P3D question to FSDT & iFly.

[alexzar14]

I'm duplicating this on both support forums...

At present, I use FSX+accel. I started a flight KJFK-PHNL (FSDT scenery) with iFly-747. Loading at the gate with Ultralight than selecting the airplane I want to fly, ASN active and configured as VAS-friendly as possible.
iFly-747 is being loaded with about 700mb VAS remaining and within 5 minutes it goes down to 300 VAS and the OOM signals are heard. This is not something new and was always the case for the two greatest monsters combined at one point: FSDT-KJFK + iFly-747 (note: the performance is ok! 17-20fps, but VAS...).
My settings are not maxed but it doesn't really matter with VAS, except for one setting that makes it possible to take off in an iFly-747 from FSDT-KJFK (it helps in general), and it is the Global Texture Resolution setting which I had set to "High" (rather than "Very High"). Then of course I restart in flight to free up the VAS. Lately I reset my Global Texture Resolution up to Very High because I had enough flying in compromised VCs with reduced texture quality. Have to restart the flight anyway so... however this way you can't take off in an iFly-747 from FSDS-KJFK.
Another note: PMDG-777 being less VASy can take off from JFK, with awesome VAS leak but it can. As for yesterday's flight, I revised it to KBOS(FT)-PHNL and took off alright.

Now to the point: being a bit tired with VAS issues I am considering going to P3D. I will keep FSX (no panicing really) plus P3D.
Question: is P3D-V2.5 really that better in VAS usage? I hear this on various forums but how serious it is? Would it guarantee me an ifly-747 take off from FSDT-KJFK?
I am asking this because, if the improvement is minimal and not really THAT serious, then I won't even start with P3D (I don't have that much time) and will keep FSX.
If however there is an improvement indeed, I'll go to P3D with FSX to remain. Please advise.

[virtuali]

iFly-747 is being loaded with about 700mb VAS remaining and within 5 minutes it goes down to 300 VAS and the OOM signals are heard.

You mean the airplane eats up 400 MB in 5 minutes AFTER it has being loaded ? That sounds like a memory leak to me.

This is not something new and was always the case for the two greatest monsters combined at one point: FSDT-KJFK + iFly-747 (note: the performance is ok! 17-20fps, but VAS...).

FSDT JFK is fairly LIGHT scenery, not nearly a "monster". The problem is likely the REST of the N.Y. area, instead.

My settings are not maxed but it doesn't really matter with VAS, except for one setting that makes it possible to take off in an iFly-747 from FSDT-KJFK (it helps in general), and it is the Global Texture Resolution setting which I had set to "High" (rather than "Very High"). Then of course I restart in flight to free up the VAS.

The Global Texture Resolution won't save you that much VAS. It's more like a VRAM issue, which also has an impact on VAS, if you use DX9, that's why we always suggest to try DX10 (and JFK V2 is fully compatible with it), because it will save you VAS when you need to load lots of textures.

However, the settings that consume the most VAS are, instead, the "Level of Detail" of the scenery, the Autogen Density and the Scenery Complexity. Acting on these, will save you WAY more VAS than lowering the texture resolution.

Another note: PMDG-777 being less VASy can take off from JFK, with awesome VAS leak but it can. As for yesterday's flight, I revised it to KBOS(FT)-PHNL and took off alright.

If the iFly 747 consume MORE VAS than the PMDG 777, I'd say there's really something strange about it.

Now to the point: being a bit tired with VAS issues I am considering going to P3D. I will keep FSX (no panicing really) plus P3D.

Question: is P3D-V2.5 really that better in VAS usage? I hear this on various forums but how serious it is? Would it guarantee me an ifly-747 take off from FSDT-KJFK?

I think its main advantage is that it DEFAULTS to DX11 and doesn't even run under DX9, that's why it's likely got a better reputation for better VAS optimization. This, and probably some bugs that has been fixed along the years. But a more fair comparison would be against FSX under DX10.

If you are not using DX10 with FSX, because you have some  addons that runs only with DX9, the issue will be the same with P3D 2.5, just that you cannot switch to DX9 there.

[Frank Lindberg]

I can second what Umberto just wrote about Ifly 747. I've uninstalled it and will never installed again. And I can also confirm that DX10 (steve's fixer) does help a bit regarding Virtual Address Space (VAS)

I can't understand why people start attacking the scenery developer for OOM's. It ain't the problem. Please google OOM's and FSX...

[alexzar14]

DX10! Thanks. As a matter of fact I just bought Steve's Fixer yesterday.

The other thing I figured (it was advised) - FTX Vector eats a lot of VAS. I thought, this is one thing I can give up when flying airliners (can't give up on scenery, aircraft and ASN, but Vector).

Yesterday I disabled the Vector and loaded the iFly-747 at the gate of JFK and woolla! 1.2 Gig constant, I took off ok with no leak.
So I assumed this success was awing to disabling Vector but by then I already had the DX10 fixer installed, so it might have ben that too.
Now I don't know what was really responsible for my success in greater degree (DX10 or Vector-OFF). Gotta do 2 experimental flights, one with Vector-on and one with off.

[alexzar14]

FSDT JFK is fairly LIGHT scenery, not nearly a "monster". The problem is likely the REST of the N.Y. area, instead.

Yes that's correct. Same thing with London and I think Miami.

[Frank Lindberg]

DX10! Thanks. As a matter of fact I just bought Steve's Fixer yesterday.

The other thing I figured (it was advised) - FTX Vector eats a lot of VAS. I thought, this is one thing I can give up when flying airliners (can't give up on scenery, aircraft and ASN, but Vector).

Yesterday I disabled the Vector and loaded the iFly-747 at the gate of JFK and woolla! 1.2 Gig constant, I took off ok with no leak.
So I assumed this success was awing to disabling Vector but by then I already had the DX10 fixer installed, so it might have ben that too.
Now I don't know what was really responsible for my success in greater degree (DX10 or Vector-OFF). Gotta do 2 experimental flights, one with Vector-on and one with off.

It's not DX10 ;-)

[alexzar14]

A success!
FSDT JFK to KMIA (LatinVFR) with no OOM, Vector-disabled.
A bit upset to give up on Vector, but...

By the way,  on approach to KMIA at about 16000-18000ft I noticed a leak in VAS from a GIG down to 700 presumably because of KFLL, must have had it disabled for that flight. I guess I have to disable either of these two every time I use the other.