i5 4670 @ 3.4 which card and what HD please

[soaring_penguin 428]

I Finally got some free time flying.

My setup: Linux Ubuntu 18.04, DDR4 24GB RAM, Geforce 1070, Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4690 CPU @ 3.50GHz.
Nothing overclocked, no special tricks (except running Linux)

Test done with UHD meshV4 in Grenoble, default cessna. everything else is stock.
RAM usage is currently exactly 17.2 GB at load time. With 16GB, some swapping would already take place. 

Number of World Objects is set at Maximum, I can not stand the empty spaces. Ben also said he believes it is a must, unless your system is below recommended spcs. I use 3jFPS-wizard11 to keep the frame rate above 24 fps.

This is the reason why I also gave the link to the minimum and recommended system specs.

I have seen my 24GB explode with not optimized Ortho's in the mountains (LOD too high).

I don't want to initiate a discussion, but I also don't want to see people turned off because of wrong expectations.

Edit: Flying over Grenoble direction Annecy, I am over 19GB.
Edit2: I agree with the ColonelX,  with HD mesh (not UHD) I would still be below 16GB. But 8GB will not pull it.

Edited June 29, 2018 by jh71

[Paraffin 2,197]

7 hours ago, jh71 said:

I have seen my 24GB explode with not optimized Ortho's in the mountains (LOD too high).

I don't want to initiate a discussion, but I also don't want to see people turned off because of wrong expectations.

Edit: Flying over Grenoble direction Annecy, I am over 19GB.
Edit2: I agree with the ColonelX,  with HD mesh (not UHD) I would still be below 16GB. But 8GB will not pull it.

Yeah, there is a reason why the official recommended spec on Laminar's home page is 16-24 GB or more. You'll cross the 16 GB threshold with UHD mesh and maybe intense enough ortho scenery, but there are other reasons for having that much RAM installed.

For one thing, we're not all flying on dedicated, stripped-down flight sim computers. I fly X-Plane on a general-purpose home office and gaming computer, and there are always a bunch of things running in the background like the Steam client, various services, and the Plan-G flight planner/moving map.

During the cruise phase of a long flight in the FSEconomy game, I'm usually tabbing through a bunch of web sites on the Chrome browser, maybe watching a YouTube video. Chrome can be a real memory hog at times. Even if X-Plane is "only" using 16 GB of RAM, my 32 GB RAM system has plenty of overhead for all these other programs I'm using at the same time. 

Another reason for that recommended spec might be that X-Plane is under constant development, always adding new features. The things we're asking for like better ATC, better (and more) AI traffic, and better weather will require CPU and RAM resources. Having a generous RAM overhead means we're ready for whatever is coming in the future.

[Bjoern 1,153]

My currently tested XP11 process (HD Mesh, X-Europe2, World Traffic, some Sketchup VFR objects in the vicinity, Zibo's 738 in 2k config and a custom airport scenery) has a committed virtual size of almost 11 GB, yet the working set (physical memory used) is less than 4 GB, according to Windows' performance monitor.
Combined with this Firefox session and other background stuff, I'm using 6.5 GB of my physical memory (8 GB) and therfor still have 1.5 GB available.
With a high resolution orthophoto tile and more memory consuming things loaded, I'd likely notice some memory paging since the currently used and all adjacent tiles would have to be (pre)loaded, but in this configuration, everything fits very comfortably.
Now when crossing into a new scenery tile, XP will have to load everything that's not already present in memory, like terrain data points, road, rail and landclass data, airports, etc. This also increases the risk of having to offload some items into the page file, but the stutter should be short if the drive, on which the page file resides, is fast enough. If XP's garbage collection algorithm does its job properly, the old tile should vanish into the reserved (virtual) memory, freeing the physical memory for the freshly loaded one, thus keeping used physical memory more or less around the same size.

So while more RAM certainly minimizes the risk of having to use the page file, I refuse to accept that 8 GB is a no-go when not running tons of high detail objects, textures and othophotos.

Edited June 29, 2018 by Bjoern

[mjrhealth 820]

I guess even with mesh it would depend on where you are flying. Flying across a flat featureless plain would probably use a lot less ram that flying through teh ALPS which would have a lot more points to render. I could be wrong.

[Leen3131cs 107]

Using all setings at max, flying a quiet complicated airliner and a complucated big airport, real weather etc etc.
I experienced my ram to be loaded over 30GB getting a message for to low mem available.
I have 64 GB mem now and no warning anymore.

[Colonel X 1,428]

On 6/30/2018 at 12:58 PM, Leen3131cs said:

Using all setings at max, flying a quiet complicated airliner and a complucated big airport, real weather etc etc.
I experienced my ram to be loaded over 30GB getting a message for to low mem available.
I have 64 GB mem now and no warning anymore.

I wish you would stop spreading this false information. X-Plane doesn't use that much ram, even in the situation you describe (hardly 8GB). You seem to have issues with other stuff running in the background or a messed up Windows install, but X-Plane will never, ever use 30GB ram, not even using the UHD mesh, the only add-on that pushes X-Plane above 10GB.

[Alastair McLeod 0]

ok boys, I want a nice clean fight, no spitting, no biting and no punches below the belt ! 😂😂😂

well on Tuesday morning I bought a 1Tb hard drive (£159) and a second hand Triplehead2go digital (£70) I will run the front three 24" screens on my TH2go and try running flight instruments and engines on two smaller screens directly from the card.

Ill stick with FSX and Fs9 for the time being even though I love the flight dynamics of XP.  

Thanks so much for all your input gentlemen - it's much appreciated.

[Alastair McLeod 0]

Just now, Alastair McLeod said:

ok boys, I want a nice clean fight, no spitting, no biting and no punches below the belt ! 😂😂😂

well on Tuesday morning I bought a 1Tb hard drive (£159) and a second hand Triplehead2go digital (£70) I will run the front three 24" screens on my TH2go and try running flight instruments and engines on two smaller screens directly from the card.

Ill stick with FSX and Fs9 for the time being even though I love the flight dynamics of XP.  

Thanks so much for all your input gentlemen - it's much appreciated.

Further to the above. I fitted the hard drive on Friday and flew all three Fs2004, FSX and X Plane.

Fs2004 blazes even with VFR England, max settings and the MAAM DC-3 -  the difference is unbelievable with the new drive - thanks so much chaps.

Only on two screens at the moment because some twit dropped one  😳 and the other two are in storage. 

Didnt get a chance to grab the frame rates but it's much smoother on FSX and  X Plane. No texture mods on either and running high detail but there was occasionally a tile phasing which may be the result of the older processor. 

Cant wait to play with XPlane now and get some old machinery to do some test flying 😀

Also downloaded DCS which looks great also on high settings. 

 

 

[Alastair McLeod 0]

On 29 June 2018 at 8:39 AM, jh71 said:

I Finally got some free time flying.

My setup: Linux Ubuntu 18.04, DDR4 24GB RAM, Geforce 1070, Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4690 CPU @ 3.50GHz.
Nothing overclocked, no special tricks (except running Linux)

Test done with UHD meshV4 in Grenoble, default cessna. everything else is stock.
RAM usage is currently exactly 17.2 GB at load time. With 16GB, some swapping would already take place. 

Number of World Objects is set at Maximum, I can not stand the empty spaces. Ben also said he believes it is a must, unless your system is below recommended spcs. I use 3jFPS-wizard11 to keep the frame rate above 24 fps.

This is the reason why I also gave the link to the minimum and recommended system specs.

I have seen my 24GB explode with not optimized Ortho's in the mountains (LOD too high).

I don't want to initiate a discussion, but I also don't want to see people turned off because of wrong expectations.

Edit: Flying over Grenoble direction Annecy, I am over 19GB.
Edit2: I agree with the ColonelX,  with HD mesh (not UHD) I would still be below 16GB. But 8GB will not pull it.

Oh Annecy!!!! One of the most beautiful places we ever visited in Europe. Just didn't have enough time there to enjoy. Thanks for the uhd mesh v4 tip . I'll try that when I get back home.

[Leen3131cs 107]

1 hour ago, Colonel X said:

I wish you would stop spreading this false information. X-Plane doesn't use that much ram, even in the situation you describe (hardly 8GB). You seem to have issues with other stuff running in the background or a messed up Windows install, but X-Plane will never, ever use 30GB ram, not even using the UHD mesh, the only add-on that pushes X-Plane above 10GB.

Aside from the fact this kind of reaction is quiet unfriendly ( not done on a forum of friends ) its also mis-information.
Stating X-Plane will hardly ever use 8 or 10 GB-RAM is real misinformation.

Did just a small  test myself.
Fired up my sim PC with Win10     RAM in use then approx 3,5 GB   ( about the same on my other two cmputers )

Then fired up X-Plane11  and started form Charles de Gaulle with the LES Saab   RAM in use 14,5GB , no extras running , no AI traffic, clear skies

So in this case XP uses 11 GB, just every-days routine nothing special.
And yes I experienced xp plane almost loading 30GB , not saying thats something wich happens every day, nevertheless it happens.

[Bjoern 1,153]

If you're talking about RAM usage, you'll need to quote the figures stated by Windows' Resource Monitor, especially the one for "Working Set".

 

Here's an aircraft-related analogy for driving my point home.

Virtual memory ("Commit") = bookings = indication if a flight is going to be filled or not
Physical memory ("Working Set") = passengers showing up = actual load

Actual load may correspond to the number of bookings, may be (significantly) lower or be significantly higher and cause problems. Windows' memory manager doesn't know that and therefor operates (dispatches) in the following way:

"I run a combined freight-pax operation and only have parts of my cabin available for booking and use by passengers and if I run into trouble by spontaneous overbooking, I cancel the flight because I am unwilling to aggravate anybody"
=> 32 bit apps like MSFS and them running out of memory
"I overbook the flight and my backup aircraft (if I have one), so I'm uncertain what will happen when everybody shows up and therefor better cancel the flight"
=> X-Plane crashing for lack of virtual memory
"I might overbook a flight, yet have a slower widebody on standby to cover any excess"
=> X-Plane with little RAM, but a large enough page file
"I can cover all booking demands since I've got a widebody in high density cabin configuration and a slower backup aircraft if need be"
=> X-Plane with 32+ GB RAM and a large enough page file