It's been Real- I'm out

[Noel 4,487]

Hmm, did you report this to FSDT?

 

 

Yes, I did, but VIrtuali is saying if I was no flying in the area of the airports absolutely this is not the cause of the problem I experienced.   I also uninstalled Accu-Feel at the same time and duplicated the first of several flights that OOM'd, and arrived w/ ample unused VAS intact, around .9Gb.  I will go ahead and try reinstalling just the Hawaiian Airports and see if Virtuali is spot on, or not.  I will leave Accu-Feel out of the mix as well for now.

[rparson99 32]

Make sure you use the latest installers.... I have those airports and they are great. No OOMs.

 

Also monitor your VAS as you load sessions... There are programs that will help you do this easily... My current fave comes with SimlauncherX... You can search for that....But there are others.....fsuipc included.

[Appliance 51]

 

 

Well, as per tradition I am sending out my goodbye post.

 

bye

[EGLD 436]

I really hope LM produce an x64 version at some point.

 

They have the sim in a position now where it can do what people want it to do, but it's clear that 32-bit memory space is now inadequate.

 

I flew earlier from Orbx Sumburgh down to Orbx Fairoaks over Orbx England in the Carenado C90B with Ultimate Traffic AI and ASN weather. Everything went perfect until in sight of London and Aerosoft Heathrow xtreme when all textures went blurry, the pings started, and eventually OOM

 

I know I'm trying to drag too much out of the sim, but it's clear that we're on the brink of a truly exceptional platform now if we can take advantage of over 4gb of memory

 

I understand the problems that 64-bit will bring in terms of compatibility, but really the community needs to accept that this is a necessary painful step that needs to be taken

[Noel 4,487]

I know I'm trying to drag too much out of the sim, but it's clear that we're on the brink of a truly exceptional platform now if we can take advantage of over 4gb of memory

 

I understand the problems that 64-bit will bring in terms of compatibility, but really the community needs to accept that this is a necessary painful step that needs to be taken

 

I strongly agree w/ all of your comments.  I have decided P3D is now well-balanced on my machine & installation such that VAS usage  is well matched to frame & other parameters of performance.  If I run FTX regionals, then it's best I stick w/ shorter flights in smaller aircraft, in particular for me RA Turbine Duke & Lancair Legacy--both fabulous in P3D, and not overly impactful.  I can take any flights in any FTX regional scenery from any of my installed 3PD airports and never get anywhere near VAS limits and also have excellent frame and total performance.  

 

If I get the tube liners out for long flights I simply have accepted to use FTX Global only so I can fly out of large 3PD terminals and still I stay well above total VAS depletion.  I also like to have real strong performance.  For example on a really fabulous flight today from KPDX to KSLC at dusk in the Super MD-80 I was taxiing along at 36-42 frames and image complexity & visual quality around Portland/KPDX was substantial, as was smoothness, and that is w/o PNW regional active.  

 

I would argue there is little to no need to fly tube liners out of FTX regional scenery anyway:  you're above it way too quickly, and if you're married to FSCaptain you will be flat out too busy coordinating GSX & FSCaptain and all that that entails, to notice the very little difference at ground level visually, and as I say, up up and away you go in short order.   From there you're focused on managing the flight in the tubeliner & soon you're really focused more on clouds & atmospherics, which as so far superior in P3D compared to the old very gray mare it's not a contest.  So yes, I agree there too, we're on the brink of a very exceptional platform.   Lastly, my machine is on the brink of struggling when I combine tube liner + FTX Regional + 3PD terminal, and VAS starts its inevitable climb to the point of no return.  

 

I wonder if there is an algorithm that LM could come up with to allow you to electively flush from VAS usage large swaths of textures loaded that simply are unlikely to be needed again, even if it meant, for example, looking behind you in TOP DOWN view only to see everything blackened out from 8 miles behind you, or something along those lines.  Something that could be called when VAS gets to a certain level.  Rob might know if that's an option--one would think LM would have thought of that if it were possible, but who knows as they don't talk a whole lot these days.

[Appliance 51]

 

 

I wonder if there is an algorithm that LM could come up with to allow you to electively flush from VAS usage large swaths of textures loaded that simply are unlikely to be needed again,

 

Allegedly this was supposed to have been accomplished in V2.3.

[Noel 4,487]

Allegedly this was supposed to have been accomplished in V2.3.

 

Really?  Did people find a significant reduction in OOMs compared to prior versions?  I'm still using 2.2...

[Christopher Low 5,338]

I have no idea what the OOM situation was prior to version 2.3, but it isn't appreciably different to FSX in DX9 mode as far as I can see.

[EGLD 436]

snip

 

I agree with what you say, in an airliner, arguably the Orbx regional series are unnecessary and a luxury. But at around 15,000ft over FTX ENG it provides an incredibly realistic view of the world that gives the impression of far more detail than it's actually displaying. An impressive achievement.

 

So whilst it's a luxury in an airliner, it would be great to be able to have it enabled wouldn't it?

 

this is where FPS is no longer a problem, or at least the biggest problem, and now we're juggling fitting all the goodies into that limited address space whilst knowing our PCs can drive it all at reasonable FPS.

 

In airliners as you say, you're better off having your target and destination airports at full detail and little in between other than something appropriate for sight seeing at cruise altitude. I was surprised at how I could taxi around Aerosoft Heathrow at full detail in the Aerosoft Airbus at great FPS, but all autogen has to be off to be able to fly that approach over London. And even then I got an OOM.

 

I think I might try just running with FTX global textures as you are to see if I get better results.

Personally, I would accept Prepar3d turning features off automatically (perhaps you could nominate things in order of preference?) in order to avoid OOM's. On approach to Fairoaks yesterday I was frantically turning off autogen, AI, reducing texture sizes....but it was too late Wasn't there a product mentioned here recently that would turn things on and off on the fly to avoid OOMs....

 

Whilst FPS hasn't magically gone away as an issue, OOM is a far more catastrophic one that has the ability to ruin a couple of hours you've put into the SIM more than a slow down in FPS does!

So I think the biggest focus going forward now has to be getting over the 32-bit barrier for LM because in another generation of CPU and GPU releases, this problem is only going to become more magnified.

 

I'm so grateful though to the companies doing their best to take this platform forwards, i.e. LM and the manufacturers of all the addons that make this sim look and fly as good as it does now.

 

For a view of what your PC is capable of these days in terms of rendering a virtual world, check out Arma 3. I don't think there's any game that simulates real world that looks as good as that game right now. It models a greek island and I can see myself flying into it in the Aerosoft Airbux every time I play it.

[Noel 4,487]

Personally, I would accept Prepar3d turning features off automatically (perhaps you could nominate things in order of preference?) in order to avoid OOM's.

 

I have proposed this many times even directly to developers if they could be dynamically modulated, but then it was to save frame rate performance.  I still would like to see an 'emergency rapid flush' of textures already loaded but behind the upcoming field of view.  I wonder if there is some potential there to offer a bridge solution for those long flights.  But even so skipping out on regionals is a nifty way to pick up substantial reductions in VAS depletion, at least in the places I fly.  Using FSCaptain can keep you busy enough to not feel like you've missed a whole lot down under as it were. The lovely RA Turbine Duke is a great way to enjoy FTX England from 15K feet and have no worries about VAS or frame performance down low either.    I can do flights from southern California into NCA and not have OOMs in the ultra easy on frames and VAS Super MD-80, the most under appreciated midrange tube liner we have to play with.   Try if you don't have it:  50% more complex, 50% less resource hungry compared w/ QW757, which is as you may too simplistic.  We just have to make piece w/ the limits of the 32-bit world until 64-bit comes or an outside the box bridge solution like the one I mention is developed.

 

An elephant in the room though, and I don't understand why is hasn't happened yet, is how come textures can't be offloaded better.  I'd rather, in a long flight on the bring of OOM, be unable to look out the rear and see ANY textures, or at least any higher resolution layers, at least in the event of a VAS emergency as it were..  Right now, I can TO out of the big terminal, fly 30 miles, look back and every thing looks very clear still, and that is some texture resources that seemingly could be reduced w/ a key press or what have you, or pre-set this such that when VAS drops below 0.3Gb this occurs, buying some more time...

 

Still though, in my machine total performance really is fairly matched w/ VAS limits.  It is much nicer to taxi smoothly and never go below 32 to 40 frames and put up with a little less scenery complexity after TO and have ample VAS than struggle w/ frames in the low 20's in for example FB's KSFO in FTX NCA regional.   And absolutely, if you're really simulating piloting conditions you should be looking at scenery about as much as teenager should be driving on the freeway while texting  :rolleyes:

[Guest]

 

 

So I think the biggest focus going forward now has to be getting over the 32-bit barrier for LM because in another generation of CPU and GPU releases, this problem is only going to become more magnified.

 

This problem will get magnified as content providers continue to improve their products with more and more quality and depth ... which is necessary to be competitive and what consumers want.

 

Some feel that VAS limits can go away with "more efficient" coding, but unless those individuals have source code I don't see how such a statement can hold any merit?  I think those statements are more of a "hope" rather than a reality check ... the hope being they don't want to have to update all their existing 32bit add-ons to 64bit ones.  

 

I can understand the concern, but what I don't understand is that folks seem to think they have to drop or stop using their existing 32bit product when a 64bit product is released ... this is the part that confuses me ... there really is no concern/fear?  The 64bit product will get released, add-ons will slowly be made available and over time folks will migrate more and more to the 64bit path.  There is no "loss" of existing 32bit product ... use them both and take your time to transition as 64bit add-ons become available.

 

Like I said before, I'd much rather have an FPS limit than a VAS limit ... the future can bring solutions to FPS limits, the future can NOT bring solutions to a VAS limit.

 

Cheers, Rob.

[Simmer2050 28]

For what its worth, I just completed sim pc build that is frankly a monster!!!.

 

Halfway through the build I elected for a 1T Sim drive for

1. FSX

2. P3D

3. Elite Dangerous

4. Star Citizen 

 

Fsx/P3d have hit the roof graphic wise, and those of us who enjoy the pc maintenance /oc / cooling management etc cant find fsx/p3d fun to design pc's for anymore.

 

Will set fsx/p3d to what my vas limit allows, but for the first time want to see what my monster pc can do with more modern game platforms.

 

Thanks for the tips on disabling unused scenery etc, hope LM shelve all future work on P3D and focus only on VAS. 

 

Till then ILL be an Elite Dangerous Star Citizen. keep FSx/p3d for vas limited planet side operations.

 

for me its a no brainer keep both fsx/p3d, fsx still rocks more addons than p3d. keep both

[Squishy 0]

I can find myself in OP's post.

I gave up on FSX a while ago because of CTD errors and because my system at the time just wasn't fast enough to run many addons.

Last year I build a new PC with a i5 4570 and R9 280X 3GB and 8 GB ram.

I kept seeing progress from P3D 1.4 all the way up to 2.4 and figured to give it a try, but while I enjoyed coming back to FS the experience has been a bit underwhelming:
 

1) Performance is not what I expected. My system is about 5-10x faster than my previous setup but I'm getting about the same FPS (20-30) in similar scenarios (albeit higher resolutions). Yes there are cockpit shadows but in fact water looks worse than in FSX...at least I would've expected the DX11 and multi-core updates to give significant performance boosts...but it's just like FSX where FPS are way lower than the visuals would make you think.

I mean look at War Thunder which runs 60fps with 50 multiplayer aircraft, real time physics and significant better graphics. (yes, different products, no auto-gen etc I know, but still)

 

2) Many addons simply don't work properly or

 

3) addon creaters ask money for the same product but now for P3D :unsure:

 

4) Worst thing, it's not even stable. This was the reason I quit FSX: countless crashes. The game seems more stable but that might also be because I'm running less addons. Aaaand then I got terrain.dll error. :(  I would've thought this would be #1 priority if one would be able to work on FSX's code.

 

5) My joystick just disconnects mid-flight and I can't reconnect. Might be a 'FSX core' + win 8.1 problem but at least P3D didn't fix it.

 

6) Small things like I can't access the option/scenerylibrary screen without loading a flight.

 

7) This is extra annoying because loading the flight is EXTREMELY slow.. and this is on a faster HDD than before, way faster system.

 

I know many many things have changed but to me it doesn't feel like this.

It feels like FSX with more advanced shadows and reflection... but with all the points points described above.

 

Might give FSX:SE a try!

[simmerhead 885]

Simple things like AI Traffic managmemt should be implemented in the core product. It beats me why we still need freeware/payware addons to make the sim run better (FSUIPC, AI Traffic Manager, AI Traffic Smoother etc.).

[ricktorbe 0]

I must be living under a rock, I've never been able to run FSX, XP10, P3D without making adjustments and/or knowing how the product works with 3rd party.

 

As far as the Op, this was rather predictable, sorry to say, but going back to your original "why p3d" post (here: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/456793-why-prepar3d/ )

 

 

 

But blaming a core product (P3D) because you can't get 3rd party products to work well makes little to no sense to me ... shouldn't you be posting stuff like this in the appropriate 3rd party forums?

 

Happy Holidays,

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

I'm trying to understand your comments. What was predictable? That anyone would have problems with P3D? Or, that I would be the only one with problems on P3D? Or.......... ? 

On the topic "Why p3d?,"   I was making a genuine interrogation in order to understand the benefits of the new platform. The idea of getting  a new sim is to have  better experience than the previous one. Or else, what's the point of leaving the one you currently have.

 

I don't believe I have ever blamed P3D for not being able to use third party add-ons . Yes I can use some  third party addons; however, not all of them. None-the-less, that is not the reason for not staying with P3D. There are a number of reasons why I felt, I was not able to stay. It's very simple.. There are several factors that determined my reluctance to stay.  And the biggest reason on my experience is the difficulty I encountered with VAS.

 

The idea to move to another sim is to have a better experience in both graphics and performance - Not to lower my settings to FSX or DS9 standards. This is the same reason why we move from a lower quality add-on to higher quality one.

 

 

NB: As I repeat, this is my experience, and does not necessarily means it will be for everyone. That's all... I will go with what works for me; not what  someone else wants me to believe that works, cause it may or may not work for me. How do I know (How can someone know?)  Trying it.. I did...it did not work for me!