ahuimanu

Disastrous news. Aivlasoft is peerless with no equivalent.

Flavio, This document says the order does matter: http://www.prepar3d.com/Prepar3D_Download_and_Install_Instructions_v3.pdf When updating, install client first, then content and scenery.

Same issue here. Was not asked to re-enter licence/key information (I did uninstall the 2.5 version). I can't click on many of the VC buttons, etc. EDIT: A reboot (after the SimConnect installs) seemed to improve things (most clickspots work). Windows 10.

Robert, Thank you for the reply. It sounds like a community-based benchmarking project is warranted. If we simmers (which includes all of us) had a client to run in the background, and then loaded up scenarios with specific aircract (777X for instance) and specific combinations of OS, 3rd party, etc. then a database of common values would allow an average to be known. Althought this requires "guinea pigs" many (including myself) tend to buy things right away (airports, quality aircraft, etc.). I know that the wider PC gaming community does this sort of benchmarking. I think SimConnect or FSUIPC would both allow for some of this to be collected. It is possible to use other tools as well. My point is: I don't believe a standard will ever emerge, but for those of us who wish to simulate airliner-type operations (for instance, aircraft: 777, dep: KJFK, arr: EGLL), we could 'see' what combination of add-ons/OS/system produce in terms of VAS usage. With that, with enough participants, a picture would emerge and the outlier add-ons would be exposed. Now, some may want the 2.1 GB scenery and fly in a low-demand airplane and enjoy that. That is great and the platform allows that. However, knowing the load of settings in the sim, the load of addons, and the load of other co-proeses (the DLLs and EXEs that can work with FSX.EXE and/or P3D.EXE) could give a picture. I know it is easy to suggest such a project and much harder to do. But the customer support component that you have described, coupled with what other 3rd party developers must also experience, would suggest that a community of folks at FSDeveloper and those concerned among the developer community might facilitate this? You describe taking good time from your own development cycle to conduct your own independent test, so the results were/are of interest. I agree that I personally can start a spreadsheet, and do my own test. But, like many, I would want to fly with that time. However, if a client were capturing this in the background (recognizing that we'd have to control for the client's effects) and that was being collected by many simmers, we'd perhaps have an emergent database that would start to tell a true picture. Thus, when PMDG uses 50% of its time for optimizaiton, that time can pay off where observations across many users will prove that some add-ons are crafted with care to provide a positive/reasonable experience. In other cases, the resource hog could be a good add-on, but the data would show that it is good for flying around in an ultralight, but not with anything approaching a high-fidelity add-on aircraft. What you are not coming out and saying directly (out of decorum) is that there is a wide variety of actors in the 3rd party marketplace and there is little control (aside from reviews) to determine what is being sold. As a result, we have all seen charlatans and "snake oil" salespeople in the market. We do a better job at describing optimal settings than we do about vetting the impacts of the 3rd party market. This ins't about the subjective value of a product (one' man's treasure, another's trash), but about the serious (and objective) impact of 32-bit software and the limited space to have it all. I appreciate the role PMDG has played for nealry 2 decades, and I would love to see the results of your test, but I suspect you can't share them. However, if an ecosystem/tool as I described existed, we'd all be working towards a common goal: information such that we are better informed as we attempt to adjust the simulator to suit our needs. Kind regards.

Hi, I have a question for PMDG. One use case for MSFS/LHMFS (FSX/P3D) is brought to the foreground with PMDG's flagship products (i.e. NGX, 777, 747, etc) and it is alluded to in the original post: heavy iron at major airports. The SDK tools have greatly enhanced this software series in that advanced aircraft and scenery can mix. The question is of balance and is alluded to in the post. Presently,we get into tweaks, turning scenery off and all manner of other things related to lowering VAS. Here is the Q: If most flights in PMDG products involve a departure airport, some amount of distance covered in cruise, and an arrival airport, then what is a reasonable VAS budget for DEP, TRANSIT, ARR? Further, what is left over for weather/sky texture packages and general packages? AI? We've lived in this ecosystem long enough where I suspect some guidelines could emerge. With respect to the VAS issue, we obviously want improved airports to fly in and out of and the high-fidelity aircraft like PMDG's. However, most of us have learned that compromise is in order if we'd actually like to complete a flight. If some rule-of-thumb numbers were possible, it would be a great discussion. I would suspect, within reason, that more budget should go to the aircraft, another portion to ARR/DEP, and then what is left over can be adjusted. Guidelines would let the consumer know what they are getting into with a purchase. I think of the way food is sold... If I buy something packaged at the market, the item give some indication of nutrition information, calories, etc. Of course, download size is some indication, but it would be nice if some means of VAS usage was reported. I suspect developers that hit a sweep spot in VAS usage may use that as a point of strategy in their position in the marketplace. Vendors like PMDG share the same platform ecosystem as other developers and I would think that there is a symbiotic relationship between the aircraft and add-on airports. Put another way, when I am in possession of a great aircraft, my appetite (read: wallet drainage) is increased when there are new destinations. It would seem we have enough evidence in the last decade to better understand these issues. Clearly PMDG can't control others, but you are all operating on the same grounds and this is a tiny community. As we wait for the fabled 64-bit it is obvious we need strategies for this. Thoughts?

Doh! I used to search for his work under "FSX AFCAD," it seems he stopped using that nomenclature. Thanks.

Haven't seen a new Ray Smith AFCAD in 2 years, where's Ray?

I think STARS and SIDS are there to maintain traffic flow given: 1) the direction from which you are arriving/departing, and the active runways/patterns at the arrival airport. The seem to exist to deconflict arrivals, departures and enroute traffic. Often, the transitions in a STAR and points along an airway (upper or lower level) that would allow a transition from the airway "highway" and serve as an "offramp" (or "onramp" for a SID) to leave or join the approach/departure traffic. A good program (although not perfect) to get a sense of all of this is PFPX (aerosoft). It seems to use some of the same logic that you can see if you study flightaware - connect in a transition (from/STAR, to/SID) your airport. Additionally, each airport has its preferred runway policies/preferences and the SIDS/STARS are designed for these. I grew up near PHNL and 8L is for laning and 8R is for takeoffs for the heavier jets, so policies like this affect SID/STAR selection. In any case, regardless of what you (or the dispatcher) request, ATC is going to tell you which SID and STAR to use. As to the "which runway" question: ilu33366swho's answer is good. I would only add that local conditions might favor a runway even it it isn't entirely aligned with the predominant wind. If the wind speed isn't that high, cross-winds (and even tailwinds) might be possible, depending on local conditions. Take Lukla (VNLK) or Saint Barthélemy Airport (TFFJ), for instance (which don't have SIDS/STARs or the like), terrain and local conditions dictate runway selection no matter what the wind is doing.

I have splashed out for most versions of My Traffic X and, despite UT2 being an abandoned product, I always return to UT2. I like what the My Traffic X author has tried to do over the years and I support him by trying out his latest (the current promotional price is hard to beat). However, I've not yet installed this latest version, but Ray's feedback is calibrating my expectations. My Traffic X nearly always falls short of UT2. However, since My Traffic X is supporting both FSX;SE (which is obviously what I'd move to on my next rebuild or build, AND supports P3D (which I've concluded is too pricey in the end), it would seem like Burkhard (sp?) is worth my continued support. I'll install it this weekend, but likely uninstall it after invariably encountering what Ray mentions above. I've gone through that cycle so many times. Conversely, the nit-picking of getting custom schedules into UT2 can be cumbersome, but the tools are more professional. Also, having UT2 follow flight plans is always preferable. Thanks for this report Ray.

The only thing that allowed me to return to sanity was DX10 (and Steve's DX10 Fixer). Everything else was a no-go. I've been happy in long haul ever since.

Amendment: I'll probably have to turn sceneries on and off still. WIII (BDO payware) to OTHH (Taxi2Gate payware) and I have 600MB left as I began descent into OTHH. I suspect FlyTampa Dubai sucked the life out of VAS by flying near it. So, I save, I select my LH Cargo B777F, reload (still get the visual model anomalies I have described in another post), reload the plane, and coast on down with 2Gig of VAS available! I end up with 1.3 Gig of VAS available as I touch down at OTHH. So, "FIX" is still DX10 and Steve's DX10 fixer, but most of the advice from PMDG in the pages I refer to in my signature still apply. So, DX10 Fixer is not quite a silver bullet, but I get WAY more VAS overhead/legroom than with DX9.

Since I am the OP, I thought I'd check in and share my solution: Steve's DX10 fixer. Plain, simple, definitively. Nothing but confidence now. AND, I am able to leave all sceneries checked without issue. Hope that helps. Thanks for all the input and discussion, I appreciate it. Happy flying!

Yeah, you have to turn stuff off with it. My newest panacea for this VAS illness: Steve's DX10 Fixer. Things are going much better now that I'm using that.

That is a reasonable interpretation of what is in that document, and how I operate (all most all of my flying is in the Lufthansa B777F). However, in my endless struggle to find the balance with VAS, there are times where you need to save flight and proceed from that. The question is this. I do have a default flight (the trike spinning) when I reload, but I then load saved flight and that is when the model is screwy. Perhaps the procedure is to select the aircraft first, and then load flight. I was looking for validation of that procedure or of any procedure that is appropriate.

Thanks for posting, but it is a bit off topic. This thread isn't about crashing, it is about running out of VAS and the balance it takes to have great: mesh, global textures, weather, add-on airports AND the B777. I am glad you run tons of flights great, but I am looking for discussion on VAS-related problems, not CTDs and such things. I hope you understand. Thanks. I know that, but it is just misery for me. Old habits die hard. We were able to go years and years and years with an ability to go outside and admire the plane in its surroundings. DX10 fixer just came back out, so I'm gonna go down that Rabbit hole now as many SWEAR that it was their HOLY GRAIL.

Let me make a contrary argument which can't refute yours, but offers a perspective. First, let me offer that the beauty of the sim (as it ever ages - I am only on FSX due to PMDG staying there at the moment), is that you can DO WHAT YOU WANT. So let me get that out of the way to be sure. Fly loops under the Golden Gate Bridge, land it on a carrier, do what you want with it, it is your, you bought it. HOWEVER, the premise of the sim is that it is a high-fidelity and high-crafted work of perfection and art completely designed to facilitate the REAL operational aspects of this aircraft. This is such a profound source of joy for me that I'll put up with anything from PMDG to get my fix (and there really isn't much to put up with other than impatience). I know that these aircraft are VERY DIFFICULT to craft in the manner that PMDG does and their workflow is challenging given how much they have to fight the underlying simulation to get us the experience we crave. And here is my point: look at what Boeing says about their own product: http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/777family/pf/pf_lrproduct.page Look at the typical city pairs... I want to fly those city pairs. So, faulty time compression or a tendency for the plane to be so dicey with other add-ons that your VAS situation is nearly a dice-roll when attempting to do 1:1 longhaul is incredibly frustrating. So many analogies come to mind: I CAN use Formula 1 car to drive to work, but it is so mis-purposed in that role it would be comical (although fun as well if I could keep from spinning out as soon as a breathed on the accelerator); I can use a Tractor on a Formula 1 race, but that is boring and again mis-purposed; I can use a self-propelled artillery piece like a tank (something like the British AS-90), but it is far better purposed for the long-range artillery mission (and the shoot and scoot tactic) than to close with other vehicles and act like a tank. Here is a passage form Wikipedia (as of 09/30/2014 at least) on the mode: I of course respect the nature of which the advice was given and intended: make do until things get better. However, if my rifle is broken and I have to "fix bayonets" to continue the fight, it has ceased being an instrument of its primary design and devolved into a spear/lance. I accept that it can be both, but I want the long range of the rifle. Thus, one quickly gets the blues as the 777 seems to behave only in the most sterile environment when VAS is concerned and has other broken aspects with regards to enjoy the intended mission profile of the bird. I am going to put the following in my signature moving forward from this post: "Yes, I have read pages 30 to 34 in the manual on the topic of VAS and the use of the product. While the guidelines are valid and a good start, I'd certainly like to see (and participate) in a longitudinal study of the profiles under which owners of the PMDG 777 series operate to divine the most promising variables from which VAS management can be controlled." Anyhow, *wah wah wah* I just want reliable long haul back. The only way I've found reliability is extremely vanilla FSX. It is a most unsatisfying experience.

Fair enough, and respect/kudos for the service the gentleman provides. That is not my point. My point is that there is a culture of "pseudo representation" on this forum and an answer from the team (who I realize don't touch those posts with a barge pole on most days) is perhaps the "word" being looked for. The thing with PMDG is that they speak to us on "ground of their own choosing" as the military term goes. Which is fine, they are who they are, create state-of-the-art artisanal work and are really a cornerstone of the hobby. I think the lack of steady diet of info from the team (they are not chatty about weekly progress as other developers - at least those in other genres - can be. Lacking that succor, the testers become deputized. That's all fine and well. Avsim, and other sites, will tell me when the management speaks here. Other than that, artisanal work is what it is - craft that happens on craft schedules. It at least keeps the conversation going when someone closer to the inner circle gives a tidbit. It's a minor issue and the tester's (who are volunteers who are giving of their time) have every right to provide whatever leadership they care to here. I've learned to wait until the master speaks is all. Continue on... nothing to see here.

Thanks. I usually load the PMDG 777 directly when I first start as we are told this is possible in Tutorial #1 (PMDG-777-Tutorial-1.pdf): "There is no need to first load the Cessna 172, or use any sort of custom saved flight when loading the PMDG 777-200LR/F. Our programming sets up the sim environment properly as the aircraft is loading." So, while I can't locate instructions for resuming from a saved flight, I deduced that the same is possible when loading from saved flight. I am familiar with the "dance" as you describe it here (thank you for it, don't want to sound ungrateful) and I'll return to that procedure.

Unfortunately, I remain periodically stuck with the VAS monster on this aircraft (shudder to think what is going to happen with future aircraft). So, when the FSUIPC "ding ding ding" starts, I know I can at least save the flight and somewhat recover. Here is the problem: the interior recovers/reloads just fine, but the exterior does not. The center of the fans has no texture on the external model and the test flight extras (little lines that come off the tail) are showing. This is with the Lufthansa 777F, which is about all I fly (99% of the time). I realize that even going outside is a VAS factor, but I want to look at the outside sometimes. In any case, why do I have these model anomalies when I reload a saved flight? I am I reloading wrong? Should I pick the plane and THEN pick the flight? Thanks for any illumination.

This flight was almost a bust (biggest differentiating factor - TONS of weather along the way out of WSSS). As I neared OTHH (Taxi2Gate's work), where FlyTampa's Dubai was NOT on, I was forced to save as FSUIPC's "ding ding ding" kicked in. So, my quest/settings are STILL not fool proof. I SWEAR I didn't have these many issues prior to any patches to the 777. Anyhow, I have not tried anything since (a bit disgusted right now). I suppose I can turn everything down, down, down in order to get a full airline/environment/airport experience. I have taken almost everything away from UTX, and all of REX is set to as low as she goes. One thing I haven't tried is the low-res cockpit sounds from PMDG. Maybe that is the Holy Grail? I know that all of my add-on airports are NOT created equal, but I have the big names in the business: Aerosoft (and their contractors), FlyTampa, ImagineSim, Taxi2Gate, LatinVFR, FSDreamTeam, FlightBeam, UK2000, PacSim, and many other smaller players. I want to fly to destinations that are interesting and immersive, flying to stock runways and environments in the sophistication of the 777 just doesn't cut it. So, I am not entirely back to the drawing board, but that last flight drained me STRAIGHT DOWN TO THE BOTTOM of the VAS pool. The quest goes on. Still love the plane, I just need to find the right environment to fly it in. Stock is NOT that environment - so I tweak, tweak, tweak.

Thanks for all of the feedback. I can complete flights now and here are the main reasons why: 1) reinstallled everything (for the third time this year) 2) Pilot's Global Ultimate mesh products 3) GET and UTX with quite a bit turned way down 4) REX Tex Direct 5) Just the 777 at first 6) only default airports this worked just fine (KMEM to EHAM) 7) slowly added $$$$ of addon airports 8) has to use Scenery Config Editor to limit to source and destination turned settings down lower, etc. CONCLUSION Biggest culprit was Orbx Vector. Orbx Global Textures were fine, but the vector product, with its extra AFCADs for flattening and perhaps not configurable enough choices for setting detail are what's gone and what I believe that absence is the reason why I can complete 8-12 hour legs where in-cruise VAS remains consistent and I can enjoy the sim again. I used Orbx Global Textures, and even Vector up until summer. I think it is when I put v1.15 of that product onto my machine is when the "fun" began. I'll just go back to trustworthy GEX and UTX. At their forums, they claim that Orbx changes too many things in the "guts" of FSX, and I tend to believe them after this experience. Where can I find Tabs' inspector settings? Also, give me a rule-of-thumb on BP? I have it back to default (no setting specified). Thanks again for feedback. I have completed a week's work of long haul (one each day) and have not OOM'ed yet. The high VAS i've seen is landing at Aerosoft's PANC. However, since I am a Cargo pilot (I only fly the Lufthansa B777F), I've got to visit PANC (have no idea if the real plane does this or not). Lastly, to the person who suggested I NOT start a new thread. I see the logic and would normally agree, but I always get "read the manual" conclusions. Of course this is a forum to support the product itself, but often (as is alluded to in the materials from PMDG in the 777 manual), the problem is in the interplay between products. This is my main hobby, so I've spent WAY too much money on it (always chasing that "as real as it gets" promise). In cases like mine, I'll have a ton of things I'm trying to throw in, which means I need to balance. LASTLY Sorry, I NEED good Ai traffic or the immersion is ruined (yes, even though the implementation can be frustrating when the AI get near the airport for landing). I have UT2 back in, but I've toned it down to a much lower traffic level. BOTTOM LINE Yes, the manual is correct, you must find tradeoffs, but my experience is that some products (Orbx) so profoundly change the "guts" that you just can't balance out. If others have a different experience, perhaps I am missing something. Being back at GEX/UTX/REX has me in a stable spot as long as I 1) turn things down and 2) disable airports save for origin and destination airports. Thanks again for participating, I'll still be tweaking, etc. I'm just about to land at OTHH from WSSS, so I'm looking at another successful longhaul.

Since when does an answer from a tester constitute an answer from the team?

Thanks. I guess my problem is that I survived with these fine for about 9 months with no OOMs. I'll consider toning down more in UTX. Will try removal of BP. Will check ASN. Thanks for tips.

I too concentrate on flying, but I was extremely detailed in hopes for further discussion on finding a OOM-free VAS-stable approach to using the 777F..

So I finally redo flightsim again, completely, according to these instructions (http://support.precisionmanuals.com/kb/a87/how-to-uninstall-and-reinstall-fsx.aspx). Now, I am NOT going with naked Accel 2, that's like going back to the age of stone, but I ONLY install these: Fresh FSX.CFG with only HIGHMEMFIX=1; BP=0 No NVidiaInspector settings yet REX Texture Direct - with EVERYTHING turned down to the lowest level GEX - All Regions UTX - All Regions - traffic turned off, everything turned off that shows "high load" (smaller roads, smaller streams, extrusion bridges, all that Jazz). Exception, I did leave the UTX street/road lights on. UT2 - 50% airliners; 0% GA These are all a "minimum" beyond which I say - why bother? Here comes the important part: 1) NO other aircraft other than PMDG's (MD-11X (all patched up); JS4100 (all patched up); NGX (all patched up); 777X (all patched up) 2) I only fly the Lufthansa livery in the 777F exclusively 3) NO payware airports (I own $$$$$ of these, but I've held back to test) Test flight: KMEM - Left at 1am local to EHAM: 8 hour flight Using FSUIPC's VAS monitor: start of flight: 2000 Mb free (yes, what an improvement since my reinstall) end of flight: 600 Mb free (WHAT IN THE HECK?) What is DRAINING this VAS? System: Operating System Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit SP1 CPU Intel Core i7 3960X @ 3.30GHz 38 °C (Runs at 3.9 when using FSX) Sandy Bridge-E 32nm Technology RAM 16.0GB DDR3 @ 933MHz (9-10-9-28) Motherboard ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. P9X79 PRO (LGA2011) 31 °C Graphics 27EA33 (1920x1080@60Hz) 27EA33 (1920x1080@60Hz) 3071MB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti (EVGA) 33 °C Now, I know that having that much memory on a video card in DX9 is going to cost, but good lord! Some FSX settings: Graphics: Target frame rate: 60; Global texture resolution: Very high; Lens flare: 60; Advanced Animations: on; Filtering: anistropic; Anti-aliasing: yes Aircraft: Global Settings: VERY LOW Scenery: LOD: Large (should mean 4.5); Mech complexity: 75; Mesh res: 2m; texture res: 7cm; water effects: high 2.x (BP = 0); land detail textures: yes; Scenery complexity: Very dense; Autogen: Normal; Ground scenery shadows: no; Special effects detail: high Weather: Cloud draw (90mi) <-I think ASN keeps changing this, I try to set it at 60; cloud coverage: max; download winds aloft:yes; disable turbulence: yes; rate weather change: off Traffic: Airline: off; GA: off; Airport vehicle density: min; road vehicles: 0; ships and ferries: 5% leisure: 0 ANYHOW I went to what I consider "bare bones" and did see improvements (I could finish a flight), but I wonder what sort of "world" that this article (http://support.precisionmanuals.com/kb/a108/vas-management-stopping-out-of-memory-oom-errors.aspx) expects that we'd fly in? Honestly? Is the answer: "a patched SP2/Accel with nothing else?" I will admit I have a few settings up there (high water; normal autogen) that can be reduced. ORBX I suspected ORBX products to be the culprit and I have avoided that and all add-on airports at the moment. I put on GEX/UTX because they have been faithful friends over the years and seemed to have lower memory footprints than ORBX stuff (I'm talking the Global textures and the europe vector stuff). FUTURE STEPS I'm going to turn down the water next, and maybe remove BP=0. But I don't know what to do. I know that once I start adding the VAST amounts of payware airports I've collected over the years, that this 2000Mb free VAS is going to erode. RTM I had a trouble-free year with RTM, but nothing but problems since the SPs. I've reinstalled twice in 2 months and the result is the same. The exception this time is that I held off on putting anything else other that what I consider essential for a proper circa 2014 visual experience. I will try a flight with all FTX regions disabled and see the difference; BP=0 turned off; and water dialed down. I'll post those numbers in this thread. I just think there is something wrong (and I am certainly willing to continue to explore that it is on my end). HOWEVER, I spent a year with everything loaded to the gills (ORBX global stuff, tons of airports, aircraft, all kinds of bells and whistles handing off, and happily flew my RTM 777F all over the world, on 10+ hour legs, and never OOMed. I did get the ringing bell of FSUIPC here and there, but things stayed within limits. This is frustrating.