13 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

I get this on my PC that suggests it's not compatible yet:

 

I believe there is a way to circumvent the compatibility check, but I don't recall details.  I have no idea why my "devices" are not ready yet, but apparently I have something 2004 doesn't like.

Cheers, Rob.

Just curious, how was Win10 2004 update available for you?  We have very similar hardware?

Cheers, Rob.

Hi Rob,

Had the same message so signed in to the Microsoft Insider Program (took me 1 minute), selecting then "low" in the insider level to make sure I would stick to stable monthly updates, and then I could update to 2004 easily.  I don't regret it, as I have gained 0.5GB of usable vram in P3D..  otherwise, no issues at all. 

Greg

Edited June 1, 20206 yr by pao
.

4 hours ago, mikeymike said:

Anyone else having same issue as me 

with windows 2004 not being detected in my windows update.

has it been released yet? In Canada?

thanks 

mike

Yup, downloaded yesterday....runs fine with new driver 446.14. Suddenly vRam allocated more (0.5 GB) (?!)....but still experiencing stutters....less pause though...

Mine updated okay with a 1080ti. I think it needs the 450 driver to take full advantage of 2004. Currently on 446.14 with no significant issues.

1 hour ago, cyyzrwy24 said:

Yup, downloaded yesterday....runs fine with new driver 446.14. Suddenly vRam allocated more (0.5 GB) (?!)....but still experiencing stutters....less pause though...

So do I need to update the driver first?

before windows detects 2004?

thanks 

1 hour ago, DescendDescend said:

Mine updated okay with a 1080ti. I think it needs the 450 driver to take full advantage of 2004. Currently on 446.14 with no significant issues.

What is the "450 driver"?

The latest WHQL nvidia driver I see is 446.14 (?).  Is there a non-WHQL driver out there I don't know about?

28 minutes ago, Mace said:

What is the "450 driver"?

The latest WHQL nvidia driver I see is 446.14 (?).  Is there a non-WHQL driver out there I don't know about?

it's a pre-release driver that enable the Windows 10 2004 update. I would be very cautious before downloading Nvidia pre-release driver.

Edited June 1, 20206 yr by fogboundturtle

when does it release in a non pre state?

let me get my magic ball for you......who knows. 

Edited June 1, 20206 yr by Peter Z KCLE_EDDN
Please don’t use abbreviations for inflammatory language.

1 hour ago, mikeymike said:

So do I need to update the driver first?

before windows detects 2004?

thanks 

No.....you can update driver first and go from there.....I don't want to say it smoother, but I have definitely more vRam showing...although I didn't had issue at first place either.

3 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

I don't understand the entire VRAM "issue" ... VRAM is faster than RAM, so why would I want to use less of it?

Cheers, Rob.

I feel like that was a tongue in check question from you Rob. Obviously you want to use VRAM over RAM, but if the option is a) running out of VRAM and having a crash or b) running out of VRAM and utilizing RAM and staying in the sim (albeit with lower performance) I'd prefer to use a combination of both. 

Surely the best course of action is to use VRAM to the point its exhausted (or close to it) and then commence utilising RAM if required. Or better yet, swap data out of VRAM to ensure it doesn't exceed capacity.

Cheers

 

44 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

2048 x 2048 (which doesn't impact aircraft BTW, that's a different setting)

I used to think the same thing, but if you check out the default F-35 or F-22 and compare them (interior + exterior) at 1024 and 2048, it's clear that setting has an impact. I'm not sure why it affects some aircraft and not others.

2 hours ago, KL Oo said:

Surely the best course of action is to use VRAM to the point its exhausted (or close to it) and then commence utilising RAM if required. Or better yet, swap data out of VRAM to ensure it doesn't exceed capacity.

@Rob_Ainscough explained well why this is bad idea and I concur.

There are better options like what X-Plane 11.50 is doing: managing texture resolution dynamically depending on sophisticated heuristics, in order to maintain visual clarity to what matters the most at this instant (could be for example the panel in front of you), while minimizing VRAM footprint for textures which are no longer needed at full-res.

Another option is texture streaming where there is a constant (if over subscribed otherwise sparingly) flux of data from RAM to VRAM in a way which is not disrupting the 'present' ticks. (just oversimplifying).

My 1909 Win 10 version starts with a usage of 0.5/0.6 GB of VRAM. So I guess there is not much to gain with updating to 2004 now. 

2 hours ago, hjsmuc said:

My 1909 Win 10 version starts with a usage of 0.5/0.6 GB of VRAM. So I guess there is not much to gain with updating to 2004 now. 

VRAM Usage is not the issue. The OS reserves VRAM for its own use making it unavailable to 3D apps. In 1909 and previous versions of Win10, the OS reserved ~20% of your video card's VRAM. In 2004, the OS reserves ~1 GB VRAM, which increases the VRAM available for 3D apps when using most gaming cards 

2 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

The OS reserves VRAM for its own use making it unavailable to 3D apps. 

Thanks. So out of 8GB VRAM the OS could reserve up to 1.6GB for its own use under 1909 vs around 1GB under 2004. That would free about 0.6GB in my case. Luckily, I am fine at the moment with the available VRAM so I'll hold on a little longer until I update.