VLJ510

What's this default scenery you speak of?

Well real world pilots not only have hours on home PC simulators (if that's their thing), but more so high-end level-D simulators where they are tested on emergency situations on a regular basics. I'm sure they would not be in the cockpit if their employers doubted their ability to handle any and all situations and had tested them beforehand in a controlled environment.

Well now you're speaking further past the topic as to why you're changing PSU in finding out why you're getting this problem. Sounds like problems exist past FSX. First speaking it sounded like your process of elimination fixing this only involved FSX/PMDG and the fact "everything else was changed on your rig accept the PSU & SSD" as the problem left and only FSX/PMDG was effected; not overall PC booting problems, etc. Knowing that, you may have a PSU problem. However I still think you'll have the problem you're having inside FSX when you get that running. I've been running this PSU in my sig for 5 or 6 years! Also I'd beg to differ in what a high-end CPU is, (not saying mine is anymore as its 4 years old, but at the time was marketed as a high-end CPU) and that for its time a 2700k was a not high-end CPU compared to the range of what was on the market then at the time (lots of people ran that CPU all over the FS and overall gaming community. Indeed was good bang for your buck and a good overclocker, but was never marketed as a high-end CPU) and 3770k is (in my opinion) a mid range CPU where again, your bang for the buck is good, but not a high-end CPU when the 3960x, 4960x are marketed as high-end CPUs with Intel black labels and 3930k, 4930k marketed as lower high-end CPUs. For the LGA 1155 socket, that CPU (3770k) was high or the highest, but doesn't really stand out as a high-end CPU in regards to how Intel markets it CPUs and what was on the market at the time it released.

First I'm not saying you're wrong... I have a surge protector that monitors the power specs. FSX never uses over 600 watts so its not a taxing amount of watts for something not to be getting the power it needs. Internally it might be something with the PSU, but I doubt it and if its the problem, there are a fair amount of people with PSU problems making this happen where FSUIPC save, etc, etc didn't fix. Has PMDG reached out to these people with the problem to sort it out?

Well I think its equal in the scene that if 100 people are running high-end hardware and 100 people are running pretty acquitted FS hardware, the amounts of people having problem 'X' are same in ratio just about; that goes for this problem too, not just high-end systems are seeing this hiccup. As well so many variables are in play, its hard to point a finger when problems like this arise and the community chimes in to help. And throughout my MSFS history (back to 98) I've had my fair share of problems and seen people on weaker systems run stronger. Really I just wanted to chime in with some threads I've seen on the topic where people having this problem have had their problems fixed, as well that I'm running the same CPU with a 30+% overclock and all is good. Saying that, I'll say others here run the 980x in the 4-5GHz range and are going fine. And even higher end rigs then all of ours here posted so far not seeing this and sure some that are too. Now it seams everyone is looking at their hardware. Maybe delete/disable UT2 (or whatever traffic add-on) and see if that rids the problem, run FSX in DX9, etc. Because I own UT2, but got rid of it as it got in the way a lot and used some frames I wanted back and run in DX9 and don't have this problem and get 100% smooth gameplay with the NGX and 777 in stressful simulation; of course minus the AI traffic. I also don't use virus software on my simming rig as its just used for FSX and video editing GoPro videos so I don't have that variable in play. Lastly like you I'd think high SSD/HDD activity doing this. But many here are also running normal 7,200/10,000rpm HDD and SSD who also get this problem.

I don't have this problem with NGX or T7. My specs are in my sig. I don't use any AI traffic and running in DX9. ALso using ASN with REX textures. Saying that hasn't it been said that FSUIPC saving in flight can make these freezes happen. Seams to have worked for some: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/420194-no-more-pauses-or-freezes/ This guy seamed to have fixed his problem, same problem you're having but with the NGX: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/350779-strange-freeze-then-un-freeze-problem/

First forum rules ask you sign your real name to get forum support. Secondly it sounds like an activation issue, you'll likely need to contact PMDG support via their ticket system for assistance. http://support.precisionmanuals.com/Main/Default.aspx

I want to fly the 777 today, but seeing (and knowing) soon the plane will be this much better has me spoiled just seeing it. I so want to fly this service pack.

For a longer 737 flight I like KTPA or KFLL to KLAX or KSFO -- For ETOPS flights I like PANC to PHNL, PHLI, or PHKO. Or KLAX/KSFO to the Hawaiian Islands. For a mid range 737 flight I like KMDW or KBUF to KFLL or KTPA For a short hop good for limited time in the 737 I like KTPA to KFLL or KLAX to KLAX or KSFO. If you have a bit more time KPHX to KLAX or KSFO For the 777 I only fly long flights. I like OMDB to KDFW, KLAX, or KSFO. For little less time in the 777 I like VHHH to CYVR, KLAX, or KSFO I fly a lot of routes but these are the ones I do most. The reason why is because I enjoy the third party add-ons from FlyTampa, FSDT, and FlightBeam

It means you're below the glide slope to the point the GPWS is warning you. I'm sure others can go more in depth.

LOL, they sure did. I'm always looking on the northern hemisphere, or really just other links within that page.

I've done about 4 or 5 polar route since the 777X released. Now not that it matters but I also check space weather as they do in real life. https://sites.google.com/site/acnetworkweather/home/space-weather Everything within that page can shows graphs or explains the info within the graphs and even has a calculator provided by the FAA to see how much radiation one might have over the course of a flight.

Yes, I've flown from KLAS to PHNL then down to NTAA, turning around flying back to PHNL, then on to KDFW and landing at KFLL. Over 20 hours no problems. You say, 'reasonable expectations'. I do so with a higher then reasonable expectation, I do so with 100% certainly I'll make it from A to B. My typical flight is 14-16 hours for the 777 (DXB-LAX SFO-DXB etc) and there is no way I'd waste my time (as I'd expect most) to plan then execute a flight if I had any doubts if I was going to make it or not. While sure some people here have had or do have stability issues I would say most don't worry about OOM errors, CTD, or the stability of their FSX machine in flight. Surely those that have been around MSFS for some time and have a reasonable amount of PC knowledge. If that were the case many of the well known community member would have their own post about these problems about not being able to complete a typical 777 flight. Has there been some OOM error posted. Yes, but 10 times outta 10 it looked to me they were being overzealous with their settings. They only had to dial things back a bit to fix the issue, not go the route as you and with complete absence of entire settings to achieve their goal of OOM error free/CTD flights. For the OP, I know I flew into JFK from HGK this afternoon on the Canarsie approach for 13L at no lower then 25fps without shutters with an Intel/Nvidia setup so the OP is not a global one.

Well that's easy to be explained really, just a fact of numbers and statistics. If more FSX users have an Intel CPU; witch they do. I don't know the numbers, but its very high % over AMD I'd be wiling to guess. That its a gimme that you'd hear more problems coming from a Intel users. Doesn't mean its the CPUs fault when like a cake there is a lot of ingredients at play between FSX now-a-days between everything that gets thrown into its use. As for tweaks. I ran my sim rig since April 2010 with no tweaks, things weren't always as smooth or the highest FPS I felt I could achieve. Using the tweaks now, the three or four I use make a big difference in flying anything anywhere near or at 30fps without cutting things out like autogen. Speaking of cakes, sounds like your cake without icing on it. No autogen! Would hate to fly the Canarsie into JFK on your rig no matter how nicely you say it runs it likely looks the opposite. To each there own I guess, but no autogen may make things run nicely like a Ferrari with a primer paint job. I'd take it, but I wouldn't settle for keeping it as is. I want to to look and run well.

I'm replying because I feel for you. On my first PMDG 777 flight from KSFO to OMDB I got a OOM error on final, then again on my second attempt of the same flight near same place on final. After the second OOM error I knew I had to readjust some stuff. As I never had OOM errors with any PMDG software before or any other add-on for that matter. So what I did was lower LOD back to 4.5 (Some have boarder-line cried about the possibility having to do this) Lowered cloud res from 4096 down to 1024 (no biggie and I see you've done this as well) and lowered autogen down one from max I also use the tip the James tossed out in the first post, but this was after I already corrected the problem. It may work on OOM errors, but I did as I saw some extra frames. Since doing what I've done I've had many long haul and ultra long haul flights no problems and not one OOM error since then. A look at your FSX.cfg would help as someone else said. Good luck.

While the software IMO is worth 90 dollars and I'm glad I spent it; I'm not sure the PMDG 777 is for you by the sounds of your simming style. PMDG is about system depth and some would call it a good study sim for beginners of a Boeing platform. Once you've learned what you need to know you still can always learn something new long into its use. And once you've mastered it itself you can move into following how real world pilots setup, prepare, and execute a flight. Most us us hardcore PMDG users also are big into planing our flights in all aspects. If all that dose not interest you then IMO PMDG's software is not for you and that's no big deal. Also if you've only flown the NGX a handful of times then I would say you'd fly this the same amount. Not to mention time (has time acceleration however). For me to enjoy the 777 as it was intended you should be doing long haul or ultra long haul flights. So if you're just doing very short hops you'll find the plane shoots off the runway from the massive engines and light loads witch is unrealistic. This can be countered with De-rating the thrust and even programming new speed and altitude restraints in the the FMC. But back to your simming style and/or knowledge, it might be over your head or just not worth your time setting up. Also reviews are good but whats better it understanding yourself. When you say, "greatest thing since sliced bread that everyone says it is". You have to understand the person whom might be saying it. If I say strawberry cheesecake is the best and you never had it or don't even like cheesecake then you can't totally invest into what I say. Just like taste, simming interest will very. If you don't enjoy airliners, system depth, etc then just because a portion of the FSX community are raving about the 777X and PMDG software it doesn't mean its a must have for everyone or that everyone will enjoy to its utmost. Take a hardcore VRS Superbug user. They might not say the 777X is best thing since sliced bread, however they can understand the hard work put into it and appreciate it and never buy. It just may not be their cup of tea and that's cool. While someone like myself who also owns the VRS and only have flown that a handful of times (10-15), it's just not for me. Its really well done with tons of system depth, immersion, a study sim in its own right I just never got hooked. But I do love airliners, so for me PMDG software is the 'the bees knees'. So don't let that 90 dollars burn a hole in your pocket it you down-right know airliners are not for you or that you doubt you'll get your 90 dollars worth out of it you are likely right it you know yourself more then the reviews. If general aviation is more your style then maybe some ORBX scenery and/or the A2A C172 would be your style and enjoy more as well use more then PMDG software. I own the A2A C172 and its really well done if you don't already have it.

Is highmemfix=1 in you FSX.cfg?

Pretty sure this guy just won something! What am I talking about? Well I heard that if you're the millionth poster of a repeated question upon being the millionth poster about the same subject you won something. I don't see why people don't use search for something so simple that you have to know in PMDGs history its been asked prior. I'm certain its been asked about 4 or 5 times in the past week. FACTS -One you type less. Typing 'coordinates' into the search box takes less time then going through writing up a full post. -Two its faster, not only are you typing less, but believe it or not searching and finding your answer is faster then waiting for someone to tell you the answer. Off soapbox!

Pretty easy however I'm not near plane, manuals or the AoA video. Just arm the system then flip the clear guards for the left & right nozzles pressing them. Then pull the Fuel to Remain knob. It will automatically dump to max landing weight. You with also see the fuel weight selected as well time to the weight is achieved. Turning the knob you can adjust the amount manually. Now I'm not sure if there are differences on the 744 and the 772 as far as logic even though they panels both look the same, but I've dumped fuel on both. However the PMDG 744 you had to turn the knob to manually select fuel to remain. That might be how the real aircraft is or just PMDG wasn't on top of their game as they are now in regards to system depth/logic. But the 777 ER ECL walks you right through everything.

Or just 4750N 4940N and so on

Sure, no problem. Also I'll say during my testing I adjusted tweaks to the point FPS dropped. So I deleted the FSX.cfg and started over. The tweaks I use for my specs in my signature are as follows, I'll try to list them all as well you can scan over the FSX.cfg itself from the link below. First on a clean FSX.cfg I ran Bojote's tuning and tweaking tool http://www.venetubo.com/fsx.html It dose a lot of tweaks once ran. My 980x has Hyperthreading off so I selected the 6 core option I selected my series graphic card DId not apply vSync fix And pick normal optimization pref (It also can place the BufferPools tweak listed below) From there I read over a few guilds, the AVISIM one in the Hardware threads I think it is and Word Not Allowed's guild The big ones are, TEXRURE_MAX_LOAD=2048 HIGHMEMFIX=1 (placed by Bojote's tool) STABLE_BUFFER_THRESHOLD=2147483647 TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT= 60 (was 40 - I tried 80) UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=30 (my system use to only want unlimited frame-rates but seams fine now locked) FIBER_FRAME_FRACTON=.15 (did lowest of .10 witch worked on my first few tweaking runs but had to raise it) UsePools=0 PoolSize=85000000 I think those are the biggest ones used for stability, but you can have a look though yourself. I also used the Nvidia Inspector setting in the AVSIM guild but with lower AA settings. They say x8 or x16, I picked x4. In the guild they use Trilinear and I use that as well. Also in Active Sky I use 1024 clouds and don't run any any traffic (air, road, or sea) Still a work in progress but these have gotten me with takeoff and landings at detailed airports with over 20 FPS and generally closer to holding 30. No shutters whatsoever. https://www.dropbox.com/s/r68mbnx5ott177w/fsx.CFG EDIT: Add-ons use are PMDG 777-NGX, Active Sky, GEX, UTX, and detailed airports from Flightbeam, FSDT, FlyTampa, Megaairports you see at the Aerosoft shop, and ImagineSIm VHHH/WSSS.

ACA 8 about 10 minute ahead of the real flight. VHHH - CYVR. Just below the Aleutian Islands chain now. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/ACA8

AOA goes in depth about this in the 747 videos. 777 has the same fuel jettison panel as the 747. In the video they do a engine failure after V1 with a takeoff near MTOW. They takeoff then move into a hold dumping fuel. Then return back to the airport.

Yeah I removed UT2 as well. I will admit it is (was) nice to see the airport busy. However not only was the FPS hit not worth it sometimes at larger airports IMO, but the traffic got in the way sometimes. As for the topic I use. PFPX for planning FS Commander for looking at gates and taxiways. Active Sky for weather injection as well textures (have REX, but their SP2 fumble I uninstalled and bought ASE) Airport Enhancement Services for pushback Topcat whenever there T7 profile is done but worked well with it already support products.

I get what you're saying. I never leave the VC so somethings could've been left out. Totally agree sometime there can be too much in some places to make room for other elsewhere! But not everyone is like me or you, or that dude in the corner. Some I'm sure spend just as much time looking at there T7 from the outside as I do the inside. However I don't sim FSX just for the eye candy or pretend I'm a airline captain (well kinda), I like planning, procedures, and then following through and have found a nice balance for good performance and good eye candy that I'm happy with while doing my flights. Also that balance came with lots of testing and adjusting my tweaks so that FSX and T7 ran smoothly as well OOM free. I love details but sometimes (for me) there can be too much. Overkill. Take ORBX, good looking stuff. But do I really need know know the brand of HVAC unit behind the hanger. To me this was not marketed to me but rather more VFR prop flyers. Just my opinion. Look at a Level-D sim, not like they're landing a LD sim at LAX and you're seeing the traffic on the 110 or 105. I'd love to have a sim that ran smooth as butter and everything was maxed and 100% realistic but its FSX and as time (and age) move forward I became more realistic and understanding. But devs also pushed limits harder too. You say some spent 1000's on a system, as if I haven't myself, or wouldn't want to see more details. I think I forked out close to 1000 each on just my CPU and SSD when they first released. I've learned before throwing cash at a problem doesn't always fix or make it better. I did have to back my clouds down to 2048 from 4096 and my LOD back to 4.5 from 6.5 as well knock my autogen back down one. Where as the NGX can do that no problem without risking OOM errors. But you know what things still look good to me (key word, me) but that may not please you. We all want or expect something different outta the sim or just demand more. Hell some just can't be happy. To each their own, but I'm happy to back somethings down a bit in the give & take that is FSX and don't even really notice it as I'm not "greedy" with my settings. Backing a few things down I promise won't make it feel like FS98 or even FS9. Also for those that spent 1000's and can't run the T7 I feel sorry you can't/refuse to find a good middle ground that likely exist, that you throw money at FSX without reading up, testing & tuning, or sadly just can't be happy with what you've got because no one is likely running FSX (the whole host of other scenery add-ons) and the T7 in a ideal perfect PC/sim fashion.