kakihara123

Ok, maybe I phrased it a bit wrong. I am not wondering at all that my FPS tanks when my VRAM is full. I want to know the cause for the VRAM to fill up suddenly in the first place. Normally it always hovers at around 5gb, so that is a pretty big jump for seemingly no reason.

I overserved it a bit. It doesn't really matter what plane I use. I flew (and landed) in the middle of Leipzig, which had Photogrammetry from the start. VRAM usage varies between about 4-5,5 gb, so enough room left. It seems that something is causing it to randomly spike up and uses all it gets.

But why did this not cause an issue before? And also This also happened @ FL350 over an area without photogrammetry at all.

This video talks about RAM, not VRAM. My RAM is pretty empty....

I got the following system: RTX 3080 Ryzen 7 5800x 32GB Ram NVME ssd I play@ 3440x1440 or with an Index with 100% resolution scale. A few times now, I noticed that my FPS absolutely tanks randomly and when I look at the VRAM usage it is completely full. I only had it while using the Fenix A320, but that could be coincidence, since I didn't use other planes much since the issue occurred. Settings on flat were High/ultra, but I lowered all those ultra ones to high. On VR most settings are medium/low. I didn't use the sim for a few months and just recently came back and never that that problem. While the VRAM is not full performance is totally fine and smooth. I'm using DX11 and use neither a pushback tool nor Yourcontrolls, that's known to cause issues. I set the usage to CPU in the fenix app and use a 4k livery and not the high resolution cockpit textures. Anyone got an idea what might cause this?

I think the uncertainty element is extremely important. ATC should definitely try to give you what you request, but it should always be possible, depending on traffic, to deny requests and force you to adapt. The worst thing is when you always plan your flight and it just plays out exactly like that. Cool stuff would be: Holds if it's busy, closed airport because of emergencies or bad weather forcing you do divert, declaring emergencies yourself (this gets more and more important as addons include complex failure simulations).

I wouldn't be surprised if there are scoring systems in real life trainings of the military. And then there are Red Bull air races that definitely have them. So this has nothing to do with a lack of simulation. It more of an enhancement of reality, because why not? There is no benefit of restricting yourself in cases like this.

Good thing though: You can simply use the real manual...

They could learn something from FromSoftware and Elden Ring. Dark Souls and co. are known for having much less hand holding then typical games from AAA studios. But they increased accessibility in Elden Ring by adding Spirit Ashes players can summon in fights. You don't have to use them though and many choose not to. But they still have not altered the core expierence. There are huge optional areas players can miss if they are not observant. So accessibility is a good thing. The correct way would be to include either more missions and tutorials or... the first time a user encounters a strong updraft, gusts or something like that, pause the game and display a textbox, maybe even a video that explains what just happened. Also include a menu option to turn off this feature. Then they can go all out on the realism, without having to care for people thinking it's bugged.

I guess some people don't care, but if the ATC cannot control user planes (or in case of the only 3rd party solutions available atm not even AI planes) then they can only router you around existing traffic. So you will always have to hold, never any other plane. For this Asobo ATC this also means that they ignore player controlled planes completely. So you can get a takeoff clearance while another user is on the runway. Or 2 players can get a landing clearance at the same time even though they are too close together. Griefing or AFK players could simply be turned invisible if they take too long. Or as I wrote before, they could simply be put on an ignore list by the player and that could turn them invisible. Ideally ATC should control any and all traffic, but they should at least improve the ai interaction to a somewhat reasonable level.

I highly doubt it. The problem ist that there are fundamental issues 3rd party devs will never be able to solve. They cannot control any user planes. They also cannot control Live traffic at all. I don't expect anything totally impossible. Just a few things come to mind that would vastly improve the situation: - Make calls from players be heard (and limit how often you can hear the same call and/or implement a mute system) This would make a huge difference in terms of immersion for uncontrolled airports. As of now anything you do as a player is nothing but pretend. No one will hear any of your calls. - automatic vectoring. As awful as X-planes ATC ist, that worked well. So it is possible. Having to request direction manually is bafflingly stupid. I have no idea how anyone ever thought this was a good idea. - If you are descending over mountains, it should analyze the lowest point you can go until you passed those and send you there. Atm it rapidly changes altitudes all the time. How can you notice that and say... yeah this is good enough? If this would happened occasionally I wouldn't even care, but this happens all the time. - max altitude it sends you to should be dictated by aircraft type. This should also limit the flight plans you file. If you try to use High altitude airways in a C152, let the game reject the plan on the flight map. But if you manage to file the plan, don't send me higher then I can. Another possible solution would be an unable answer, which could override certain things. This is a bit more advanced, but if you are unable to climb over a mountain, activate vectors around it automatically. - declaring emergencies . Also a bit more advanced. Could give the aircraft priority routing and some Firetrucks come after the landing. This would need a bit of a careful approach, not to annoy players too much, but I doubt it would be a huge issue. This could also be enhanced in various cool ways. Of course this will never reach anything near realistic levels, but ATC could simply ask for souls on board for a bit of added immersion and stuff like that. Sure regional accents, different transition altitudes and stuff like that are nice, but I think the points above are so much more important. The worse immersion killer for me is not the way ATC talks, but what it says.

What I don't understand ist that ATC doesn't have a higher priority and is rarely even talked about. Vatsim can't be the answer, since it isn't even available on Xbox. For me this is the biggest issue in the sim by far, yet it isn't even sure that it will be significantly improved at all. How can that be ignored? I mean I hope they at least implement proper vectoring, but there are so many more issues and lacking features. And I don't mean some minor phraseology mistakes. I talk about no interaction in Multiplayer at all. Terrible Issues with altitude assignments, no holds and so on. I know this is a difficult task, but it looks like they don't even understand the importance.

Already did, but with more then 4000 users .... not really working.

I have no experience with that yet, so first step would be for anything to show up. I suspect there is a secondary folder somewhere else. The PMDG DC-6 has full checklists but not in the standard aircraft folder where it's installed. Just need to find it.

I would like to create ingame checklists for the plane, since it is not possible to display PDF files without paid software in VR. Does anyone know where to put the .xml file? I tried to put it under Simobjects/Airplanes/FNX320 and created a Checklist folder there. Then I used the first example from here: https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/Content_Configuration/Checklists/Checklist_Examples.htm But that doesn't show up at all.

But can it play Twitch Streams? Gonna still need OVR Toolkit. 😆

Without reading the entire thread the answer is simple: Yes and no. MSFS on release was much worse then it is now. There are a lot of improvements. But there are areas where there was basically no progress at all. Mainly this concerns the ATC and traffic. I don't know why this takes that long. I know it is pretty complex, but one would think that this core mechanics would be a bit higher on the priority list. I would have at least expected the most glaring issues like rapidfire altitude change requests and ATC simply forgetting I exist to be ironed out until now. For me that is way more important then helicopters and gliders. And the communication is near 0. I think they might have a team working on it, but that's all I know. Also it's just sad that ATC has no multiplayer function whatsoever.

Yeah but full screen mode has other drawbacks. Sad enough that borderless window is not possible. I use that for every game that has it.

There are 3 main problems I see with VR: The mouse is not perfectly trapped in the first screen if you use more then 1 screen. This way the mouse can go along the edge of the second monitor and click stuff there. This in turn can click links, start videos or cause MSFS to lose focus. Then you can't click on anything anymore until you click on the MSFS window again. And often I don't even notice that happening. And since I need the second screen when I don't fly in VR (for example IFR cruise) it is not a good solution to switch it off. This would make the second problem even worse, because it would add even more steps. The second one is VR mode not remembering window size and position. Whoever thought after flying even a single time in VR not to have windows be persistent between flights must be mad. I often fly like this: VR mode, flat mode, VR mode. So nearly every single flight I have 2 set up each window 3 times. And each of them always starts way too small. And then steam VR absolutely tanking performance in flat mode. So you need to end VR and then always close steam VR manually. That could be a Steam VR issue ofc, but is still annoying as hell.

If you are talking about your first flight with the plane and not some random bug, you need to assign a registration number. Go to MSFS customization menu of the aircraft and then replace the "*****" with any kind of number.

Thanks for the reply. I never used P3D so I have no idea how good or bad traffic and atc there is. On your homepage you state that there are limitations caused by MSFS, which I suspected might be the same as for the other ATC programs. But I also don't know what happened with the API in the last few months or what it is exactly capable of. Always happy to have more choice though. Since I fly with offline ATC only that is the area of MSFS that would have the biggest impact for me if done well.

What does this do differently compared to the default ATC and existing third party software? The huge drawback for third party solutions ist, that they don't actually control traffic - they just help you avoid traffic, never the other way around. Also they are ugly and clunky and generally far from user friendly. The problems with the default ATC are well known ofc.

Thanks you for asking them. 🙂 Maybe they could look at how it works for the default planes?

Thanks for the heads up. That's kind of what I expected. Maybe you could do? I know I'm in the minority here, but I actually laughed when I read the manual before purchase about all the small details, especially the possible damage when not braking after taking off to stop the wheels from spinning. So in that context I think it would make sense. It is one of the most detailed planes so far after all. It's not a deal breaker of course, but I had a very immersive flight in the TBM a while ago in VR. I used a a program for random failures that caused the electrical systems to fail. So no instruments beside a small compass and no way to actually extend the landing gear. Aside form actually finding the airport in the Mexican mountains I had to land on my belly, because the plan has no way to exend the landing gear manually. It actually worked out, even though I was way too fast.

I know what a belly landing means, that's why I'm asking. As I wrote it is completely possible on most default planes and I want to know if that's the case for this one too. As it only crashes for me when the front goes down and not when I hit the ground I'm not sure if it's just very difficult or actually impossible.