Scott434

Yes, but it costs a lot. See towards the end of this avsim report. http://forum.avsim.net/page/index.html/_/reviews/review-gtn-650-750-avionics-r2357

Great aircraft. Been waiting for a while for this and it very well done. Handling is superb, GTN support, visually very pleasing. All RealAir products are top notch and I own both v2 Dukes and the legacy. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/smabmvtlop6of51/AAC1W52xyWCiJtmQJufaQDm8a?dl=0

GTN750 no contest. (I have most of the RPX guages and the 530). See pics at link below. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/smabmvtlop6of51/AAC1W52xyWCiJtmQJufaQDm8a?dl=0

777-200F, sp1b, FTX-Southern Alaska, Anchorage X airport, Ultimate Traffic 2 at 100% traffic levels yielding 14 aircraft at and around terminal, cloudy & rainy with ASN, GSX running with main and aft cargo loaders doing their thing, LOD=4.5, textures=1024, healthy slider levels ..... This is a significant FSX load yet my remaining VAS is approx 500-600 Megs. This is a test scenario and reducing traffic down to reasonable levels my remaing VAS hovers around 800 megs. I have found that the reccomendations in the 777 introduction manual to use fs-sceditor (FS Scenery Configuration Editor) and remove unnecessary (unused for your planned flight) scenery is extremely worthwhile. Not only does it improve your remaining VAS levels but it speeds up loading/unloading FSX.

Thanks PMDG. I can confirm that SDK SP1b works now. Thank you! I am sure that we are closer to having FS2Crew!!

Very good debugging approach and I am sure it will be interesting to see what actually caused your problems. Making changes one at a time allows you to isolate the problem(s). I also use NickN guide and have been doing so for years. I have never had a problem. My testing shows that the 777F SP1 uses approx. 0.850 gig of VAS. I can easily induce OOMs by cranking up LOD and/or traffic or by using higher rez textures (I use 1024). But the times of "just loading everything to the max" are gone and one has to make some priority calls if we want to use these cutting edge and remarkable simulations put out by PMDG and others. When I fly low altitude in my other aircraft, I use "heavier" FSX settings. When I am flying the 777X, I am so busy concentrating on flying that "lighter" FSX settings go virtually unnoticed. Cheers, Scott

Sorry for the multiple posts as Avsim was a bit slow when I tried to post the PDF. Perhaps someone can delete the two first posts since they are missing the PDF attachment. Thanks, Scott.

For those who might be interested, I developed (and currently polishing) a little FSX application to do a couple of things I have always wanted to be able to do namely easy cockpit switch control and flight data logging with takeoff and landing charting. Please see attached PDF for more details if interested. Since I fly pretty much exclusively PMDG aircraft, the cockpit control part of this app work only with PMDG aircraft since I utilize their SDK (only NGX available at this point.) The flight data recording works with any FSX compliant aircraft. I was thinking about making it available for others if there is enough interest but that would required a couple of folks volunteering to do a bit "beta" testing first. If anyone is interested please PM me. I am hoping that PMDG does not mind me posting this here. Thanks!

For those who might be interested, I developed (and currently polishing) a little FSX application to do a couple of things I have always wanted to be able to do namely easy cockpit switch control and flight data logging with takeoff and landing charting. Please see attached PDF for more details if interested. Since I fly pretty much exclusively PMDG aircraft, the cockpit control part of this app work only with PMDG aircraft since I utilize their SDK (only NGX available at this point.) The flight data recording works with any FSX compliant aircraft. I was thinking about making it available for others if there is enough interest but that would required a couple of folks volunteering to do a bit "beta" testing first. If anyone is interested please PM me. I am hoping that PMDG does not mind me posting this here. Thanks!

For those who might be interested, I developed (and currently polishing) a little FSX application to do a couple of things I have always wanted to be able to do namely easy cockpit switch control and flight data logging with takeoff and landing charting. Please see attached PDF for more details if interested. Since I fly pretty much exclusively PMDG aircraft, the cockpit control part of this app work only with PMDG aircraft since I utilize their SDK (only NGX available at this point.) The flight data recording works with any FSX compliant aircraft. I was thinking about making it available for others if there is enough interest but that would required a couple of folks volunteering to do a bit "beta" testing first. If anyone is interested please PM me. I am hoping that PMDG does not mind me posting this here. Thanks!

Can anyone else (I believe you Simon but 100M is hard to discern the way things vary) confirm the 100 VAS saving when disabling RAAS in the dll.xml (changing Disabled to True - 3rd line see below). If you disable this addon and you load a 777 livery that has the RAAS option enabled, what happens? <Launch.Addon> <Name>RAASPRO</Name> <Disabled>False</Disabled> <ManualLoad>False</ManualLoad> <Path>.\RAASPRO\RAASPRO.dll</Path> <DllStartName>module_init</DllStartName> <DllStopName>module_deinit</DllStopName> </Launch.Addon>

F2?? [buttons.777X] 0=RY,21,C65966,0 ; Throttle 1 Thrust Reverser - Repeat throttle decr 1=UY,21,C65967,0 ; Throttle 1 Thrust Reverser - Cut 2=RY,22,C65971,0 ; Throttle 2 Thrust Reverser - Repeat throttle decr 3=UY,22,C65972,0 ;Throttle 2 Thrust Reverser - Cut

LOD settings is very influential in VAS for me. In fact that is how I throttle things up/down (along with Traffic levels). I would be very concerned if I changed this value and did not see a difference - meaning something is not right here! FSX changes LOD back to 4.5 automatically every time you change display settings within FSX so perhaps it has always been at 4.5. LOD multiplies "everything" so it has more of an exponential effect from my understanding.

Sorry Ryan I did not mean to imply this. I meant to imply that things that are pre-release sometimes are not the same as release ... "Some specifications are subject to change on the final released product." My delta VAS numbers between the NGX and the 777X are more like 300-350 and not 185. Other peoples number vary as well and the question is why? It is hard to converge on a number in FSX but the swing is large. Perhaps it is something small that crept in during the last push of bug fixing prior to release.

As part of my latest build and FSX priority memory usage, I log/"plot" VAS memory use vs LOD settings (with all other sliders/variables constant). I use FSDT's CYVR and Aerosoft's Anchorage X airports as the load. In preparation for the 777X I did VAS benchmarks on the NGX. I determined exactly and precisely the settings required to trip an OOM and the threshold I need to be at to maintain my flying environment without. The 777X significantly surpasses the NGX and is most definitely harder on VAS than the NGX. IMHO the difference is not within the usual margin of error that was causally assumed from pre-release comments and marketing speak which indicated the 777x and the NGX would be comparable. It is why in fact, the many are seeing OOMs while comparing to the NGX. I have made adjustments to my system to accommodate the 777X because it is such work of art. I have been a software developer for over 3 decades and I FULLY appreciate what PMDG have accomplished here and I just love the plane!! My approach is to make the aircraft a priority over other memory consumers. I fully anticipate that in the natural progression of the products life cycle, service packs will find a way to optimize and provide tuning options for the users who either can't (know how) or won't (eye candy and traffic are their priorities - and that is OK!) take steps to relieve the OOM potential. If PMDG say "Guys we have done everything and the 777X VAS footprint is required" then I will live with it but I have to believe that his is not the case. Thanks PNDG for a crazy good aircraft which will only get better as time progresses. Cheers!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes! Robert this works perfectly and is cleaner than assigning the throttles in FSX. Now all my axes are assigned in FSUIPC. All my axes EXCEPT throttle 1 & 2 are calibrated with FSUIPC. I believe this is what Petr was saying ie assign but do not calibrate in FSUIPC. Works great, thanks Petr and Robert.

Same issue for me. I use the Saitek Proflight Yoke with throttle quadrant. With NGX I had everything (Ail, Elev, Rud, Spoil, T1, T2, BrakeL, BrakeR) assigned and calibrated through FSUIPC. With the 777X, the throttles do not remain advanced but jump back. TOGA works however (doesn't require axes input I would guess.) Here is how I fixed it on my setup: 1) In FSUIPC on the Axis Assignment tab, detect each throttle axis and set "Send to FS as normal axis" in the "Type of action required" section. 2) On the "Joystick Calibration" tab, make sure each Throttle Axis (page 1 of 11 AND page 3 of 11) is set to "Axis not processed" 3) In FSX, go to settings --> controls --> Control Axes. Make sure in "Controller Type", the hardware that controls the the throttles is identified. Mine is the Saitek Pro Flight Yoke. 4) Under "Event", locate and select "Engine 1 throttle axis". Use New/Change Assignment and assign your axis for Throttle 1. 5) Under "Event", locate and select "Engine 2 throttle axis". Use New/Change Assignment and assign your axis for Throttle 2. 6) Ensure that nothing else is assigned to the throttles (other joysticks, buttons.) Other than the throttles, everything else is still works through FSUIPC. Hope this helps. I did pull my hair out for a while not that I have that much left anymore - hehe.

This is my last post on the subject because this is getting repetitive and going no where. I heard that cheering, Arjen!! It might be that PMDG can optimize a bit more. We all can assume they have been doing so all along and did not purposefully bloat up the 777X just for release day. Or perhaps add an option to allow the 2013 "non-tweakers" a smaller memory footprint for those who want less detail (tell me a gain why you bought this aircraft). At the end of the day (this round or next it doesn't matter), you will have to compromise at some point because time marches on and FSX does not. looks like it is medication time for someone ...

Because your argument is and continues to be ridiculous. Do you think the level of detail a developer puts into their product should be a function of the settings of a particular small (to be determined) group of people who are just fed up with tweaking their machines? Attention all FSX simmers! The future of all FSX development is capped because certain simmers do not want to "keep playing with their sliders all the time".

Should of, would of could of ... They "SHOULD" be the same????? Why should they be and who guaranteed they would be? Until the NGX and 777X are similar (if ever), turn down a slider/setting or three ( a 10 second adjustment) and fly without OOMs. Or, continue flying with the same setup and endure the OOM frustrations. Choice is pretty clear to me. You do realize that YOU CAN tune down things and DO NOT have to run the full Monty. You are still the master of your own FSX destiny. It IS very possible to enjoy the 777X as is released today (and possibly optimized down the road) with a ton of other scenery and add-ons. Just not 2 tons. Of course developers are going strive for the biggest and the best that is the reality. It is up to the FSX abUser to decide what and how much they are going to utilize to arrive at a working and reliable FSX platform.

No and not necessarily. You are assuming that the conditions (weather, traffic, exact scenery location etc) are exactly the same 3 hours later in two DIFFERENT FSX sessions. And you are assuming that the 737 AND the 777 are the same. This is unlikely so therefore it hard to arrive at the conclusion that the 777 IS the problem. It might be that the 777 does have a problem or it might be that it has a slightly larger memory footprint which just pushed things over the edge memory wise that are very particular to your unique FSX add-on combination and set up. I can at will, set up my FSX to yield OOMs both with the NGX and the 777X. But I choose not to. I have noticed that I have to tune down my FSX a bit more with the 777X. But I still fly into FSDT's CYVR with ORBX with the 777X and with no OOMs. Many many many 777X users and a large extensive beta team do not have OOMs. I HIGHLY doubt PMDG would release an aircraft that "all of a sudden" developed OOM problems. In the end, there may be an opportunity for PMDG to optimize the 777X a bit and that may reduce OOMs somewhat but in the end it is only a matter of time until the FSX abUser cranks up the sliders/settings again with the next complex add-on and the entire discussion/cycle starts again.

I am not saying what your post implies. I am saying we need to choose our FSX priorities and mine is aircraft and I DO want developers to make us super-detailed aircraft where I decide what my FSX "normal" is by tuning down the ancillary add-ons if I have/want to. Most scenery developers offer an ability to reduce the memory footprint of their products. I am too new to the 777X to know if PMDG offer the ability to do this on the 777X but if they cannot do so without compromising the depth and detail of the 777X that is ok, and something else gets turned down and not the level of the aircraft simulation. "Yes, running it in a naked FSX environment is doable, but who of us has that?" Not naked but optimized to suit your own FSX priorities. The point is you are going to have to sooner or later since FSX is not changing and all developers are packing in the detail and expanding scope of their products so that they are the biggest and best ... The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Keep piling on a finite old and tired FSX platform with ever expanding number of ever expanding add-ons and expecting it to perform the same is "_____" no?

I believe you when you say "NEVER HAD AN OOM, NEVER HAVE I HAD AN OOM BEFORE IN FSX". I believe you when you say "I am a very experienced FSX user, I know what kind of tweaks influence what, how and when." BUT ... You are comparing apples to oranges - or in this case NGX to 777X. And you are making the assumption that both are the same and then concluding that the results should be the same. But they are not! The evidence being that the result is not the same with the same platform. We all agree that the 777X has a different memory "foot print" than the NGX. Different meaning different and not necessarily for the worse. It might very well be that the 777X has a slightly larger memory foot print and it might very well need and deserve it. But that is not the issue. FSX has a FINITE capacity. We are piling on crazy amounts of very large and complex scenery, aircraft, mesh, traffic, weather, clouds, ancillary add-ons etc. With the faster hardware we turn the sliders/options up where as before, if we did that, we would have a low FPS so we compromised and turned things down until we obtained acceptable results. So, we have faster hardware that can handle more and more load, we have increasingly bigger and more complex add-ons and what has remained the same? FSX's memory usage limit (size) and scenery management capability (or lack thereof.) If you are a FSX "Power User", we are at a point that we simply cannot continue to load FSX with EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE EVERY-TIME. We need to make some budgetary memory based priority decisions. Everyones' priorities will be different. Some like airports, some like traffic and some like lots of cars on the roads. Some fly the default aircraft with killer maxed scenery. If we want it all but cannot have it all (OOMs) then we need to take steps to arrive at a working compromise. The 777X Introduction Manual (Pages 021-025) addresses this EXACT issue by pointing to memory usage tools to empower the FSX "Power abUser" to make informed decisions regarding the level of detail/sliders/traffic/LOD etc. which is acceptable for ones own priorities so that OOMs do not happen. It might be that the 777X needs a larger memory footprint then the NGX. In a couple of years we might be having the same discussion that the PMDG 787X has a larger memory footprint than the 777X. The same solution will apply and that is to manage your finite memory usage by turning things down a notch to allow a stable no OOM FSX. Until another platform comes along, this is today's FSX REALITY. My own personal priority is to fly "real" aircraft and therefore scenery and airport eye candy are secondary. I would always trade more aircraft for less scenery and that is exactly what I do and what needs to be done. So in conclusion, IF PMDG eventually find an optimization for lowering the 777X memory foot print then that is great and a bonus. If PMDG cannot do so without compromising the depth/detail and fidelity of the 777X then my vote would be not to do so and I/we can simply turn things down a notch and enjoy the 777X in all its glory. It is a wonderful joy to just be in the cockpit and absorb and appreciate the lengths that PMDG have gone to, which, of course has NOTHING to do with how many cars are on the roads or how many boats are at the local marina below.

Good one, it almost sounded like you were serious ... :rolleyes:

Arjen, With all due respect and in the most constructive way, your problems are NOT related to the 777X directly and because you did not experience OOMs with the NGX is not really relevant. FSX requires a proper install and an understanding of the source of OOMs and some fine tuning ESPECIALLY with a new complex aircraft. Assuming that you have a stable FSX install, do the following as a starting point to commence the process of tuning YOUR FSX. 1) delete your fsx.cfg file and run FSX. 2) turn autogen slider down low. 3) turn your traffic slider down low 4) turn road and boat traffic almost off 5) Add ONE and only ONE line to your fsx.cgf file. HIGHMEMFIX=1 in the [GRAPHICS] section. 6) do not use DX10 After doing the above, I highly doubt that you will have OOMs. If you do, something else is very wrong with your platform. I am running the 777X at FSDT's CYVR and I can make the sim OOM no problem. But I tune things down so that my free memory is within acceptable limits. Use the native windows performance monitor to keep an eye on your memory consumption and in crease your sliders bit by bit until you know were your OOMs occur and then back off a bit. You now have a tuned FSX. The 777X runs beautifully with NO OOMs sitting at gate 73 at approx 25 FPS in the cockpit with approx 300 MB free. Even with my very fast system, you cannot have everything cranked with a complex aircraft and killer scenery. It is just that simple! https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_VrFV5r8cs0 So, please no more silly and unfounded statements about the 777X being too detailed. Cheers, s