the blue I got one last December five hours into a KJFK-VHHH flight. It seems to be corrected now with settings as they were before the first OOM but you figure if it did once it could do it again.

 

One of the best ways to prevent OOMs is to set the ManualLoad to True on all optional dll addons in the dll.exe (Leave the ones you use for every flight set to False). On FSX start it will ask you which dll's to load for your flight. Answer no to all but the ones you are currently using. There's no sense loading CS dll's when you are flying the NGX! This accomplishes two things. One you'll have more VAS available on initial load, and it's more likely you'll have larger contiguous address space further into your flight. If the line isn't in the addon's entry, just add it underneath the Disabled line

 

<ManualLoad>True</ManualLoad>

 

Tom Cain

One of the best ways to prevent OOMs is to set the ManualLoad to True on all optional dll addons in the dll.exe (Leave the ones you use for every flight set to False). On FSX start it will ask you which dll's to load for your flight. Answer no to all but the ones you are currently using. There's no sense loading CS dll's when you are flying the NGX! This accomplishes two things. One you'll have more VAS available on initial load, and it's more likely you'll have larger contiguous address space further into your flight. If the line isn't in the addon's entry, just add it underneath the Disabled line

 

<ManualLoad>True</ManualLoad>

 

Tom Cain

That really doesn't stop a VAS leak though, at least in this particular FMS case, just probably would delay the inevitable OOM by creating a larger overhead at the start of the flight. Unless you know of a specific dll that could cause these symptoms?

 

Then just a race against the clock if you can land before you OOM at some of the test cases I've identified. And hope you don't have to divert or hold :-S

I can confirm with 1503, the problematic VAS bleeding still exists.  Tested sitting at default KPUB, loaded the ILS 25L approach at KLAX and let the aircraft sit.  OOM'ed after about 5 hours.

 

 

I can confirm with 1503, the problematic VAS bleeding still exists.

Glad I went with 1407 for KLAX.txt.

Two words - Steam Edition!

 

Changed my FlightSim world completely. You can still OOM FSX:Steam, but it takes a lot more effort.

@CaptKornDog and pcubine

 

Appreciate all the work you guys are doing trying to track down the reasons for this leak. No question that a problem exists, and I believe Ryan (Tabs) said that PMDG has been able to duplicate the issue. Hopefully they will be able to get to the bottom of it.

 

But, from a purely operational perspective, it would not be common practice in r/w ops to enter the destination approach into the FMS before departure. Though a STAR might be entered early, the selection of the actual runway and approach would typically be done only after commencing descent, and when in contact with approach control, or perhaps the final center controller.

 

While it is pretty certain that you will get a specific runway 99% of the time at specific airports i.e. 25L at KLAX or KLAS, or RNAV 27 at KSAN (being a single-runway airport), can you avoid the VAS leak by postponing the runway selection until late in the flight?

 

Also, have you tried loading the approach, then deleting the missed approach segments from the end of the procedure in the LEGS page, leaving the runway as the last waypoint in the flight plan? I'm not even sure if this is possible (I'm away from my FS computer), but since the leak seems to be caused by "something" in the missed approach section in recent AIRACS, I'm wondering if deleting those waypoints might prevent the leak?

 

 

Though a STAR might be entered early, the selection of the actual runway and approach would typically be done only after commencing descent, and when in contact with approach control, or perhaps the final center controller.

It has already been done. See post #205.

 

 

Also, have you tried loading the approach, then deleting the missed approach segments from the end of the procedure in the LEGS page, leaving the runway as the last waypoint in the flight plan?

Thanks for this idea. I will see if the missed approach can be deleted.

Two words - Steam Edition!

 

Changed my FlightSim world completely. You can still OOM FSX:Steam, but it takes a lot more effort.

What specifically about Steam Edition, do you think, addresses the systematic VAS leaking some of us are seeing when we select certain approaches in the FMS of the 777 (such as KLAX ILS 25L/25R/7L/7R, KJFK ILS 22L)? Did you have this particular problem previously we are describing and switching to Steam Edition resolved it?

What specifically about Steam Edition, do you think, addresses the systematic VAS leaking some of us are seeing when we select certain approaches in the FMS of the 777 (such as KLAX ILS 25L/25R/7L/7R, KJFK ILS 22L)? Did you have this particular problem previously we are describing and switching to Steam Edition resolved it?

 

Yes I do. I've seen VAS leakage on several approaches in boxed FSX. Not in the Steam Edition.

Yes I do. I've seen VAS leakage on several approaches in boxed FSX. Not in the Steam Edition.

Unfortunately, we aren't talking about necessarily just "on approach" in this instance. We are discussing a 777-specific VAS leak noticeable ONLY when you select certain approaches (that I highlighted above) in the FMS. As I described also, where you could set up a flight with the 777 in the FMS, and literally let the plane sit at a default airport in the middle of nowhere and wait for an OOM at 200 MB/hour. Not even flying the plane.

 

Have you attempted some of the data testing above?

Unfortunately, we aren't talking about necessarily just "on approach" in this instance. We are discussing a 777-specific VAS leak noticeable ONLY when you select certain approaches (that I highlighted above) in the FMS. As I described also, where you could set up a flight with the 777 in the FMS, and literally let the plane sit at a default airport in the middle of nowhere and wait for an OOM at 200 MB/hour. Not even flying the plane.

 

Have you attempted some of the data testing above?

 

No, sorry. Then I misunderstood. 

 

I don't know whats been said already, but I would have changed to an older AIRAC cycle (or updated) to see if the same STAR(S) produced a VAS leakage. 

 

 

@CaptKornDog and pcubine

Appreciate all the work you guys are doing trying to track down the reasons for this leak.

 

Thanks.  If it weren't for the idea-sharing and support from this thread, I probably would have given up long ago, and leave one of my favorite aircraft to gather dust.

 

 

 

But, from a purely operational perspective, it would not be common practice in r/w ops to enter the destination approach into the FMS before departure. Though a STAR might be entered early, the selection of the actual runway and approach would typically be done only after commencing descent, and when in contact with approach control, or perhaps the final center controller.

 

Sure it is.  I've worked for a major US airline and currently another operator of Part 25 aircraft.  Our standard practice is to select a "most likely" approach based on weather, forecasts, and NOTAMs.  This helps for descent/fuel/flight planning, and overall vertical navigation continuity for the flight; also helps with STAR selection that are runway-dependent and associated transitions.  Even the tutorial shows selecting an approach during preflight.  If ATC assigns a different approach or runway, well, it happens all the time.

 

 

 

While it is pretty certain that you will get a specific runway 99% of the time at specific airports i.e. 25L at KLAX or KLAS, or RNAV 27 at KSAN (being a single-runway airport), can you avoid the VAS leak by postponing the runway selection until late in the flight?

 

Yes.  I have the same results as pcubine does.

 

 

 

Also, have you tried loading the approach, then deleting the missed approach segments from the end of the procedure in the LEGS page, leaving the runway as the last waypoint in the flight plan? I'm not even sure if this is possible (I'm away from my FS computer), but since the leak seems to be caused by "something" in the missed approach section in recent AIRACS, I'm wondering if deleting those waypoints might prevent the leak?

 

You'll likely get an invalid delete when trying to delete the (800) and (INTC) points, at least on KLAX ILS 25L.  Removing CATLY doesn't seem to have an effect on the VAS leak.  Based on my edits to KLAX.txt, making the missed approach direct to CATLY (which worked), rather than intercepting a radial, this seems to check.

I can confirm with 1503, the problematic VAS bleeding still exists.  Tested sitting at default KPUB, loaded the ILS 25L approach at KLAX and let the aircraft sit.  OOM'ed after about 5 hours.

I just wanted to post that I had the same problem today: flight from KJFK (22R) to KLAX (25L, RIIVR2 STAR) and I wasn't able to finish the flight. I also used 1503 cycle. I read that someone in the beta team was able to reproduce this issue.

It would be great to know if PMDG is keeping an eye on this aspect for a future update...

How can a FMC route cause a VAS leak? Or is this something Navigraph has to deal with?

By the way my ATC route was:

 

N0480F340 BETTE3 JFK J146 FJC/N0489F320 J146 JOT J18 MZV/N0485F340 J18 ALBRT J64 TBC J128 PGS RIIVR2 (planned with PFPX)

 

Kind regards,

Chris

 

 

How can a FMC route cause a VAS leak? Or is this something Navigraph has to deal with?

It's not the FMC route causing VAS leak. It is the missed approaches to 25L and 25R at KLAX. Navigraph is not going to deal with this.