[FS Market]. I got it. It took time for my brain to understand. And.. just like that, reading a memo from Virtuali, i have understood that editors and developers will have to fight each other - more and more - for some extra gigabytes. Awful? Delightful?
When a new simmer comes to life and lines up for the first time on a runway, stirred, he starts with a capital of... 4 GB. Nothing more. And that's a limitation of Microsoft FSX. Try any hardware you want, add any ram memory, it will not change anything.
And that is because FSX engine is based on 32 bits processor. ( I understand clear until now ? ).
What the point ? If you want to fly under REX or Active Sky, if you want to fly some Passengers simulation, cockpit - copilot manager - with new traffic and sound environnment and then, use high-end aircraft plus a high-end airport, your FSX will simply throw up some OOM 'Out Of Memory".
FS Dreamteam's point about all of this is that they have developed Vancouver as if you are rooky simmer, flying on some FSX defaut (buuurk) aircraft.
Personaly, i perfectly understand the lesson. They are absolutely right to point out that huge limit. And we will will face it more and more in the next weeks (unless we use... X-plane (and i really don't want)).
But in the opposite, i disagree with the argument. If you sell an airport on the FS market, don't exclude simmers using PMDG NGX or DC9 Coolsky or Aerosoft eXtended or QW Bae146 etc.
And there is probably a question of hierarchy, scale of values. An aircraft first, and the world to explore then. That's the question. And it's up to you.
Good luck and good night !
* * * * *
Extract from Virtualy answer in FSDT foum, CYVR support topic :
" You will not be able to purchase or add ANYTHING anymore, because the more pre-existing stuff you have on the market, which will then fall into the "commonly used addons", the less memory you have for a NEW product, because if this year your FSX config starts at 3.2GB, the next year, if you keep adding things which you pretend to use, all together, without any limitation, your FSX will start maybe at 3.8GB, so ANY scenery added in such situation, even the smallest one, will NOT fit in memory, and you'll blame that poor future scenery developer, that maybe took great care to make a scenery that takes half size of a current one..."
16 comments:
I really hope for Prepar3d 64 bit with Dx11...the market is huge and come on...this is today technology!!
This is just annoying. What's the solution here? Do we "uncheck" what are not going to use for that particular flight so less GB's are used? For example, if I fly from Heathrow to CDG it probably does not make sense to have all of my US scenery add-ons checked right? Am I on the right track here?
Maybe its time to switch to X-Plane or P3D. Switching to X-Plane or P3D, to me, is like going back to FS7 or FS8. So frustrating!
Prepar3d need to pull there finger out & actually improve something.
"I fly from Heathrow to CDG it probably does not make sense to have all of my US scenery add-ons checked right? Am I on the right track here?"
No you aren't ;-)
Every 32bit task gets 4Gb virtual size under 64bit environment. So does FSX.
You should have an eye on what you use parallel to keep FSX insides its limit. Otherwise OOM!
If your fly in Europe, there are maybe some single calls of far away sceneries but this isn't really memory relevant.
What does really help?:
o) LOD settings within 4.5
o) Autogen to normal/ maximum dense, when using NGX or something similar.
o) No HD clouds 1024 (REX) is more than enough, max 5 layers in bad conditions
o) texture filtering: avoid very high AA settings
o) no VFR enhancement like UTX when flying IFR with NGX
o) reduce AI traffic if active.
all this will help lowering memory/virtual size.
i just wish developers would finally switch to x-plane and not shy away because it means learning new things...FSX has reached the end of whats do-able with it
What I do to get rid of OOMs.
1) Use Windows 7 x64
2) Get a Logitech G series keyboard with a LCD screen. Use AIDA64 to display RAM usage.
3) Optimise FSX according to Kosta's blog. My LOD_RADIUS is 5.0 which is good enough for heavy jet flying and a good balance between blurries and too much loading of scenery.
4) Quit all other programs, use iPad to search for stuff if I need anything.
5) Set AI traffic as desired for optimum FPS.
6) Start a flight, get airborne quick and get away from dense payware scenery. (Remember most short haul flights have 25 minute turnarounds so it's realistic to rush.)
7) At TOC, Save panel state and flight. Continue flight or restart if desirable.
8) Turn the "Pause on TOD" switch on or use XPause and set ~150nm from destination. Set time compression and minimise FSX when in cruise as this will cause the graphics engine to stop loading scenery constantly and reduce CPU/memory load, which you'll know with AIDA64. Time to go AFK and watch TV/Surf the web with my iPad/Go out.
9) Pause at TOD. Save Panel state and flight. Restart FSX and load flight.
10) Consider doing the step 9 again before passing the approach transition waypoint.
11) Continue flight, land and park the aircraft. Pray there won't be any OOMs, or if they do happen they will happen after parking the aircraft.
12) Rinse and repeat.
My last OOM was at Orbx AU + Orbx YMML + Aerosoft Airbus X. It happened about 10 minutes after parking. Also remember that you can still continue flying even after the OOM but the textures will stop loading, so don't switch views.
IMO X-plane still has a long way to go graphics wise compared to FSX, it has very poor shaders which can look really ugly. I mean just look at the Alabeo WACO for X-plane, She looked absolutely awful compared the to FSX version. Also I think X-plane is simply far too user unfriendly (learning curve too high) for new users.
... or you could return to FS9 where overheads are just a little lower. :) :)
+ 1
From occasional visits of the P3D forums I get the impression they are VERY far away from a 64 bit version and have to fight with legacy code from FS98 yet (hope they still are able to read it). As far as I understand Version 2 (whenever it will appear) supposedly will be DX11, but certainly not 64 bit.
So far the bad news. And, no, I tried X-plane, but will certainly not convert to it anytime soon.
Regards, Michael
X-Plane is not much better IMO. P3D, I think, would be more preferred by the vast majority of the community than XP.
Eww....
Xplane is still too messy. FSX despite being awful programming, is the overall best.
Typical lame developer excuses, FSDT should stop trying to blame FSX for their resource HOG of an airport,
Dynamic shadows, ask yourself...do you really need that???
Developer should instead focus on making a solid airport one can use for FLYING, not only screenshots
Well, to FSDT's defense, the the defense of all developers, that is part of the fun of development is to push the envelope, to see and make possible what was impossible, to go places others haven't.
To your point though, they must have known about the OOMs during testing, I'm sure they were running ORBX, NGX, REX, etc and knew about the problem and knew it was related more or less to their shadows. Given that knowledge, they should have included an option to enable/disable that feature as pleased, if they'd done that, people would be raving about how awesome they think the CYVR scenery is.
That's just developer irresponsibility, knowing there is a potential problem with different setups and not giving an option of flexibility to cope with it. At the core of the problem, it is an FSX problem, FSX is poorly coded to begin with on top of now being outdated and modern 64-bit hardware able to outpace it to the point of going back to bad performance and OOMs in some cases. But agreed to an extent, it is a developer irresponsibility not to include options for customization where needed, given our platform sim's limitations at the present.
What they are saying is not true, there are simmers with +300GB & they have no problems...The scenery display system is smart enough to only use what is required. As for aircrafts the same, you only load I aircraft not all of them....
What they are talking about is RAM usage. Any 32-bit application, including FSX, will only ever use 4GB of RAM. So the OOMs come when the sim tries to use more than 4GB RAM through complex scenery, aircraft, HD textures, etc. I've never had that problem yet, but they should have allowed options to disable features if OOMs are common. The only other way around that is to use DX10 since it maps data to VRAM differently than DX9, but FSX DX10 still has its own problems.
Post a Comment
Comments are now deactivated. Please visit our new website: AirDailyX.net
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.