Brian Doney

Wanted to quote this as I am seeing the same.

Seems like the Raptor sure does, at least, but that's likely because LM haven't updated the default aircraft for the new parser, which is indeed kinda :rolleyes: The default aircraft will likely need the same cleanup done, or LM may simply relax the parser a bit, I don't know. Hopefully they will work with the dev community to decide on the best way forward, and hopefully sooner rather than later. As much as it sucks for us to have to wait, having the dev community themselves in limbo, or faced with a bunch of "busy work" that doesn't actually need to be done, is far worse.

Agreed. My only point was, that if he was able to fix it by cleaning his code, then the issue still isn't the engine. It is unfortunate though. The hope for devs and end users, well, all of us, was that any updating would be relatively simple and hopefully not too time consuming. This may have an impact on the number of "free" addon updates for P3Dv2. (I do think LM handled that pretty poorly. Any sort of heads up would have been nice) Anyway, the dinner bell is ringing, and I do think I've had my fill of AVSIM for today :lol: Take care, all.

:Worried: :Cry: :Silly:

Maybe, I don't know as I do all my testing in the Beech, which though XML has very little going on. If they've tightened things up the way Fr Bill has said though, then it isn't the parser causing the leak, it would be gauges coded in the more relaxed format of previous versions that are to blame. (note by blame I do not mean that the gauge devs themselves are at "fault", just that you can't blame a more strict system, that was designed to be more strict, for being more strict) I won't say any more though as I really haven't done any testing for it. I don't know if I have the will :lol:

You are very welcome Larry, and you are right, only you and ANZ121 have ever bothered. I just wish we didn't always have to do everything the hard way :lol: My final contribution will be to say that there is no leak, and I'm going to say so definitively. There is, however; a lethal combination of settings that will kill the sim in no time, but that is on us, if we are not willing to compromise. Maybe LM can work to reduce the amount of VAS that autogen requires, sure, but I doubt they will, as they never intended for these settings to be used the way many of you are trying to use them. In any case, this has been fun. :t0152:

Well, I'm not going to explain the differences between FTX and default...nor should I have to :lol: This test has been done entirely at LOD 4.5, specifically because I am running max autogen. If you'd like to give me a non-FTX location that you are familiar with I will check it out. EDIT: I take that back, show me a shot at any of the locations I shot at, with default scenery, and the same season, that shows an appreciable difference in density. These aren't mountainous forest areas, and it is winter-ish there. The trees are thin in the sense that they don't have the full leaves of summer. This is simply where I was told by Rendi I would have an OOM at default settings, not an area I chose. I did him one better by maxing out autogen. Not really sure where we're going with this. I went back to the same spot and changed to summer, and also moved out of the VC for a clearer view. Maybe your FSX can do that, but mine never could. Methinks it's simply been far too long since some of you have run a default sim, FSX or P3D.

What LOD do you usually run, and aren't you usually running some form of FTX-something ? This is a default sim, no addons other than FSUIPC.

Well, I have both installed, and while I will agree that the radius is reduced versus 2.0, the actual density is way above anything FSX can do. Not even in the same league. Everything you see that looks like a tree in that shot...is a tree...all I mean is it's not the FSX style with a tree every 5 feet and a ground texture that looks like a tree in between. I don't know, might have to see it in motion to understand. The rest of your post I can't argue with. As I said in another post, my interest in P3Dv2 was purely in DX11 and it's ability to make better use of GPU resources. So far, when run at comparable (as much as can be) settings, we are left in about the same situation we were in to start, which certainly is a bit of a disappointment.

I respectfully disagree, in the sense that only when you run at ludicrous levels of autogen many times above levels that FSX can generate, will this be much of an issue, or, when you (collective you) do exactly what they tell you not to do, you will have a bad time. YES, it is a lot of VAS, but the number of objects is just WAY over the top for regular usage. Remember, this is at Extememly Dense settings in P3Dv2.1, which results in an absolutely insane number of objects. Having said that, I will agree that even with conservative settings, P3Dv2 still uses more VAS than I'd hoped, but that is an entirely separate issue. Isn't that more of a user base with no self control issue, than an application issue though ? To me it's like complaining to your GPU manufacturer because your AA slider goes higher than you can run.

Now at the 3 hour mark, with the water dead ahead. Should be just one more update, and we'll call this test concluded.

I'll likely not be doing any more testing after this, not publicly anyway, as what I have done just in this thread should be more than enough to make my point. I'm fully aware that it won't be, but since no one else can be bothered, it will have to do. I'm not going to hop all over the world to make sure I've literally viewed every tree in the sim to satisfy those that aren't even contributing. Why don't you run your test and post the results ? Why do I have to do it ?

While heading east I have a bit of time, as we are very stable in the ~500000 free VAS range. There is a comment that is very telling in the official statement from LM. Although I have no idea what those scenarios are, it is my honest opinion that Extremely Dense settings are only realistic in such a situation. I may indeed be stable in the 500000 range, but if I were to add anything more to the mix, it would likely push the system over the edge, so these settings are entirely useless for me. I think that where many of us aren't seeing eye to eye, is that this seems to be working as designed. Max AG sliders simply require a huge amount of VAS to operate. If you need more VAS to make room for your scenery/aircraft to operate under the limit, then you must compromise on AG levels/LOD radius. There is no alternative, unless you like using Autosave. Today's test is even more conclusive in my mind that there is no leak, not in any way. A leaking system does not return free VAS. 2h30m in, and if this isn't stabilized I don't know what is:

We have now fully left the FoOTT behind, and look at that ! Shots 2 and 3 show free VAS returned, and by shot 3 we are back to pre-forest levels (I observed it was pretty steady in the 485000-510000 range before the forest.) We can see ahead, that it looks like density will be falling off quite a bit. I'd say this is a good time to turn east, and try to head out over the water. We are now 2 hours in. I'll likely not post too many more shots, until I see the shoreline on the horizon, unless something interesting happens.

Gonna post an out of sequence shot here, as I just entered an area where the number of trees went from WOW ! to OMG ! No idea if this is an actual forest or not, but go check it out via LAT/LON in your own sim, the number of trees is truly silly: I mean, seriously...lol Alright so continuing on, after flying over the Forest of One Trillion Trees, I guess I will have to keep in this direction a bit longer before I head back towards the water. This is a really dense area so i don't want to leave it too soon. VAS has stabilized again at FoOTT level, I 'd like to see it head back up again as I leave the FoOTT behind. We are also now at the 1hr30min mark.

What good would flying a known incompatible aircraft with VAS issues of it's own do ? Over yet another forest ? I genuinely do not understand how that would help ?

What ? ______________ 1 hour in and boy the VAS has fallen. We now have even less than in our last scenario, having settled in the neighborhood of 500MB free. I did have to turn to the southwest a bit, sorry Rendi, I wasn't willing to climb over the mountains, as I would have just had people complaining about that too. In any case, for the last 20 minutes or so I have seen it fluctuate from ~485MB - 510MB or so, it seems this is the area it will settle. I will continue in this direction for 30 minutes more, before turning back east to head out over the water. Sorry about this next shot, I pasted wrong and didn't notice until it was too late. The lower value here is the correct one for 2:14.

I'd rather test for myself, because I've yet to see that bear out in my sim. Sure, high settings use a very hefty chunk of VAS, no doubt, but I have always seen it eventually settle, with then only minor fluctuations around the settled value, in both directions, as VAS is reserved and also released. I have also seen large chunks of VAS returned for use as I depart areas with high levels of AG, for example, when heading out over water. I will fly Rendi's scenario at max AG again: We'll consider 1:24 sim time as the start. I won't be updating this as regularly as the last one. And yes....I am using MSPaint :lol: 30 minutes in and...The VAS is falling ! The VAS is falling ! Well it is, but I still have a great deal more free VAS than I did last time 'round. My guess would be KLFI's proximity to the water. Last time I started out in Pennsylvania with solid trees in every direction:

No one has confirmed anything Rendi, but if it makes you feel better to simply argue, have at it. I will fly this twice, once with the Beech, as I have personally tested with it already. I will try and remain about 2000 AGL and a hdg of 315 if that is OK ?

I have quoted their official statement above. Of course they will look into this, and take these reports seriously, as should we all. This is not an effort by me to sweep something under the rug that is in need of attention. I have no reason to do that. If there is an issue, lets test it to a valid result. That just isn't happening here, for the most part. EDIT: by valid, I simply mean, that when you look even at the LM forums, try finding reports and testing that was done in a repeatable, default, scenario. Almost every one is "OMG I was flying my unsupported aircraft over FTX-Universe into FSDT Superport with Megatraffic3000X at max autogen and LOD and had an OOM ! P3D sucks !" Once again, a memory leak is a very specific issue. That is what we are discussing here. Going off topic myself a bit, if there is anything to be a bit disappointed by, it is that the core simulation does indeed consume a pretty hefty chunk of VAS, and that the DX11 offloading really hasn't resulted in nearly as much headroom as I had hoped it would. My interests in P3Dv2 were purely for those benefits, my hope was that with the GPU sharing more of the load, and with the GPU no longer taking a big chunk of application VAS for itself, that we'd have a bit more breathing room to work with. That hasn't shown itself to be the case.

So another anecdote then. :rolleyes: Where ? When ? What aircraft ? What were your settings ? Do we want to get to the bottom of this, or just whinge at each other until the end of time ? Once again, an OOM is not a memory leak, which is what this thread is about. Of course, a memory leak can lead to an OOM, but so can setting your sliders too high, among other things. There is very likely NOT a memory leak in P3Dv2.1. There is a way to test these things, and so far, I'm not seeing many of you willing to buckle down and do it. To me that says you aren't actually interested in finding a solution, but only in complaining. If that is the case, fine, but it is completely useless, and is only so much noise. If anyone does want to put even the slightest bit of effort in to tracking this down, I'm here and willing to work with you. I doubt I'll get much of a response.

Any evidence of that ? What addons ? Sorry, but with the test I have done in this thread, and further testing going on behind the scenes since, you, or anyone, just providing anecdotes is not enough. As a reminder, this thread was about a memory leak, which is a very different thing than some settings/addons that just consume a lot of VAS. If you have some evidence that one exists, please provide it, and I'll be glad to help you confirm your findings. I find it telling that I have repeatedly asked for a testable scenario here, and have yet to be provided with one. In other words, still waiting... I'd also certainly hope any testing done was in a stock configuration.

Hah, I just posted an excerpt in the memory leak thread, hadn't seen that you'd posted this yet, Arwen. If this means Slarty is gone....again...then the wait was worth it :lol:

Just a small update: So, pretty much exactly what I have been saying here over the past few days. Interesting isn't it ? Well...I thought it was anyway. :lol:

Rob, Whatever your findings, thank you for taking the time to test. I look forward to your results.