P3D 3.4 Experience Thread

[Pe11e 812]

I'm just thinking why some users are having VAS issues with v3.4? I'm still on v3.2, waiting for some new hardware before I migrate to v3.4, so I can just think out loud atm.
MAybe VAS problems in v3.4 are caused by older and "uncompatible" scenery? As far as I can remember, LM ditched old SDK ang BGL formats from v3.3? MAybe they worked on that even further, so in v3.4 all scenery that is compiled with the old SDK's can cause abnormal VAS behaviour?

[JLSeagull 191]

I just loaded back the sim today after being away for a year.  3.4 so far looks great to me.   My PMDG 737 sitting at FSDT's KDFW with maxed out sliders is leaving me with 1.5gigs of VRAM and I am locked at 30 FPS and it's buttery delicious smooth... so long as ALL AI traffic and Airport Ground Traffic and Highway Traffic is set off.    GTX 980 with older 3930K @ 4.8ghz OC.

 

I have ASN, REX4 Direct, GEXP3D, UTX 2.1 loaded so far.   Doing a full shake down flight tonight for a couple hours.

 

Great to see you back Brian!

[Guest]

 

 

MAybe VAS problems in v3.4 are caused by older and "uncompatible" scenery?

 

LM have opened an internal "ticket" on the possible VAS issue ... I was unable to duplicate any VAS increase with a default V3.4 vs. V3.3.  However when 3rd party add-ons are used in V3.4, I am seeing about 200-300MB more VAS usage in "certain" situations but NOT all situations.  I have provided LM with procedures on how to replicate, I hope they are able to replicate.

 

I'll continue testing, so far I'm seeing some strange VAS usage from specific aircraft in V3.4 that weren't high VAS users in V3.3.  My hunch, and that's all it is, nothing more than a hunch, is the correction of aircraft shadows from within VC is perhaps responsible (perhaps the entire external aircraft structure is being loaded in the VC in order to do correct shadow calcs for the entire aircraft)  ... but I need to test more but it might explain why larger more complex aircraft seem to use more VAS than smaller less complex aircraft.

 

Cheers, Rob.

[WebMaximus 372]

Thanks for the info Rob, much appreciated!

 

I noticed the same thing you say. At first after I upgraded I didn't see any VAS issues but tonight flying in the NGX from Aerosoft Split to Orbx Stockholm-Arlanda I barely made it into ESSA from a VAS perspective and also all taxi-signs were black...never seen this before I upgraded to 3.4. First I thought it was maybe some textures missing considering I upgraded not only the client but also the content and scenery modules and figured maybe I should reinstall ESSA but then when I loaded P3D again all taxi-signs were back to normal...hmm...

 

Another weird thing that happened just when I was about to turn into gate 5 is the screen froze but the sound kept going. After a while my only option was to close P3D by clicking the X in the upper right corner and that worked normally without any error messages.

 

Hope LM will be able to find and correct any potential issues.

[Pe11e 812]

LM have opened an internal "ticket" on the possible VAS issue ... I was unable to duplicate any VAS increase with a default V3.4 vs. V3.3.  However when 3rd party add-ons are used in V3.4, I am seeing about 200-300MB more VAS usage in "certain" situations but NOT all situations.  I have provided LM with procedures on how to replicate, I hope they are able to replicate.

 

I'll continue testing, so far I'm seeing some strange VAS usage from specific aircraft in V3.4 that weren't high VAS users in V3.3.  My hunch, and that's all it is, nothing more than a hunch, is the correction of aircraft shadows from within VC is perhaps responsible (perhaps the entire external aircraft structure is being loaded in the VC in order to do correct shadow calcs for the entire aircraft)  ... but I need to test more but it might explain why larger more complex aircraft seem to use more VAS than smaller less complex aircraft.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

Thanks for clarification.

For me, in other words - I'll stick with v3.2 at the moment.  :smile: Not gonna update something that is not broken.

[ErichB 3,643]

 

 

For me, in other words - I'll stick with v3.2 at the moment.  Not gonna update something that is not broken.

 

Always the best approach.  A few times over the years I've tinkered with a perfectly stable setup to make it 'better' and broke the whole thing.

[WebMaximus 372]

Rob,

 

Will you keep us posted in this thread or is there some other thread over in LM's forums that is good to subscribe to to get the latest updates on this?

[AnkH 2,268]

LM have opened an internal "ticket" on the possible VAS issue ... I was unable to duplicate any VAS increase with a default V3.4 vs. V3.3.  However when 3rd party add-ons are used in V3.4, I am seeing about 200-300MB more VAS usage in "certain" situations but NOT all situations.  I have provided LM with procedures on how to replicate, I hope they are able to replicate.

 

There seems to be another trick that helps with the VAS: simply backup your cameras.cfg, delete it and let P3D build a new one. It seems that those Oculus Rift entries use up some VAS and rebuilding the cameras.cfg seems to eliminate them out of the config resulting in more available VAS.

[WebMaximus 372]

There seems to be another trick that helps with the VAS: simply backup your cameras.cfg, delete it and let P3D build a new one. It seems that those Oculus Rift entries use up some VAS and rebuilding the cameras.cfg seems to eliminate them out of the config resulting in more available VAS.

 

Tried what you suggested and it did give me about 20 MB extra so better than nothing I guess :wink:

[theskyisthelimit 48]

I was able to test out v3.4.9 very briefly.. using my fully loaded (Ftx, gex, utx, rex, asn clouds, vector) fsxmark07 scenario as the baseline paused screen.. i had the same fps rate both there and in a 120sec test as with 3.3.5.. i didnt do a ton of flying to fully test perceptual "smoothness"  and VAS so perhaps that works out better, ill find out soon.  For reference, with my 6700k 4.7 (3200 ram) + 1080FTW i get around 49 fps on that initial screen.  I know thats not immensely scientific, but it made me happy to at least not see a decrease

[Guest]

 

 

Will you keep us posted in this thread

 

Of course ... I have a thread going on here.

 

Cheers, Rob.

[WebMaximus 372]

Of course ... I have a thread going on here.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

Thanks Rob!

 

Will report my findings back in that other thread.

[theskyisthelimit 48]

Just wanted to double check on this..

 

So far i only updated the client (uninstall old, install new)..

 

Any reason to really update the content as well.. would doing content break addons.. i have quite a few..  i already figured it was a safe bet to NOT upgrade the scenery because of this, but i wasnt so sure on content.

[downscc 1,327]

 

 

Any reason to really update the content as well..

 

Depends on what you are upgrading from... if v3.0 then yes maybe but if from 3.3.5 nah.  No real need that anyone has mentioned.

[Bobsk8 12,745]

Depends on what you are upgrading from... if v3.0 then yes maybe but if from 3.3.5 nah.  No real need that anyone has mentioned.

 

I see an improvement from 3.2 to 3.4  3.3 for me was a disaster.