OOM epidemic

[cyberpilot]

First of all congratulations to the team for NA SCA.

Wonderful scenery and a most immersive experience.

However, for the first time ever in FSX I'm getting OOMs and they're driving me nuts.

With most  sliders well to the left and traffic turned off I've got the dreaded OOM message anywhere within 20nm of KLAX.

The only flight that has gone without hitch was from San Diego to Catalina Island and that was mostly over water.

Aircraft used have been the A2A Cherokee, Commanche, C182 and Aerosoft A320.

Yes, my system is showing its age but NA SCA is the only ORBX scenery to bring it to its knees.

Guess I will just have to stick to flying in the desert for the time being. 

[Ripcord]

 

For me the biggest improvements have been using DSR with a good video card (I see you have a 4GB card) and disabling the areas where I am not flying.  A few other tweaks but really just one or two that moved the needle at all..

 

 

[VH-KDK]

Had the same issue with the CS777 at KLAX but been able to fly everywhere else trouble free with a variety of aircraft.

The 777 had been a notorious oom troublemaker in a previous P3DV2.4 install but had been behaving itself recently. I shall have to go elsewhere with it and see it the problem persists.

The default 738 was well down in V2.4 at KLAX as was the DC-8-70 but that flight was in V3.0.

 

[Luke Stirling]

6 hours ago, cyberpilot said:

However, for the first time ever in FSX I'm getting OOMs and they're driving me nuts.

[...]

Yes, my system is showing its age but NA SCA is the only ORBX scenery to bring it to its knees.

I'm not sure system specs have a great deal to do with OOM problems. If anything, higher spec machines may end up being more prone, as the user has the freedom to run more stuff in the sim while keeping a decent frame rate, increasing the risk of exceeding VAS.

[bvdboomen]

Guys,

 

I think we have to stop trying to tweak and configure our 32-bit software and beg Dovetail and LM for 64-bit versions. Xplane and DSC already did so.

The time is right especially with the release of SCA with the beautiful but demanding scenery and all those highly detailed add-on aircraft with highres textures and full feature systems. It simply doesn't fit in the 4GB anymore. 64-bit is the way to go despite the chance that we have to replace all existing add-ons.

[Luke Stirling]

18 minutes ago, bvdboomen said:

64-bit is the way to go despite the chance that we have to replace all existing add-ons.

Just the change from 32-bit to 64-bit executables is unlikely to cause issues for very many add-ons. I can imagine it might be an issue for things like FSUIPC, Orbx would once again have to update the objectflow dll, and I'm sure there are a few others. But for the most part I would not expect 32-bit to 64-bit to be a major change from an add-on perspective. Beyond the lifting of the VAS limit allowing bigger and better add-ons of course.

[birdguy]

Nature abhors a vacuum.  So do software developers and flight simmers.  The bigger and faster computers get the more stuff developers try to cram into the new space and the more we flight simmers want.  I think the answer is for we users to quit trying to stuff seven pounds into a five pound bag. 

 

Noel

[RHaas]

The only time I ever got OOM is was due to the aircraft I was flying. For some reason the caranado c210 will give me OOM after about 2 hours and I own several other caranado HD aircraft but they do not cause me OOM. From what I understand there is not much that can be done about OOM.

 

Is Prepar3D 64bit? I'm considering switching over to that the next time I rebuild PC. I am still weighing the pros's and Cons for FSX VS Prepar3D

[Stewart Hobson]

P3D is not 64bit and probably never will be.

[Benny]

Complex addon airplane don't help with demanding scenery. My only OOM lately where in Friday Harbor with more complex airplane-heli, but with more simple plane, all was fine.

Often OOM or bad FPS are with some Carenado that have the glass cockpit.

So far so good in SCA. Over and around San Diego with the BA-146 it's very smooth for me.

 

Ben

[DylanM]

2 hours ago, Stewart Hobson said:

P3D is not 64bit and probably never will be.

Pure speculation on your part Stewart, as no one had commented on the capabilities of V4 and beyond...;)

 

However, what can be stated as fact is that P3D V3 / V3.1 (although still 32bit) is excellent at VAS management and "garbage collection", even over complex regions with dense autogen. Not a single OOM, even with settings on close-to-max.

[Stewart Hobson]

6 hours ago, DylanM said:

Pure speculation on your part Stewart, as no one had commented on the capabilities of V4 and beyond...;)

 

However, what can be stated as fact is that P3D V3 / V3.1 (although still 32bit) is excellent at VAS management and "garbage collection", even over complex regions with dense autogen. Not a single OOM, even with settings on close-to-max.

No argument about P3D's memory management.  But no need to slam someone's opinion as pure speculation, as if there were no basis for the opinion.  If you can produce statements from LM that they are indeed working on a 64bit version of P3D or its successor, then I'll "sit down and shut up", as they say.  In the meantime, I'll stick with my opinion.

[FalconAF]

From my military experience and computer background, I have to agree with Stewart.  LM is developing P3D as a "Scenario Simulator", not a full global World War type of simulator that has to have someone sit in an airplane and fly it 3000 miles over continuous terrain regions.  The difference is a Theatre-wide vs a Tactical-localized scenario.  The geographic "region" for training a fighter pilot only needs to simulate a relatively small patch of earth within that simulation scenario.  Think something like the Nellis AFB Red Flag range in Nevada.  There's no reason a pilot in training would have to take off FROM Nellis AFB in Las Vegas and fly TO the range in the simulation.  Start the scenario with the pilot already in the aircraft AT the range ready to engage targets, etc.  The same concept would apply for naval surface or submarine scenarios, and tactical ground battlefield scenarios.  In this regard, re-coding the entire software to 64-bit for the PLATFORMS the simulation would be running on...a single desktop type computer, or even a network of them like many flight simmers already use to construct realistic home cockpits using projection screens...wouldn't improve the performance of the simulation greatly enough to justify the entire re-coding to 64-bit.

 

DoD users have much more capable networks to produce Theatre-Wide simulations, but the training in those is more along the lines of people learning strategy tactics than actually operating the individual components (airplanes, ground vehicles, etc) within the simulation.  The trainee in that type of simulation would just say, "OK, let's move the Tank Battalion 300 miles from here to there and see what happens along the way."  The computer does the moving, calculates the variables, and updates the trainee as the results unfold.  The trainee never has to "fly" or "drive" anything themselves.  As the results unfold, the trainee reacts to those results with further "strategy" decisions.  LM with P3D is more likely focusing on Tactical sized scenarios in limited sized geographic areas where the trainee can fly an airplane, drive a tank, etc.  Much smaller geographic area for the computer to contend with and process.

 

Commercial users of P3D...like an FBO using it for PPL training or IFR certification training (where permitted by FAA certification)...are going to use it for learning basic skills in localized areas, and not long drawn out cross-country flights.  You don't need a mega computer system to load up an ILS approach at an airport and fly that approach as often as you want.  We can already do that with our current home computers and P3D the way it is now with 32-bit coding.

 

We...the flightsim enthusiasts...are the ones insisting that we should be able to load and USE (all at the same time...*cough* *cough*) 32 GB of scenery with a house on each lot, uber-complex airplanes to fly over it, with hundreds of AI aircraft, boats, and cars, and hurricane weather systems with 10 cloud layers in High Definition we can see for 150 miles.  Ain't gonna happen.  And LM isn't gonna make P3D 64-bit just so WE can do it.  

 

 

[Ken Terry]

If you buy the Vitualcol Dash 8 see https://www.virtualcol.com/products.php?kcmdlnk=productoinfo&id_prod=97

You will have a great plane to fly SCA.

I use the Dash 8 100 it is easy to fly can go low and slow (but not that slow),  great visibility and is easy on frame rates.

Leave the EWPS warning on or you will get "too low"  shouted at you unless you lower your gear down.

Here is a screenshot over San Diego, It is the Dash 100.   Click on for more detail

Regards

Ken

 

[skydvdan]

How much is that Dash 8?  I've been thinking about getting the one from Majestic.

[bvdboomen]

FalconAF, clear words about the LM policy and you could be right about that. Will see it in the near future I hope.

I've read somewhere (don't recall the site) that Dovetail comes with the first new version of Flightsimulator in 2016. Can anyone confirm that?

Maybe the make the step to 64-bit since their product is for entertainment and there already are 64-bit sims on the market.

 

@skydvdan: google Fligtsimstore, FsPilotShop, SimMarket

I typed "Fligtsimstore dash 8 100 300" and the first hit was the product page with price.

[Nick Cooper]

I suggest some research.

The two aircraft are as alike as chalk and cheese.

[skydvdan]

LOL, in the time it took to type all that it would have been easier and faster to just type "20 euro".

 

As for research, I can see the differences. To be honest I'm just looking for something to fly until Carenado updates their planes (skymaster and king air) to P3Dv3.

[Nick Cooper]

Then the Majestic Dash is not for you.

[skydvdan]

30 minutes ago, Nick Cooper said:

Then the Majestic Dash is not for you.

Why do you say that?

[Benny]

1 hour ago, skydvdan said:

LOL, in the time it took to type all that it would have been easier and faster to just type "20 euro".

 

As for research, I can see the differences. To be honest I'm just looking for something to fly until Carenado updates their planes (skymaster and king air) to P3Dv3.

 

OOM is the subject, Carenado with any GPS glass G1000 eats FPS and create OOM, to be honest in regard of FPS Carenado are really bad in that area.

 

The Majestic Q400 is a masterpiece in term of realism.. How this thing achieved to be good on FPS is a mystery.

 

Virtuacol... I won't comment. And yes I bought some and they are out of my hangar.

 

Ben

[Nick Cooper]

1 hour ago, skydvdan said:

Why do you say that?

 

You said   "To be honest I'm just looking for something to fly until Carenado updates their planes".

I doubt if anyone would recommend the Majestic Dash as a stop gap between anyone else's

products.

[ifrevets]

12 hours ago, skydvdan said:

How much is that Dash 8?  I've been thinking about getting the one from Majestic.

P.C. Aviator has the one Ken Terry mentioned  on sale for US $13.17 until the end of Dec. I think. You might also get an extra 10% off if you get it on "10% Off Tuesday

 

http://www.pcaviator.com/store/product.php?productid=20405&cat=0&page=1

[TigerTigerM]

1 hour ago, ifrevets said:

P.C. Aviator has the one Ken Terry mentioned  on sale for US $13.17 until the end of Dec. I think. You might also get an extra 10% off if you get it on "10% Off Tuesday

 

http://www.pcaviator.com/store/product.php?productid=20405&cat=0&page=1

FSPS currently has it at USD12.90 so there are deal about for it.

 

Its not Majestic quality or complexity/functionality, Majestic being top of the line, but its not shabby either.

With 4 models & in excess of 100 repaints provided, I thought for that price, why not try it?

Very pleasantly surprised.

Cockpit is way better than the Vcol Dornier 328-110X, it handles nicely & 1st thing I did was park 95% of the repaint textures in the hangar drive.

I can then move the textures back  & forth at whim for the FSX Aircraft Selection panel, rather than swamping it with all of them.

I also dropped in the WeFly Works A/P-GPS that TFSS sells for a very reasonable $8 or so, & now I can put it on AP & sight see NA SoCal.

For the price, its worth checking out, IMHO

TTM

[Ken Terry]

I was not trying to say the Vitualcol Dash 8 range was as good as the Majestic Q400, all I was doing was answering the topic which was about  - how to reduce or eliminate OOMs.  I cannot imagine the Majestic Q400 would reduce OOMs.

The Vitualcol range is what might be called the "lite" version of the Dash 8, but it does have the 100, 200, 300 and 400 models.

Ken

[skydvdan]

Thank you all for the recommendations.  For the price the virtcol Dash 8 sounds like it's worth checking out.  If I like it I'll move up to the Majestic.  I really need Aerosoft to release their CRJ though.  Once all updates to installers are made by developers I believe OOMs will be a thing of the past if you have upgraded to P3Dv3.x.

[Stewart Hobson]

54 minutes ago, skydvdan said:

Thank you all for the recommendations.  For the price the virtcol Dash 8 sounds like it's worth checking out.  If I like it I'll move up to the Majestic.  I really need Aerosoft to release their CRJ though.  Once all updates to installers are made by developers I believe OOMs will be a thing of the past if you have upgraded to P3Dv3.x.

No offense, my friend, but do you believe in the tooth fairy, too?

[Luke Stirling]

14 minutes ago, Stewart Hobson said:

No offense, my friend, but do you believe in the tooth fairy, too?

Surely 640K ought to be enough for anyone.

[Stewart Hobson]

1 hour ago, paralipsis said:

Surely 640K ought to be enough for anyone.

LOL!

[Matthew Kane]

If I am flying the PMDG 777 using FSDT KLAX  I would disable the full fat regions and just use global base and vector, because to be honest if you are flying a 777 you should be focused on flying and the systems and not the scenery. This decreases chances for OOM to nothing for my system.  If I was low and slow flying around Los Angeles in a Cessna then I would use SCA turned on and enjoy the scenery. It all depends on what you want to get out of your simulator.

 

Consider PMDG 777, FSDT KLAX and FTX SCA may be asking too much so focus on the 777 and turn off other things

[skydvdan]

6 hours ago, Stewart Hobson said:

No offense, my friend, but do you believe in the tooth fairy, too?

No offense taken, I'm trying to be a glass half full kind of guy these days.  Are you already getting OOMs with P3Dv3?

[Jon Clarke]

1 hour ago, ytzpilot said:

If I am flying the PMDG 777 using FSDT KLAX  I would disable the full fat regions and just use global base and vector, because to be honest if you are flying a 777 you should be focused on flying and the systems and not the scenery. This decreases chances for OOM to nothing for my system.  If I was low and slow flying around Los Angeles in a Cessna then I would use SCA turned on and enjoy the scenery. It all depends on what you want to get out of your simulator.

 

Consider PMDG 777, FSDT KLAX and FTX SCA may be asking too much so focus on the 777 and turn off other things

 I am not answering the original post here but adding to the flow of the discussion that has evolved:

Totally agree with ytzpilot's comment quoted above, and have said several times the same thing regarding trying to fly detailed airliners over FTX highly detailed scenery packages. I don't see the point, you don't see the products details, which is what you are paying for, at 30000+ft. Much better to use Global or Photoscenery for detailed flying and FTX regions for low and slow visual flying. SCA is I agree the most detailed and system hogging Region to date and don't know anyone who has managed to fly the KLAX area with their settings any where near their normal settings. If you have to have all your settings to the left and no traffic, then there is no point in having SCA, as what you are seeing is nothing more than ground textures which would be better served by something like Megascenery Southern California, or equivalent. Even traffic at 2% will create havoc as there are dozens of airports wthin the traffic generating radius which will all activate as you sit at KLAX runway. Rememeber with something like MT6 traffic is generated within about 150 miles of your current location. That's a hell of a lot of traffic in the KLAX area and beyond for the system to handle.

[Stewart Hobson]

6 hours ago, skydvdan said:

No offense taken, I'm trying to be a glass half full kind of guy these days.  Are you already getting OOMs with P3Dv3?

I appreciate that--I try to be the same, too.  And no, I'm an old school FSX guy and don't fly jetliners at all, fly mostly GA, low and slow, along with twin engine excursions on longer, mid-altitude flights.  Rarely have OOMs because I avoid the situations that cause them.

[Stewart Hobson]

6 hours ago, ytzpilot said:

If I am flying the PMDG 777 using FSDT KLAX  I would disable the full fat regions and just use global base and vector, because to be honest if you are flying a 777 you should be focused on flying and the systems and not the scenery. This decreases chances for OOM to nothing for my system.  If I was low and slow flying around Los Angeles in a Cessna then I would use SCA turned on and enjoy the scenery. It all depends on what you want to get out of your simulator.

 

Consider PMDG 777, FSDT KLAX and FTX SCA may be asking too much so focus on the 777 and turn off other things

Absolutely agree!

[cyberpilot]

Interesting thread guys but the discussion seems to have wandered away from my original post!

Having persevered with NA SCA (with sliders to the left and frames locked to 30 fps) I find it impossible to fly in the LA basin without an OOM or slide show frames of around 5/6 fps.

Anywhere else is pretty acceptable, especially in the desert regions.

But as someone who bought SCA largely to fly low and slow around the myriad airports in and around LA I must confess to feeling somewhat short-changed.

Clearly VAS is a major issue with this scenery, especially for those of us with less than optimal systems.

Perhaps thought could be given to spelling out likely VAS usage (or whatever) before products are released so that folk can make an informed decision on how it's likely to run on their systems and whether they should buy it.

A simple traffic light code would be good - "green" good for all systems, "orange" good for high to mid range systems, "red" only good for high end systems.

I know we all have vastly different systems and such a code may be seriously misleading but whatever the case we should be given fair warning before buying scenery about what demands it's likely to impose on our set ups.

To be honest if I had known beforehand that my set up would struggle to run NA SCA I doubt that I would have bought it.

Interested to hear what others think.

 

 

 

[Luke Stirling]

3 minutes ago, cyberpilot said:

Perhaps thought could be given to spelling out likely VAS usage (or whatever) before products are released so that folk can make an informed decision on how it's likely to run on their systems and whether they should buy it.

A simple traffic light code would be good - "green" good for all systems, "orange" good for high to mid range systems, "red" only good for high end systems.

 

 

 

That assumes VAS issues are solved by high end hardware. They are not. It's a software constraint, not a hardware one.

 

VAS problems essentially boil down to which sim you are using, how much stuff you have running in the sim, and how it's configured. Throwing more CPU, GPU, or whatever else at the problem doesn't solve it. That'll help with your frame rates, sure, but not VAS.

[Triplane]

18 hours ago, paralipsis said:

Surely 640K ought to be enough for anyone.

 

It's true. Bill Gates said it. I saw it on the internet.   -   Doug

 

 

 

[birdguy]

Cyberpilot here are my observations posted earlier under the heading of Flight from Tijuana.  The flight starts just south of San Diego, crosses the Los Angeles basin, and ends up at Burbank up in the Valley.  I only have the North American FTX regions installed...nothing else.

 

After getting all of Orbx North America installed I decided to test Southern California with a flight from Tijuana to Burbank.  It went very smoothly and was very satisfying.

 

I flew at 4,000 feet on a GPS flight plan from Tijuana to Burbank with a waypoint at Palomar airport.  My weather was set to fair with a fair amount of clouds up to 80km.  Traffic is only Orbx NA GA traffic.

 

Frame rates at takeoff were 35-49

Abeam downtown San Diego and across San Diego about  25-30

Past Miramar they climbed to the 45-55 range and stayed there until I got to Santa Ana

At KSNA frame rates dropped to the 35-45 range and as I approached downtown LA  25-35 with momentary drops to 14-15.  But stayed mostly at the high end.

Crossing the Hollywood Hills on approach to Burbank they went back up to 30-35 all the way to my landing.

 

It's about a 45 minute flight.

 

I noticed  three or four short skips or hesitations crossing the LA Basin.  One as I approached downtown LA lasted abut 3 seconds.  That was the longest one.

 

I noticed no scenery or terrain anomalies during the 45 minute flight.

 

My system...

 

Azus MB

i7-4790K@4GHZ

16M RAM

NVidia GeForce GTX 970

Windows 7 Pro 64bit 

 

And before I begin a flight of any length at all (30 minutes or more) I shut down and reboot my computer.

 

I've come to the conclusion that FSX has a gross weight limit.  I took off everything except the scenery I regularly fly along with My Traffic 6 which I tried and then discarded.

 

Noel

 

[Benny]

My OOM started with Friday Harbor and heavy demanding plane. So yes we have something different here and maybe new.

 

But for the exception of Carenado equipped with their demanding G1000 GPS, most other plane that I fly (and film) look more then decent.

That include the Q400 and the BAE-146

 

I wonder if your 3gig CPU is the problem??? Just saying. My rig is 4+ yo and still handle pretty much anything.

 

Ben

[Doug Sawatzky]

2 hours ago, cyberpilot said:

A simple traffic light code would be good - "green" good for all systems, "orange" good for high to mid range systems, "red" only good for high end systems.

I know we all have vastly different systems and such a code may be seriously misleading but whatever the case we should be given fair warning before buying scenery about what demands it's likely to impose on our set ups.

 

 

 

 High end systems do not prevent OOM's...if anything they increase your chances of getting an OOM....