Author Topic: Vancouver and Orbx NA Land Class  (Read 5206 times)

Charles246

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Vancouver and Orbx NA Land Class
« on: October 14, 2016, 10:37:49 pm »
After several decades of using FSX, I realize that a 32 bit program like FSX, amazing though it may be, something has to give if one keeps piling up the addons and moving sliders to the right.  I use FSX-SE, which I have found to be very stable compared to the boxed version.
 
I have had FSDT Vancouver for quite some time now and have always been very satisfied and impressed with it, regardless of the fact that I have to lower my Autogen density from very dense to normal when using any PMDG products and reduce Scenery Complexity to "dense" from "extremely dense" to avoid getting OOM at CYVR (VAS  with PMDG is >3.5 and FPS <20 even so). With other payware aircraft like A2A C182 and Duke60, I manage to get away with higher settings and slightly less VAS usage and slightly higher FPS. All this using ORBX FTX Global Base and Vector.

Recently however I did install FTX GlobalLC North America with the result of course that at CYVR I get OOMs even with smaller payware and non-PMDG aircraft while my autogen  is not even at its extreme setting.

I have two questions:

1. Are my expectations for CYVR too high? If so what must my Secenery complexity and autogen while still enjoying ORBX LC?

2. Would it help to uninstall FSDT Vancouver and reinstall it with the lowest textures? If yes, would I see a major difference?

My system: I7 980X, 12 GB RAM, GTX780 running on 3 Screens 2 D surround 5760 x 1080. FPS limited to 30

Thank you,

Charles

virtuali

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51443
    • VIRTUALI Sagl
Re: Vancouver and Orbx NA Land Class
« Reply #1 on: October 15, 2016, 12:14:37 pm »
CYVR was the scenery that made user realize memory is not infinite (on a 32 bit sim is *very* limited). The golden rule of optimization says that you should start working on the most memory-consuming items first, because they will give you the greatest benefits.

You already experienced that CYVR was never the cause of your OOMs (since you could use it with higher settings on non-PMDG planes) but of course, if you keep adding stuff, and you are already so close to memory exhaustion, you must lower something else.

Yes, of course lowering the CYVR texture resolution will help a bit (maybe you can sacrifice shadows, since P3D already have dynamic shadows), and the installer will give you an estimate of the memory savings. If this will cure your OOMs or not, it depends how much beyond the 32 memory limit you were: if you were just on the borderline, that might be just what you need, but you are out of a large amount, you must act on something else.

Charles246

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Vancouver and Orbx NA Land Class
« Reply #2 on: October 15, 2016, 06:13:19 pm »
 Thank you for your quick reply Umberto. 

In my case, the most memory  consuming  item  would of course be Orbx.  I would  need to disable land class or maybe Vectors when I am in the area but I will try to lower textures first  and see how it goes.

 I was hoping to get some replies from people who have the same Orbx addons as I do in relation to CYVR.

I use Simstarter to load different profiles and may need to set one up specifically for YVR and the Seattle area.

Dave_YVR

  • Beta tester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 802
Re: Vancouver and Orbx NA Land Class
« Reply #3 on: October 15, 2016, 07:56:32 pm »
 I purposely don't install vector anymore due to it's VAS usage, but I do run all of the FTX regions as well as NA LC, Global and many of their smaller airports between YVR and Seattle. I also use P3d which is much better in it's memory usage, but OOM's can still certainly creep up on you. If you do want to run Vector, try going VERY easy on it's various settings and see what helps with the VAS.

Charles246

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Vancouver and Orbx NA Land Class
« Reply #4 on: October 15, 2016, 09:30:24 pm »
 Thanks for your input . I normally uncheck the Secondary Roads section  which tends to make a difference.  I would hate removing all of it Though.