FSX SE DX10

 

 

Well the argument of sheer depth of system modeling sounds like PMDG is worse in this area so I need to ask - what FSLabs modeled better in their A320 than PMDG did in their triple 7 to justify this VAS impact? (I honestly would like to know as I am seriously considering this product when it gets released to P3D)

Well the argument of sheer depth of system modeling sounds like PMDG is worse in this area so I need to ask - what FSLabs modeled better in their A320 than PMDG did in their triple 7 to justify this VAS impact? (I honestly would like to know as I am seriously considering this product when it gets released to P3D)

An A320 has more complex systems (i.e. FBW, ECAM, etc.) in some respects, and FSL gone really deep into model all these things correctly.

Triple 7 has FBW too and PMDG attached real Boeing manuals to their aircrafts so I'd say modeling has to be spot on (although I can't say if that is really the case unless someone allows me to pilot triple 7 or NGX). Also 777 is a larger model and considering 4K liveries it again could be same VAS hog - but it does not seem to be to such extent (although at first release it was). That is why I think it would be good if FSLabs would work on improving VAS impact and not state that LM has to fix anything. (and I believe they will improve it considering their experience!)

Triple 7 has FBW too and PMDG attached real Boeing manuals to their aircrafts so I'd say modeling has to be spot on (although I can't say if that is really the case unless someone allows me to pilot triple 7 or NGX)

FBW is much more different and complex with its different laws and protections, in an Airbus.

The T7 by PMDG is a wonderful aircraft, without any doubt. But there must be reason why no one was able to deliver an accurate simulation of all the Airbus systems before the FSL A320X, right?

I don't want to go into an one developer vs. the other kind of argument. ;-)

PMDG makes top notch Boeing simulations, and with the A320X we finally have the same level of system fidelity with an Airbus! And that is a wonderful thing!

 

 

They're sort of "unstable" platforms for someone willing to make sound investments with it...

 

And yet no update broke any addons during XP10 lifespan. Lifespan full fo actual active development. Moot point. 

 

Judging how poorly FSLabs runs in FSX, I assume they are trying their damnedest to tweak it for P3D. But with how much additional addons people run their day, I think it might be tilting at windmills.

Wow so it users around 1gb of VAS on its own.

 

The 700mb the 777 used was high. 1GB, yer i know it will be amazing but is it usable even with just global/vector and two active airports in scenery library? Even with being very careful with VAS usage 1GB is one hell of a hit.

And yet no update broke any addons during XP10 lifespan. Lifespan full fo actual active development. Moot point. 

 

Judging how poorly FSLabs runs in FSX, I assume they are trying their damnedest to tweak it for P3D. But with how much additional addons people run their day, I think it might be tilting at windmills.

 

Not strictly true. The move to XP 10 64 bit broke virtually every complex aircraft but because the devs knew it was coming things got patched quickly.

 

I agree with the FSLabs running poorly in FSX, in fact I uninstalled FSX because it can no longer compete with my P3D, XP10 and XP11 installations. I sincerely hope that they can optimise the A320 on P3D because there is no doubt its a great plane

Wow so it users around 1gb of VAS on its own.

 

The 700mb the 777 used was high. 1GB, yer i know it will be amazing but is it usable even with just global/vector and two active airports in scenery library? Even with being very careful with VAS usage 1GB is one hell of a hit.

It ran for me without OOMs on my old FSX boxed install with FTX Global, Vector, Global Mesh, Open LC Europe and Flytampa and Aerosoft airports. But it's been more than once that the low VAS binging sound appeared upon approach or landing.

For me personally, it's absolutely ok to turn down sliders in order to make this run in FSX. We'll see what the P3D version will bring. I am sure they'll do their best to optimise it, but with such a complex piece of software there might be limitations.

I was wondering how many that have these new issues ? If its a handful or two that holding back a stable P3Dv3.0 - P3Dv3.4.0 release  , i would consider releasing it for those versions anyway.

 

Never heard of those new problems (maybe because i am at 3.4.9.18400 :wink: )

 

 

Michael Moe

 

I just noticed when running the Flight1 update tool that this new version number appears on the bottom of the list. So I guess we can expect Hotfix #3  3.4.9.18400 showing up any time now.

So I guess we can expect Hotfix #3  3.4.9.18400 showing up any time now.

Isn't 3.4.9.18400 the original, pre-hotfix version 3.4 of P3D?

3.4.9.18400 is an old version. This is hotfix 1 or the original v3.4 release.

It ran for me without OOMs on my old FSX boxed install with FTX Global, Vector, Global Mesh, Open LC Europe and Flytampa and Aerosoft airports. But it's been more than once that the low VAS binging sound appeared upon approach or landing.

For me personally, it's absolutely ok to turn down sliders in order to make this run in FSX. We'll see what the P3D version will bring. I am sure they'll do their best to optimise it, but with such a complex piece of software there might be limitations.

Ive been looking forward to it for 6 years. But I fear now that even given a airline set up P3D (Global, a striped down Vector and only 2 active airports) am not sure I want to strip setting down to FS 2002 looks to run the FSL A320. Its almost like they have made it on the edge of INOP within the platforms it was designed to be used in.

Feels like a sad day.

 

Might have a total rethink and go for PMDG 747v3 and stop thinking about FSL A320. If it means very low setting to even begin to think about useing it and low FPS to boot. 

Sad.

 

After a year out of flight simming I have a fresh install of P3D 3.4 and "was" looking forward to the FSL....hhmm

Someone stated he found out that some of the FSL flightdeck polygons and textures (circuit breakers, for example) require a lot of VAS, the forum he posted in is in German only, unfortunately:
http://flightx.net/index.php?thread/90367-fs-labs-a320-ver%C3%B6ffentlicht/&postID=940604#post940604
 
Having said that:
There are a million ways to configure FSX for an enjoyable A320-X experience. I made the Steam edition my "photoscenery sim" and performance is fluid with an acceptable VAS footprint, even with high graphics settings, AI traffic, and AS16 weather.

I seriously doubt the A320 will be unflyable because of memory problems. I mean, i can land in FT EHAM coming from the other side of the ocean with 800MB free using the T7... And i do have VECTOR and all of ORBX regions plus a ton of airports.