Steve,

I have recently switched to DX10 and I am quite happy about the results .....everything is working very well, I have no problem at all despite I am using a lot of addons....just the VC shadows are not working well, but that's not an issue for me...I can live without them..

Just one question: one of the reasons why I decided to switch to DX10 were the reports from several users according to whom the VAS usage with DX10 was way less than with DX9 in the same conditions (same sceneries, same addon a/c, etc....). In my case I cannot confirm this: despite I have taken all reccomended actions to reduce VAS usage, i.e. using only 1024 resolution textures (DXT5 for clouds and DXT1 for water), disabling most of the addon airports outside of my expected flight plan, having no photoscenery installed, limiting LOD radius to 4.5, when I am approaching a complex addon airport such as Aerosoft EGLL with a complex addon a/c such as the PMDG T7, I sstill end up the flight with the minimum available VAS (roughly same amount as with DX9), with the FSUIPC low VAS alert screaming, although up to now I didn't have any OOM yet. Is this normal or am I overlooking something ?

Thanks and have a happy new year..!

Regards

DX10SF has no impact on VAS other than in allowing people to use DX10 without flashing runways etc.

 

As you say most people report that they find a significant saving with DX10 (with or without the fixer) over DX9 I have no reason to disbelieve them and equally I do not know why your experience should be in any way different to theirs.

 

There are I believe tools which display the VAS usage as you fly, perhaps if you downloaded one and compared DX9and DX10 some reason might be apparent.

 

 

I still end up the flight with the minimum available VAS (roughly same amount as with DX9), with the FSUIPC low VAS alert screaming, although up to now I didn't have any OOM yet

There is no need to control VAS as long as there are at the end no OOM´s. I have a similar PC and I´m able to put the slider mostly to the right with LOD radius set to 5.5 and TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=2048. 

 

Wulf

 

 

DX10SF has no impact on VAS other than in allowing people to use DX10 without flashing runways etc.

 

Steve,

your reply makes a lot of sense to me: I could not understand why should DX10 allow FSX to run using less VAS....there is no technical rationale behind this statement (but I am not a computer expert so I might be missing something).

Thanks for your answer anyway

Regards.

Steve,

your reply makes a lot of sense to me: I could not understand why should DX10 allow FSX to run using less VAS....there is no technical rationale behind this statement (but I am not a computer expert so I might be missing something).

Thanks for your answer anyway

Regards.

You have misread my answer. I said that my tool - DX10SF has no impact on VAS - except indirectly in that it allows people to use DX10.

 

Most people report that they see significant VAS savings with DX10 and this is plausible but I have never felt any need to investigate it - I just assume that they are correct.

 

 

You have misread my answer. I said that my tool - DX10SF has no impact on VAS - except indirectly in that it allows people to use DX10.

I actually read your answer correctly, but I probably put my post with the wrong wording.. :-) . I never meant to say that "your fixer" allows a better use of VAS, yet I still see no reason why using DX10 (with or without the Fixer)  should reduce the VAS usage. However people are claiming it does, so I guess there must be a reason for it...even if I don't see it..!

Anyway, no problem, I am happy to have switched to DX10 with your fixer...it's doing the job, and that's all it matters for me...

Have a happy new year..!