eclipz

As a matter of fact, the main subject of my messages was not performance of the website, it just happened to be the subject discussed by DunMac (but, yes, i did say i agree with him... but, no, i don't really care about that). Also, i didn't say it's a crappy website, nor did i say the team does a bad job (i don't think any of those things, not even vaguely)... and i'm not saying somebody said i said that, i'm just making sure my comments are not somehow transformed. Irony in a text and you're amazed by the lack of reading comprehension ? You know it's hard to convey irony (or any tone, in fact) in a text ? Smileys do help though (even if some don't like them) not really for support... but for news, yes... for example PMDG do not post news on their website... so it's here or Facebook. not exactly twice... i was elaborating my first message in order to reply to olli4740 anyway... sorry for the trouble.

So i don't get to express my opinion either ? Just wow !!!It's just a reaction of what i read on a forum, so keep the comments like "none of your concern" to yourself. If it were a private conversation, you'd be right... It's not ! As for "inexcusable", yeah, right... Like i just did something horrible

Respect is, to me, the default attitude to have towards somebody, unless he has himself be disrespectful. In the sentence i quote, my feeling is that Tom replied in a disrespectful manner to a guy who was critical yet respectful (you can perfectly be both at the same time). Of course the guy also used sarcasm, but as part of a critical comment which was true (please don't tell me the performance of the forum has been outstanding lately). Again, to me the guy pretty much said "it's been slow for a year", Tom pretty much replied "shut up, you don't get to talk". You may not agree and i can understand that, but that really is how i feel it. I'd like to add that volunteering is, of course, really great, but that's not because you're a volunteer that you can't be humble and take criticism. On the other hand, sure, a "thank you" is always nice. In addition, the guy may not even know Tom is a volunteer and/or where the avsim money comes from. A reply from Tom saying something like "we'd like to be able to do better and we know the situation is not perfect, but avsim runs mostly from donations and right now it's the best we can do with the budget we have" would have been a hell of a lot better i think. Instead, he took offence... he should know better, he runs the place... he should cool things down instead of adding fuel to the fire.

I get you must be tired and mad after all this but you're really acting like an ###### (not the first time btw) !The guy just makes a comment (a true and not that mean one at that) and all you can answer is kind of "you don't pay and you don't contribute so, basically, shut up or leave" ? Either you're runing a free forum or you're not but i think you have to accept your own choice. You sound like people who don't pay don't deserve a good service or are not allowed to critisize... Then make it a payware forum ! But if you don't, you can't really pull the money card anytime you want. You can't blame people for their opinion when they're not as you want them to be. I get that it's hard to get critized when you're trying very hard to please everyone, but you're a bit over-sensitive when it comes to criticism (again, this one wasn't that bad). On a personnal level, i don't pay a dime to avsim because, in my opinion the website and forums while helpful are not that great, the way it works is annoying... And no, i don't participate (=post) much, but i don't spend a lot of time here either (i come mostly because WOAI, PMDG & FS2Crew use your services, it's not really my choice). So yes, avsim is helpful, but not important to me... Not enough so that i want to financially contribute. But I'm not sure it makes me more or less able (or authorized) to say if the forum is slow or not.

Deactivate the sceneries you don't fly from/to and give it a try. if you want to fly EDFH > EGLL, deactivate EGSS, EGKK, EGBB, EGSS, LEPA, LPPT, LIMC and every other scenery you have. You can also reduce autogen AI traffic, reduce texture size of REX clouds (if you use 2048 textures for example), ... Little question from me on the side... has anyone tried to disable the scenery of the airport he just took-off from to see if it's of any help in the end ?

"Mathematically"... Not sure it's the right term but... Yes, it sort of is the source of the problem. Each byte of memory has its own adress so it can be read and written. The number of bits determines the number of adresses you can have. Each bit contains either a 0 or a 1 (= 2 possibilities per bit). So, with 32 bits you have 2^32 (= 4 294 967 296) adresses possible. Each adress points to a byte hence 4 294 967 296 bytes (= 4 giga bytes) can be adressed. If you need a 4 294 967 297th byte, you just run out of adresses and you run out of space to store the adress you need > error

It's not the same product, not the same plane, it doesn't have the same systems, not the same features... So it does not use the same amount of memory. You can't really expect something probably more complex to have the same requirements. For example, the ECL is necessarily having an impact on VAS. How big ? Would it be possible to make an option to completely deactivate it ? Would users be happy with that ? Would it be worthwhile ? What else could be deactivated ? Would it still be a 777 ? Thing is, i don't think PMDG uses memory just for fun and they don't do miracles (huge scenery, tons of AI aircraft, HD textures, multiple plugins [btw, ezca is kind of hungry for what it does in my opinion] and deep T7 simulation)... I'm pretty sure they're doing their best to lower VAS usage... But, at some point you either make a complete simulation or you make compromises (feature wise), something PMDG users are not used to (my opinion - some are still asking for more : stairs truck, taxi camera for the 300ER, HUD, ...). As is (a complete simulation), i can imagine why the 777 uses more memory than the 737. That's a tricky balance... Features vs VAS

What people seem to have a hard time understanding is that it's not one item causing OOMs... it's the addition of everything. Let's say the VAS limit is 10 (whatever unit, it's juste a theoretical example) : - 5 used by default FSX only - 2 by sceneries - 1 by AI traffic - 3 by the T7 - 2 by the 737 Fly the 737... you're at the limit... let's say it's ok. Fly the 777... bam ! OOM Is it PMDG 777's fault ? AI's fault ? All of them ? None of them ? Maybe you're using a scenery which is 10 times harder on VAS than the T7 and you don't even know it... yet, you blame the T7 (again, theoretical example, definitely unrealistic... i'm just saying that it's kind of nobody's fault or everyone's fault... it's not the "last installed"'s fault) The T7 may have more impact on VAS than the 737... it doesn't mean the 777 has a problem regarding VAS usage. Is it justified to you ? Completely subjective... sadly, you don't get to choose, that's just the way it... dictated by programming requirements (though, it doesn't mean VAS usage couldn't be reduced, maybe it could be optimized, but we don't know that). You could say it's T7's fault if it had a memory leak... but either everybody would have issues (obvious memory leak) or you probably wouldn't have it for every flight (rare conditional memory leak). So, in the end, it's your job to stay within limits... you want to use the T7 without OOMs ? Decrease quality elsewhere ! Flying the 737 ? Let's re-increase your settings to what you're used to.

That may be true in the US... but you can still find many recommendations preventing the use of APUs... Noise and air quality seem to be the main concerns. Vanvouver internation airport : http://www.wyle.com/ServicesSolutions/science/EMMA/AcousticandVibrationConsulting/Resources/DocumentLibrary/Documents/NoiseManagementProgramPractices4-10%20Final.pdf Manchester airport : http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/manweb.nsf/alldocs/8100FB8EF658808C80257364002D85FA/$File/NoisePlan.pdf Search the word "APU" in these documents. And by searching "airport apu noise" in google, you'll find many more. This list is interesting : http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/noise/list.page You'll see some US airports listed with APU operating restrictions : LAX, SFO, BOS, ...

As far as i know, some airports (more and more ?) request the use of external power instead of APU for environmental purposes (mainly a noise issue i think).

Regarding weather radar, PMDG's position on this subject is very clear and as been explained many times : they don't model it because it can't be done accurately in FSX as they're not able to know where rain is (which is what a weather radar depicts). Also, you need to sign your posts with you full name... forum rule !

Do people ever use the search function or read pinned threads ? http://forum.avsim.net/topic/418750-pmdg-777-issue-tracking-thread/

Yes, it is. As for other questions, i can't answer them since i have not used it for a while.

Could be a false positive... Viruses in commercial product is not unheard of, but it's stll rare... Plus, if you had it with an update for a FSX add-on, everyone downloading the update would have it too, it probably would be talked about à lot don't you think ?

Challenge: prove you're right. Thing is, 2 different CPUs sold at different clock speeds are the same. The faster one is just sort of overclocked compared to the slower one. The slower one is just there to generate availability of a cheaper product or because quality control determined this particular CPU doesn't overclock well. Even comparing i3 & i7 they can be the same CPUs but with 2 cores deactivated for the i3 (again, to provide a lower-end product or because a core is not functioning as it should). Same goes for the i5 and the cache quantity. Determination is done at the end of the production process. Every CPU as a different potential because the production process is not perfect and generates differences. So, technically, overclock is what Intel does. They don't sell faster products for different reasons : - production process is not good enough to provide enough quantity of faster CPUs - higher frequency generates to much heat or power consumption that can be judged as inacceptable - higher frequency doesn't leave much room for turboboost (which is, by the way, an overclocking) - marketing purposes Considering all this, overclocking is not bad IF you can dissipate heat correctly and IF you provide enough power. Sure, if you let your CPU burn or if you don't feed it with enough power, the overclock will arm the CPU or be unstable... But tests (Pi calculation is an example) & probes exist for this very reason. Same kind of tests exist for RAM & GPU overclocks. It allows you to detect errors & unstable overclocks. In the end, every CPU has its own limit, it's not set in stone. Some CPUs are pretty much stuck at their stock speed, some perform better. Hashwell is showing this perfectly. Heat is rapidly increasing as you overclock... That's one limit And, for example, if you take a sample of several i74770k, some won't go past 4GHz, some will do 4.5 easily. Same chip, same production process, different results, different potentials.