Demo posibility

Post Reply
StudentPilot
Posts: 6

Demo posibility

Post by StudentPilot » Thu Dec 29, 2016 12:20 pm

Dear Flytampa,

I really liked the scenery by seeing these pictures. I was thinking to purchase these scenery but since I have FSX SP2 I really don't know if it is worth to purchase because it depends all about the VAS which I read that it is really hard and it is not flyable. My question is then: is it possible to have a demo before purchasing because if I buy the scenery and my computer doesn't handle it because of the VAS I will buy it for nothing and that is unfair I think. Will there be a solution for the high VAS capacity?

Kind regards,
StudentPilot
Sydney1962
Posts: 58

Re: Demo posibility

Post by Sydney1962 » Thu Dec 29, 2016 1:58 pm

Hello,

the scenery is top, but it seems that other loaded addons makes the difference.

in fact VAS has only to do with addons that are loaded into memory,
and when they reach to 4GB limit then you have an oom.

have found out that especially ORBX vector and Orbx LC can make around 800 mb extra memory use
when active.

so when you disable them during flights from and to amsterdam , there are no big issues to expect.

rgds.
StudentPilot
Posts: 6

Re: Demo posibility

Post by StudentPilot » Thu Dec 29, 2016 3:16 pm

Sydney1962 wrote:Hello,

the scenery is top, but it seems that other loaded addons makes the difference.

in fact VAS has only to do with addons that are loaded into memory,
and when they reach to 4GB limit then you have an oom.

have found out that especially ORBX vector and Orbx LC can make around 800 mb extra memory use
when active.

so when you disable them during flights from and to amsterdam , there are no big issues to expect.

rgds.
For example: I have NL2000 (I don't know if you know this photoreal scenery of the Netherlands) but do you think that this scenery (FlyTampa Amsterdam) and NL2000 can work togheter without reaching a OOM? I have a 4790K 4.4GHZ and GTX 970 4GB videocard.
emilios[flytampa]
Site Admin
Posts: 1626

Re: Demo posibility

Post by emilios[flytampa] » Thu Dec 29, 2016 5:34 pm

Visually (ie photoreal ground), FT-EHAM and NL2000 should look fine. Performance-wise, it is hard to predict. NL2000, as nice as it might be, is not guaranteed to be performance-optimised to the same level that we have optimised Schiphol. I believe that using both will cause some performance issues. How much performance will be affected I cannot predict, and would depend on which packages of NL2000 are installed and running at the same time as FT-EHAM
Post Reply