One more thing you don't know me, I be mad?
I can't recall claiming that.
But:
You give us an actually measured number:
fgfs.exe: memory consumption, 3 gigas, 680 megas 132 kb,
and then you proceed with
one thing became very clear if i continue in the FG, my next computer will have 32 gigas of memory to run " clean", "soft", with '"only" 28 or 24 gigas.
that is, no bug, since you have 16 gigas of memory ram
Numbers don't mean anything to you apparently. I say I have 8 GB, yet you quote me with having 16. Okay - it's only a factor two, so why waste time on such trivial issues? You report you need 4 GB, and then you claim you're going to need 32 in the future - well, that's a factor eight appearing out of nowhere.
I don't know about you, but for me numbers mean something, and if we're going to find out whether something is odd, it matters whether it's 4 or 32. You can't randomly change the values.
I can take one more example of you steering this discussion away from being productive:
I'm telling you that visibility is the
single most decisive issue in memory consumption because it goes with visibility squared. Next thing you do is show a screenshot which has no info on visibility settings and none on memory occupancy. You report memory consumption for a single flight - yet if on that flight visibility was initially bad and then increased a lot, you can observe memory to double. Conversely, if visibility is initially high and then gets bad, you can see that it goes down.
Memory consumption is a complicated problem, and it depends on a number of variables. Which is what I try to explain to you so that you assemble information which actually means something. But apparently you want it to be simple, you already 'know' that something 'must be wrong' and you want me to confirm that. But I can't do that, because I understand that the problem is complicated. So you blame me for this.
Ask yourself how reasonable that is.
There's been lots of discussion on memory usage on the mailing list, Rebecca has done a number of benchmark tests, I have done my own set, there's been a number of memory-saving features introduced - all of that means, we have fairly good data and a decent grasp where memory is going, and moreover, we know what questions to ask. You're probably unaware of all of that effort.
But it doesn't matter - since you already 'know' that something is not right. Isn't that the case?
but I've seen you here in discussions with punkepanda lose the course of conversation.
Um... so your case that this is all somehow my fault is my interaction with a rather abusive user who has managed to be so disruptive that he was temporarily banned from the forum? Really? Think again.
Anyway, if you want this to be productive, try to understand why we need benchmark tests to understand anything and why your reported memory increase might mean anything since the confounding factors aren't under control.