Here are the figures of VAS left, measured with FSUIPC, in a fresh and untweaked install of FSX SE, with FTX Global installed, default weather theme ("fair weather"), REX 4 Texture Direct and ASCA textures, default EDDK scenery (sitting on RWY32R at 12:30pm), with Ezdok v2 running and in DX10 with Steve´s DX10 fixer (including his cloud shadows addon):

 

default Trike: 2945682

PMDG T7: 2283112

A320X: 2002720

 

Yikes! As others have said, the PMDG 777 set a new high for VAS usage in the 700MB range. This is just out of control.

 

And I'm sorry, but as much as I'd like to believe that it's just the amazing systems modeling that's eating so much VAS, there's been an awful lot of evidence that we're talking much more about a lack of optimization and some frankly questionable design decisions. Modeling all the circuit breakers in loving detail? This thing has double the polygons of Aerosoft's cockpit, and yet it's universally accepted that the Aerosoft one looks better...that's nothing to do with systems modeling. It looks a lot like sloppy design/optimization, which you just can't get away with when you're working in such a VAS-limited sim architecture.

 

If I sound frustrated, it's because this plane is obviously an amazing leap forward in systems fidelity, but bundled together with horrific performance and VAS characteristics that make it borderline unusable. As much as some say that was inevitable with the incredible systems fidelity, I just don't see it.

 

James

Yikes! As others have said, the PMDG 777 set a new high for VAS usage in the 700MB range. This is just out of control.

 

And I'm sorry, but as much as I'd like to believe that it's just the amazing systems modeling that's eating so much VAS, there's been an awful lot of evidence that we're talking much more about a lack of optimization and some frankly questionable design decisions. Modeling all the circuit breakers in loving detail? This thing has double the polygons of Aerosoft's cockpit, and yet it's universally accepted that the Aerosoft one looks better...that's nothing to do with systems modeling. It looks a lot like sloppy design/optimization, which you just can't get away with when you're working in such a VAS-limited sim architecture.

 

If I sound frustrated, it's because this plane is obviously an amazing leap forward in systems fidelity, but bundled together with horrific performance and VAS characteristics that make it borderline unusable. As much as some say that was inevitable with the incredible systems fidelity, I just don't see it.

 

James

with a good pc, DX10 and Settings sliders a little to the left....the FSL 320 is very flyable in fsx.

Just watched Matt Davies' stream. Some nice features coming for P3D! VAS seemed good, Matt did 2 sectors and didn't OOM.

 

Looks promising

Yes John i watch Matt last night, he landed at EGCC (return leg) with no VAS problems.

He also users every view know to man.

 

So very like you it feels very promising 

I've examined the VC-model and made a "startling" statement. The FSLabs A320 has 330146 polygons twice as many as the competitor's bus. The funny is that the optical does not necessarily stand out, since there are quite a lot of second-hand opinion, which corresponds to the optics of the VCs. For me it is acceptable, but it does not justify this exaggerated "detail" of the model. The Aerosoft has 169756 triangles , compared to the PMDG 737 215087 . This is, of course, more than the Aerosoft, but still significantly less than the FSLabs machine, which thereby tops everything so far on aircraft. You have to mention again and again that FSLabs before the release has declared yes, that the A320 plays in the same performance league as the PMDG, which clearly does not correspond to the truth.

 

Although this is a Google translation from the original German, I found it interesting.

 

The more "stuff" that's rendered in P3d, the more VAS is used. I think his point is to draw a less VAS intensive VC would enable other features of the sim have VAS in which to run. Surely a logical step to consider when only 4Gb is available.

 

I flew my old CS Tristar the other day, in to Orbx NC LAX. Got an Oom. The CS Tristar uses 600 Mb more than the NGX (On my system P3dv3.4 hf2)! The only possible reason I can see is the highly detailed flight deck, which CS model complete in high definition...? The more stuff s drawn the more VAS is used. Unlike scenery, which can be dumped by P3d as we fly out of an area, aircraft "scenery" cannot.

 

Just my thoughts!

 

Regards,

 

David.

VAS is the new FPS! ;-)

Watching figures related to 3 big letters seems to be an ultra important part of the hobby, for a huge part of the flightsim community! ;-)

Well, I rather spend my time "flying" and getting immersed! And for me, that's what the A320X does, better than any other Airbus addon before!

But that's just me...

VAS is the new FPS! ;-)

Watching figures related to 3 big letters seems to be an ultra important part of the hobby, for a huge part of the flightsim community! ;-)

Well, I rather spend my time "flying" and getting immersed! And for me, that's what the A320X does, better than any other Airbus addon before!

But that's just me...

 

You're not alone, friend!

You're not alone, friend!

Cool!

I mean, to each their own!

But it's good to see that there are still some sim dinosaurs around! ;-)

On Final and crash to desktop. My Airbus does not want to work. I have started with A320-X Basic Tutorial.pdf. With point no 6 it is finished. The cherokee.dll caused the trouble. Now I have managed to the default piper cub and the P3Dv3.3 is loading and loading and loading and loading...

RAM 3,1/7,9 GB, CPU 3 % of 4,48 GHz that is the data from Task-Manager.

Any suggestions?

On Final and crash to desktop. My Airbus does not want to work. I have started with A320-X Basic Tutorial.pdf. With point no 6 it is finished. The cherokee.dll caused the trouble. Now I have managed to the default piper cub and the P3Dv3.3 is loading and loading and loading and loading...

RAM 3,1/7,9 GB, CPU 3 % of 4,48 GHz that is the data from Task-Manager.

Any suggestions?

lower most settings to left or re-install the 320x