FSDreamteam CYVR Vancouver is out!

[Robert McDonald 167]

I can once again 'suggest' that OOM victims consider RAZER GameBooster. You can close out those various and sundry processes that load up without you even realizing it... and gobble system memory and cpu. GameBooster will make recommendations toward Windows services that can be safely shut down, and other add-on programs that may be loading at boot time that are unneeded by FSX.

 

Even a PC that is used 99.9% for FSX has extra software that 'creeps in' over time. My fastest PC is my FSX platform. So when I wanted to run a BluRay Software program (PowerDVD 12) - it was a no-brainer to install it onto the FSX machine. Guess what? 2 services load up at boot time that are related to PowerDVD! And other software does the same time. That's why over time, a machine runs slower and slower as things pile up in the task manager! When you're pushing your box to the max with FSX - I say "KILL THE UNNEEDED STUFF!", and that's how I got onto GameBooster.

 

With GameBooster, you have a "launching screen" that you add desktop icons onto, you start up GameBooster, highlight, for example FSX, and then click LAUNCH. GameBooster kills those memory eaters, closes unwanted processes, and then flushes out your system ram, then starts FSX. With GameBooster I feel I'm getting maximum use out of FSX and having far less issues than I might have otherwise. Also, it's FREE. Free is always OK with me! At the end of your FSX session, when you close FSX, GameBooster restarts those processes that you asked it to kill prior to starting FSX.

 

I tried DX10 and it made my game look bad. The shimmering alone was a deal-breaker. To make sure, I re-enabled it and tested with FSDT CYVR. No dice.

 

I have automobiles shut off, same with boats. I can live without the cars making sudden abrupt 90 degree turns - and driving through each other at intersections. In my opinion, the highways and vehicles in XPLANE are wonderful, and I mightily wish FSX looked that good! The "plausible world" of XPlane? Not a fan. I greatly prefer scenery that matches what you would be seeing if you were airborne on final for 28L at KSFO San Francisco!

 

That said, my goal is to make FSX as pretty and sharply rendered as possible. Unacceptable are system lockups (including OOMs and Blue Screens) and poor graphics quality (shimmers, artifacts, tearing).

 

It's true enough that this hobby almost FORCES a person to work at a fairly high level of computer expertise. Most of us got sucked in little by little, we bought this scenery or that texture pack, and went "wow" and so we started building a 'house of cards' in terms of add-ons. Those who 'drop out' of our obsession likely are 'fed up' with spending more time 'tweaking' (their FSX setup) instead of actually 'flying' the simulator. I have often thought of throwing my stuff in the dustbin, especially after an unexpected CTD or OOM in the middle of a 4 hour long-haul flight!! Patience is NOT my best quality! I simply enjoy flying so much that I continue to abuse myself and suffer sleepless nights working through the surprises that you never expect!

 

As has been said by many here in the forums, we are building on an aged and unsupported platform (FSX) that has fallen far behind all the 'new generation' video games in terms of software coding.

 

The lack of 64-bits is a HUGE issue that will likely never be solved, or if it does happen, it may be in the very distant future, if Lockheed Martin elects to take Prepar3d to the 'next level'. 32-bits locks the maximum memory available, even to those running 64-bit Operating system, because FSX itself is 32-bits, not 64. Were FSX to be available in 64-bits, if running Windows 7 64bit, your FSX "world" could address virtually ALL of your system RAM, in my case, 16gb, NOT 4. Others have said sloppy coding might quickly 'eat that up', but I honestly think that 64-bits coupled with DIRECT X 11 support would be a game-changer. Throw in support for the new-age high-end Video cards (including support for SLI) and boom! Things would be so much better!

 

As a former software developer, 're-inventing the wheel' when it comes to a world-wide simulation game is a monumental task, likely far outside the financial resources of all but a handful of major companies (like Electronic Arts, as an example). Given what we now know is a very small market share as opposed to the shooter games like Battlefield 3, Grand Theft Auto, Assassins' Creed et. al - there is no motivation for ANYONE to make that sort of commitment. The numbers just don't work. The failure of Microsoft FLIGHT reinforces this argument. If Microsoft couldn't make FLIGHT work - 3rd parties trying to build a killer 64-bit flight-simulation platform on the "now generation" of hardware probably would decline to even try.

 

I think the likely outcome may be that Laminar Research (who already has a 64-bit version of XPlane X in BETA) may offer the greatest possibility of an ultimate solution, but because Laminar is a small player versus the gorilla developers, the process will be slow and gradual, and the pilots actually flying their software are acting as field testers to aid in the evolution of their product platform. Long-term? Laminar. Short-term? We are stuck helping each other, with resources like Word Not Allowed and the other AVSIM members who generously share their own troubleshooting successes and failures - with a view to minimizing the shared pain that is caused by trying to make a silk purse out of sow's ear.

 

Considering what I've spent on my simulator, I would have achieved greater realism by investing those sim dollars into GA Flight Training at my local airfield! REALISTIC scenery and NO OOMS! Putting it a little differently, in real-life an OOM often results in a REAL aircraft crash! (You "forgot" to lower the flaps at takeoff, "forgot" to turn on the landing lights, "forgot" to remove the Pitot covers... in other words, you had an Out of Memory error!) Sigh.

[megs8888 20]

+1 For Razor Game Booster!

[HighTowers 1,436]

The failure of Microsoft FLIGHT reinforces this argument. If Microsoft couldn't make FLIGHT work - 3rd parties trying to build a killer 64-bit flight-simulation platform on the "now generation" of hardware probably would decline to even try.

 

Im not to sure about that. Flight was a failure because FSX becoming an arcade game. The majority of followers to FSX are hardcore simmers who like the real experience, and so do all the addons, which take things in a lot more serious manner than an arcade feel. I didnt even bother to download Flight. MS decided to even keep it to Hawaii as their own flight store for addons. No possibility of addons aircraft like PMDG. This will not fly (pun intended) to the majority of people who wouldve paid for it. Thats the way MS decided to take FSX to the next generation. Cutting alot of corners and appealing to xbox and casual gamers who might be curious to fly. Useless in my opinion.

 

If they wouldve been serious and made flight a 64 bit program while allowing all the addons to continue to be developed, we would be discussing Flight right now and it would be a relative success, because im sure all of you wouldve jumped to buy it. Its simple. Shame on Microsoft for dumping all its loyal followers since MS flight simulator inception.

[Richard Sennett 2,499]

FSX becoming an arcade game. Who would want to buy a flightsim arcade game not many why did they even bother makes no sense.

[Richard Sennett 2,499]

Quoting post above mine Word Not Allowed

[Robert McDonald 167]

Word Not Allowed is right.

 

This thread was to do with the release by FSDreamteam of the new CYVR scenery and some users then chimed-in, reporting Out-of-Memory (OOM) errors after adding that scenery to their mix.

 

Discussing the comparative merits between actual simulation platforms (FSX/Flight/XPlane/Prepar3d) belongs in a different thread.

 

The amount of available RAM memory in 32-bit games has created a 'hard ceiling' resulting in OOM errors.

 

Crashes resulting from adding this new airport, combined with other add-on scenery and texture packs, real time ATC and weather, plus high-end 3rd party aircraft could be mitigated by 'the next gen' of flight simulation. Word Not Allowed is right however, that is off-topic from "FSDT has released CYVR!" and such chatter deserves and belongs in its own thread. To be fair, though, I totally love Virtuali's products, and regard CYVR as one of the best add-ons I have acquired. If I have to make some other adjustments to my settings to accommodate CYVR, I'm happy to do it.

 

What's great about AVSIM is that we can share suggestions with one another on how to best work-around some of these problems caused by the add-on stuff, and those who have gone before us and resolved some of these issues are kind enough to share their fixes and work-arounds!

 

Word Not Allowed and a great many other AVSIM folks provided me with a smoother flight experience! +1 for AVSIM staff and members!

[HighTowers 1,436]

FSX is becoming an arcade game? You must not be serious.

 

Besides, this thread should be either locked or brought back on track. Things are getting way out of hand.

Quoting post above mine Word Not Allowed

 

Oh yeah my fault. poor writing on my part. Meant to say Flight failed because it was an arcade game.

 

Anyhow, CYVR is a beautiful airport with this release. Lucky to those who can run everything and now have an OOM with it. Enjoy!

[Ben Cap 89]

OK fine, so you prefer to have no addons at all, or only bad quality addons, which take minimal resources, so only that you can cramp up your FSX with hundreds of them? Sorry to say, I'd rather have 1-2 quality addons, than 100 bad ones. The current FSX platform is not going to change, and that you have to accept. P3D is another story, let's leave that out of the picture for now. My 2c.

 

Is there something in the water....?

[Richard Sennett 2,499]

Yah dont worry Dave no big deal.

[Ben Cap 89]

And it is by far FSDT's worst scenery so far regarding performance (on my system). And I have almost everything from them (except Zurich and the two Hawai regional airport packages). It is even worse than (the until now worst of all) KJFK.

 

Same issue here... And I've got no weak system. I warn other users out there to try the trial before blowing 40bucks on an FPS/Memory hog.

 

It's unfortunate that FSDT is always telling us things like "Dynamic Shadows, Little to NO FPS impact". - Well.... when you cram tons of buildings and 4096 textures and a million other features into an old inneficient platform, you create a scenario in which not even $1500 computers can even run your scenery on acceptable settings.

 

You defeat the purpose of flying into the airport when you are looking at a pretty slideshow of images refreshing on the screen in front of you. I also have no idea why developers continue to cram so many FPS hogging features into sceneries and aircraft and somehow expect everyone to burn through their wallets building high end systems just to achieve mediocre FPS.

[Rocky_53 1,593]

Yup, I thought I'd join the OOM flying club! Yup, four times in the space of an hour, each time during my preflight checks. Eventually getting airborne through switching off the heavy rain... urgh... Sad, as I've never experienced any OOM errors before, except with XP 32bit...

 

Same issue here... And I've got no weak system. I warn other users out there to try the trial before blowing 40bucks on an FPS/Memory hog.

 

It's unfortunate that FSDT is always telling us things like "Dynamic Shadows, Little to NO FPS impact". - Well.... when you cram tons of buildings and 4096 textures and a million other features into an old inneficient platform, you create a scenario in which not even $1500 computers can even run your scenery on acceptable settings.

 

You defeat the purpose of flying into the airport when you are looking at a pretty slideshow of images refreshing on the screen in front of you. I also have no idea why developers continue to cram so many FPS hogging features into sceneries and aircraft and somehow expect everyone to burn through their wallets building high end systems just to achieve mediocre FPS.

Absolutely :good:

[Ben Cap 89]

 

Yup, I thought I'd join the OOM flying club!

 

Despite this new release, I feel these issues are collectively symbolic of the community and our platform. I genuinely fear for the integrity of our future.

[RudiJG1 172]

Can't help but feel that some self-discipline as regards scenery settings, AI traffic settings, HD textures, etc would help the prospects of FSX's future. The sliders are there for a reason.

[altstiff 71]

Yes, setting texture max load to 2048 made a world of diff in the VAS used for me at least....

[cmpbellsjc 2,963]

 

 

Same issue here... And I've got no weak system. I warn other users out there to try the trial before blowing 40bucks on an FPS/Memory hog.

 

It's unfortunate that FSDT is always telling us things like "Dynamic Shadows, Little to NO FPS impact". - Well.... when you cram tons of buildings and 4096 textures and a million other features into an old inneficient platform, you create a scenario in which not even $1500 computers can even run your scenery on acceptable settings.

 

You defeat the purpose of flying into the airport when you are looking at a pretty slideshow of images refreshing on the screen in front of you. I also have no idea why developers continue to cram so many FPS hogging features into sceneries and aircraft and somehow expect everyone to burn through their wallets building high end systems just to achieve mediocre FPS.

 

I agree. I wish FSDT would go back and maybe simplify a little bit to make performance a little better of their last two airports. I have all of them and for me KDFW was their last great one in terms of performance vs. airport size for me. LAX is not that bad but doesnt perform for me as well as KDFW does in a comparison with no AI and clear weather. For me that makes KDFW their last great large airport before they started to get too fancy.

 

I commend FSDT for finding innovative ways to get away from "old" code and improve performance, but when you take the performance savings and then pack more features into the airport, you end up getting less performance than if you had just stopped at the performance saved line and not added in more.

 

I have not got Vancouver yet, but am seriously considering skipping this one after all the posts I have seen regarding its performance and memory usage. In all of FSDTs releases this is the first one where I have seen so many people complain about its performance. Usually with their airports its just the opposite.