June 10, 20205 yr 1 minute ago, hjsmuc said: 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. 0.6 GB could actually be quite a lot. After running an app for a while, VRAM becomes fragmented and the largest available block of VRAM may not.meet the app's request for VRAM. The VRAM display in P3d5 doesn't show the largest available block. Having that extra headroom could make the difference between at CTD and a successful flight. But if you aren't experiencing any VRAM-related issues, then don't update to 2004. Also, my guess is that LM will improve VRAM management in P3d5 at some point by moving textures around to create larger blocks of available VRAM.
June 10, 20205 yr Author 8 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said: 0.6 GB could actually be quite a lot. After running an app for a while, VRAM becomes fragmented and the largest available block of VRAM may not.meet the app's request for VRAM. The VRAM display in P3d5 doesn't show the largest available block. Having that extra headroom could make the difference between at CTD and a successful flight. But if you aren't experiencing any VRAM-related issues, then don't update to 2004. Also, my guess is that LM will improve VRAM management in P3d5 at some point by moving textures around to create larger blocks of available VRAM. Think this will inevitably be the case though shuffling textures around will cost a couple of processing cycles. Wonder if all of that won't throw us back to square one in terms of performance, or at least very close to it....
June 10, 20205 yr 11 minutes ago, ha5mvo said: Think this will inevitably be the case though shuffling textures around will cost a couple of processing cycles. Wonder if all of that won't throw us back to square one in terms of performance, or at least very close to it.... LM tried doing something like that in HF1 (dynamic texture checkbox) and it did kill performance. They can probably do better.
June 10, 20205 yr Author 1 hour ago, jabloomf1230 said: LM tried doing something like that in HF1 (dynamic texture checkbox) and it did kill performance. They can probably do better. The rational behind moving from dx11 to 12, is that a developer can tailor a more effective mechanism to manage memory for his particular program than a generic, one-fits-all, solution that is Dx11. In reality, I see something happening that's not different to what took place in the early days of FSX. When initially released, FSX marched to the pace of single-digit-to-low-teen FPS for all, save a few, with the latest and greatest hardware for the time. My guess is something similar may happen with this one. Eventually anything below (and including?) 8Gigs Vram will be replaced by bulkier cards. 3rd party addons would become more optimized and the issue would disappear on its own. Only thing is....until that happens, a new player with a French accent will come to town and that may reshuffle everything entirely. Edited June 10, 20205 yr by ha5mvo
June 10, 20205 yr 12 minutes ago, ha5mvo said: Only thing is....until that happens, a new player with a French accent will come to town and that may reshuffle everything entirely. Only that this half French player will also only cook with DX11 water. Prepar3D v5 has issues but when it runs without problems, it can very well compete with what I have seen from the new player. Hans
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.