Deffo nothing to be concerned about lol I'm sure this topic was covered in huge detail back in an old FSX thread. Basically the short of it was that using high deffinition textures was a drain on resources.

 

 

Your not old because I can't see a bit of difference

 

Phew, glad my head isn't playing tricks on me.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Phew, glad my head isn't playing tricks on me.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Thanks for taking the time to make those comparisons shots. I'll adjust my settings when I get home from work and see if that helps with the OOMS.

What I ment by blurry is won't lowering those settings make the VC of planes with 4096 textures Ie Carenados, Lionheart Lear ect look bad? If not then I don't have an issue with lowering the textures.

If P3D renders textures in the same fashion as FSX does, then the TML setting of 1024, 2048, or 4096 won't apply to user aircraft, but only scenery objects such as ground, water, cloud and other scenery related textures.

 

This was brought to our attention by Ryan with PMDG when the NGX was released. In short, if a plane has VC or external textures larger than 1024, like 2048 or 4096, then they will still be displayed in their native resolution regardless of your TML setting. This is good because you can then run lower TML setting but retain your HD VC.

 

Hope this helps.

TML setting of 1024, 2048, or 4096 won't apply to user aircraft, but only scenery objects such as ground, water, cloud and other scenery related textures.

 

In my screenshots, Orbx KBLU set to 2048 ... which I assume falls under scenery objects (ground, buildings, etc.).  I'm unable to see any difference in those scenery objects either regardless of TML setting.

 

I also delete my Shaders cache between each test just to make sure.

 

Now you got me thinking ... let me try a TML of 512...

 

Cheers, Rob.

In my screenshots, Orbx KBLU set to 2048 ... which I assume falls under scenery objects (ground, buildings, etc.).  I'm unable to see any difference in those scenery objects either regardless of TML setting.

 

I also delete my Shaders cache between each test just to make sure.

 

Now you got me thinking ... let me try a TML of 512...

 

Cheers, Rob.

It changes Rex 4 runways heavily 

4096

1024

Ok here are the same screenshots using TML 512 ... I can see a slight difference in the ground and "some" of the tree textures -- building see the same.

 

512

Cockpit

http://www.robainscough.com/images/d90b4b82642140a7d3ef3cc4395ed5d3.jpg

External

http://www.robainscough.com/images/d7a777fc72800a2a112187768bec01a0.jpg

 

Concur that VC and user aircraft is not affected at all by TML.  At any sort of altitude even as low as few hundred feet, I doubt anyone could see a difference from 512 to 4096.

 

Cheers, Rob.

It does on the runway textures definitely. I had asked the people at REX for 2048 runway textures a long time ago and they said they would consider it. 1024 doesn't look so good and 4096 is really hard on memory footprint - 2048 IMO would be ideal.

 

 

It does on the runway textures definitely.

 

For REX textures, yes agree.  Guess it depends on the textures used by the various 3rd party Vendors ... for Orbx airports they seem to use 1024 (even when set to 2048) on the runway.  I'm guessing Orbx keep runways at lower res (1024) due to their relative size (i.e. objects that consume large areas).  On larger airports I can see why 4096 (and even 2048) runways would consume considerable VAS.

 

I do use REX 4, but not their runway replacements, this go around I'm using just the "soft clouds" elements of REX 4.  REX is a great product but it's one of those products I've had to "adjust" to make the world fit without OOM.

 

Cheers, Rob.

I'm almost starting to wonder if some of my memory issues are due to me having non P3DV2 compatible orbx airports installed?

 

 

I'm almost starting to wonder if some of my memory issues are due to me having non P3DV2 compatible orbx airports installed?

 

Hmmmm ... that could be an issue, might want to check with Orbx -- do you disable the Orbx FSX airport objectflow entry in the DLL.XML to get it to work?

 

Cheers, Rob.

Hmmmm ... that could be an issue, might want to check with Orbx -- do you disable the Orbx FSX airport objectflow entry in the DLL.XML to get it to work?

 

Cheers, Rob.

No when I install the airports using the migration tool Im prompted by a message asking to install the latest object flow and since then all the addon airports I've installed have worked. I disabled most of the airports I have but sitting at KRNT  I'm using about p3d is taking up about 3gb of virtual space according to process explorer. I guess thats the accurate measurement of VAS? Once airborne I no longer OOM after lowering the textures but hover around 3.7gb of virtual space used. Even sitting at some ranch in the middle of nowhere in the default baron I'm using 2.3gb of VAS. 

It does on the runway textures definitely. I had asked the people at REX for 2048 runway textures a long time ago and they said they would consider it. 1024 doesn't look so good and 4096 is really hard on memory footprint - 2048 IMO would be ideal.

Easy fix for that. After you install the 4096 runway textures, just go into the texture folder in P3D, find the runway textures and use Gimp, Photoshop or other image editor and resize them yourself to 2048. That's what I do. I don't like to wait around for devs to make alternate sized textures for sceneries and texture replacement programs when you can do it yourself.

Yor´re not alone on using excessive amount of VAS. If I fire up the NGX at any mega airport in Europe with FTX Global-OpenLC and Vector (mostly disabled), I have already used 3.5 GB of virtual memory. Needless to say, it doesn't get you anywhere without saving and loading before approaching another mega airport. 

 

But here's the peculiar part --> I have done everything in my power to reduce this value but it stays pretty much the same whether I reduce LOD radius and texture max load. VAS is apparently also unaffected if I completely disable FTX Scenery, which is very strange. I though I might had a faulty install, but a complete reinstall yielded similar results. I just think some people are very unlucky with VAS usage to be honest. I have gotten people to test equal scenarios for me and their VAS usage was in some cases 400-500 lower than on my rig.

Yor´re not alone on using excessive amount of VAS. If I fire up the NGX at any mega airport in Europe with FTX Global-OpenLC and Vector (mostly disabled), I have already used 3.5 GB of virtual memory. Needless to say, it doesn't get you anywhere without saving and loading before approaching another mega airport. 

 

But here's the peculiar part --> I have done everything in my power to reduce this value but it stays pretty much the same whether I reduce LOD radius and texture max load. VAS is apparently also unaffected if I completely disable FTX Scenery, which is very strange. I though I might had a faulty install, but a complete reinstall yielded similar results. I just think some people are very unlucky with VAS usage to be honest. I have gotten people to test equal scenarios for me and their VAS usage was in some cases 400-500 lower than on my rig.

I agree lowering my LOD,shadows,and autogen to none only saved me about 70mb of VAS. To me its just not worth flying at that point.

I'm doing a clean install of 2.5 supposedly its a little better on VAS. I'll post some number up and compare VAS useage in the stock game vs when addons are installed and not being used I suspect the issue may be FTX regions loading even when your not using them since they use alot of photo scenery in there addons this maybe the reason.