FSX-SE The Most Intense VAS/OOM testing you have ever seen **Videos**

[Bofajking 0]

Because you are claiming FSX Steam Edition is the "cure for OOM" when you have not tested a high footprint airplane like the PMDG that causes OOM more than any other addon.

I've never known anyone who owns a 777 to do patterns around southern California the way I did. So as 777 flights take you from one mega airport to another at high altitudes and not 13000 asl between 4 megas and a region, you can pretty easily assume that the VAS of the 777 will be easily offset by the avoidance of such a intentionally ridiculous flight pattern.

 

Also, remember that the systems of PMDG aircraft do not continue to add to the Working Set memory. They along with the polys of the aircraft remain constant. And there is not a massive difference between the memory footprint of a high poly 777 and a high poly 787. Bigger yes, but not 250mb bigger which is how much headroom I had left at the end of this test.

Well if the OP has processor explorer on his system and could run another test, he could report on the VAS usage throughout the flight. Then all we have to do is add ~700 to 800MB to that.

You should watch the videos.

[Sbacchini 15]

Who are you arguing with? Nobody here is the PMDG defense league. Pointing out the PMDG 777 leads to OOM errors because of the high vas, more than any other airplane, is all I did. And until you can test the Steam Edition with this airplane, claiming OOM's are cured is premature.

 

Did you measure that? Or are you just arguing because it's PMDG, so it must be better, even in a negative aspect like that? There are other planes with a high address space footprint, just because he didn't use a PMDG plane it doesn't mean that his results are wrong.... The OP repeatedly said that, on the same situation, using the same plane, he can't even make the turn over the pacific out of LAX, while in the test he managed to complete the flight....

 

And another thing: he clearly showed that FSX:SE is better at managing VAS... IF even then, we get OOM errors with the 777, that doesn't mean a fault in the simulator, but the fact that the PMDG 777 is just a poorly optimized plane.

 

Cheers!

[CG_Justin 5]

I could care less about anything PMDG. I dont fly tube liners, nor do I care to. I want to know 2 things...

 

1. Will it improve performance flying complex GA aircraft? (i.e. frame hog Carenado Cirrus SR22)

 

2.Can I use the recompiled files from SE in my FSX:MS install with some modification?   <----(I refuse to believe the answer is NO.....I speculate that its just too new and no one has found a way...YET)

 

As I have said in a previous post, my FSX works beautifully. I have no reason to switch. But if certain hurdles are overcome with SE. I will ditch this b**tch in a heartbeat. Better performance is better performance.....I dont give a damn who offers it or how.

 

On the other hand. I do appreciate the "pioneers" that have made the plunge and are giving the entire community valuable data so that people like myself can make an educated descion. The nay sayers that dont have the balls to experiment need not even comment. Just sit back and watch the data come....buy the sim and then, AND ONLY THEN make your comments. I am approaching this with a very open mind(and I have over 15 years with sim experience). I cant wait to see if things can be improved...not only for mysef....but EVERYONE. We could be on the verge on a revolution in an already outdated technology, or we could witness the greatest flop in sim history. Who am I to decide the course of things to come? I am going to sit back and watch the data roll in. In the mean time...my FSX works perfecly with full sliders in DX10.

[JSkorna 137]

 

 

1. Will it improve performance flying complex GA aircraft?

 

YMMV

 

 

 

2.Can I use the recompiled files from SE in my FSX:MS install with some modification?

 

The programming experts that are well trusted in our industry have said No.

[Daveo 36]

Well if the OP has processor explorer on his system and could run another test, he could report on the VAS usage throughout the flight. Then all we have to do is add ~700 to 800MB to that.

Yep correct. And then he can test the infinite amount of hardware-software/system configurations that exist out here in Flight Simulator land. :o

[BMagann 11]

Anyone who wants to can spend the small amount of money and find out for themselves whether it helps eliminate OOM's. I am very happy to see these test results and believe that they are 100% genuine. No one will know for sure if FSX:SE will eliminate OOM's in your own specific setup. 

 

I also don't understand why some people seem actually threatened by FSX:SE. If your FSX is working perfectly why change? No one will force you to. If others are happy with the new install, be happy for them, don't tell them how stupid they must be to feel that way. And that IS how a lot of this comes across.

[Bofajking 0]

Did you measure that? Or are you just arguing because it's PMDG, so it must be better, even in a negative aspect like that? There are other planes with a high address space footprint, just because he didn't use a PMDG plane it doesn't mean that his results are wrong.... The OP repeatedly said that, on the same situation, using the same plane, he can't even make the turn over the pacific out of LAX, while in the test he managed to complete the flight....

 

And another thing: he clearly showed that FSX:SE is better at managing VAS... IF even then, we get OOM errors with the 777, that doesn't mean a fault in the simulator, but the fact that the PMDG 777 is just a poorly optimized plane.

 

Cheers!

 

^This... 

 

 

Yep correct. And then he can test the infinite amount of hardware-software/system configurations that exist out here in Flight Simulator land. :o

 

I honestly feel like people wont be able to just look at the data in an objective manner unless I build a replica of their system and run the tests again. 

 

Anyone who wants to can spend the small amount of money and find out for themselves whether it helps eliminate OOM's. I am very happy to see these test results and believe that they are 100% genuine. No one will know for sure if FSX:SE will eliminate OOM's in your own specific setup. 

 

I also don't understand why some people seem actually threatened by FSX:SE. If your FSX is working perfectly why change? No one will force you to. If others are happy with the new install, be happy for them, don't tell them how stupid they must be to feel that way. And that IS how a lot of this comes across.

 

Agreed! The biggest thing people need to remember is that I am not here raving about P3D or X-Plane. I am raving about a 8 year old sim that technically died years ago. Now we are getting patches, multiplayer is alive and thriving, and dev support. I mean, how is this not exciting for everyone in this community? You dont have to take the plunge now, but at least look at the future and recognize it is brighter than it was a month ago. 

[Blaze 102]

 

 

how is this not exciting for everyone in this community?

 

 

+1

I've got no dog in this fight as I do not plan on installing the Steam version of FSX but I can tell you first hand that the exposure on that platform has got to be good for our hobby.  My 12 year old son who has little to no interest in Flight Simulation made mention that a couple of his Steam buddies were playing FSX  and said something to the extent that he didn't think kids like that sort of game?  He has not asked to download it but it'll be the quickest $13.00 I've ever spent on a "steam game"  for him if he does.

 

Back on the topic IF there has been some modifications made that reduces VAS I really can't see how this isn't a good thing for everybody.  My hope is that if it does turn out to be a genuine game changer with regard to VAS usage that LM can find a way to implement a similar process to hold us P3d users over until a 64bit version is available.

 

Cheers