Hmmm indeed.Lee, you're the best!Loving the new TCAS btw.Rob.

Good point, Andy, and not inarticulate :)I have both issues. The VC framerate decay issue (which is the most severe), and the long load times in 2D- although my frame-rates in 2D are similar to PIC or the PSS stuff (other complex panels). But it takes forever to load, I'm not sure why. Thanks,Bruce.

Hey Lee me too!You are a God sent!Also to: Andy RallsThere is no need for people to say me too, me too, me too...For problem findings that are not rejected by the crowd!I too have swinging and changing FPS, that I stated as one of the first...I flew my bird and with no visual changes, the FPS still swung from 3-18 stayed at 18 and then down again...That made my plane stutter...So there is an updating problem, if you ask me, because I have no problems with using the panel all of the time, it just downspirals sometimes, which is equally unflyable...Now I really need that manual, because I want to read it now that I can't fly the plane...Boaz...

"There is no need for people to say me too, me too, me too..."And how are PMDG supposed to know that a problem is general and in need of their attention if people don't say "me too"? If only 3 or 4 people note a problem, and the rest just sit in from of their machines, nod sagely, and say " gee, I hope they fix that", how much of a problem is it going to appear to the developers? Saying "me too!" is EXACTLY what you shoulod be doing if you have such a significant problem.

I agree with Andy about that.Now I have already talked to Lefteris Kalamaras about the following, and he promised to look into it, but I think that it is good if all multi-monitor users would let the team know that it concerns them too.:-wave What I'm taking about is the fact that the some of the undocked windows (the throttle quadrant) has a black space around it making it difficult to place it on another monitor next to the FMC.It should be possible to release a cropped bitmap for multi-monitor users. If added to that was an altered panel config, so when opening the overhead panel, the main panel would not close, I (and other multi-monitor pilots) would be very happy. :+ I tried to crop the bitmap myself, but then I get an "unregistered" warning in the panel (isn't anti-piracy taken a bit too far here ???).:-roll ...In the meantime......... curious for that manual.:-bla

OK. I just registered EXPLICITLY to say this clearly, with best wishes, and withgodspeed to PMDG:I have TWO PROBLEMS that need resolving:1. VC is impossible with 512MB2. 2D cockpit struggles severely without VC and my system trashes like something on heatgood luck PMDG, u are supported

I'll add that I have 1GB o' memory and am experiencing the same problems listed here. I'm doing this just to give another voice, but I'll wait patiently for a fix to this problem. Chris [email protected]

Vin, thanks for joining in. If I 'make it sound like a conspiracy' then that is my mistake, for I intended no such thing.I merely do not understand why no reply from PMDG, apart from the one I mentioned in my first message in this thread, has ever addressed the problem of base memory usage of the 737TNG. The simple question that I have posed in many threads in the Forum, and pose again, is this:Will PMDG please acknowledge that the 300+Mb memory needed simply to start the plain, non VC 737-600, is an accepted problem that will be addressed and fixed?I ask this each time with slightly different words, but always with great respect and with utmost politeness, as I do now.Unless we're all missing something, I and others have read everything in the 'top of the forum', many times, and this question has never been answered by PMDG. All the material there relates to problems with the VC; this does not. It is a separate issue that, for those people who are affected by it, unfortunately makes your product almost unusable.I hereby declare my own contributions to this topic at an end, since I admire the rest of what you've achieved enough to go out and buy enough main memory not to be affected by the problem. Selfish, maybe. Sorry. I intend to go flying, virtual and real, instead of measuring memory and composing long Forum messges. :-waveThanks in advance for your response - Pete

Pete,Couldn't this actually be the root cause of the VC problem though? If the plane were loading the gauges again when you switched to the VC, memory usage would rise again - I'm going to check this in a second, but if the gauges in this panel work like the ones in the Flight1 Meridian, they have to be called up again for each window they appear in, including the VC. I ended up disabling all the VC gauges (esp. the Garmin) in the Meridian in order to get a smooth framerate. If each panel view on the NG calls them prior to the VC, then that might explain the 300MB usage - the M Z and A views all have to call the PFD and ND, which I assume are the most complex gauges on the panel. (the autopilot control code too I'm sure)The wierd thing is that I don't have a framerate problem per se with the NG in 2D only mode, it's only when I switch to the exterior view and it goes to load the textures for the visual model that I get the chop. I've been gaming for a very long time and I know the difference between low FPS from an overworked CPU and FPS chop from texture thrashing to virtual memory - this is definitely the latter.Ryan

Hi Have you tried to increase your page file size if you run XP from recommended size to say 1000mb min to 2000mb maximum.I did this and greatly improves loading time. Regards Paul Cooper

Hi Pete and all,very interesting reading and well done for taking the time to arrive at this deduction. I tried a similar (well, sort of ) test and compared the effect on available RAM and the size of the page file after loading various aircraft.Here's what I found. Free RAM before loading FS2002 was 785Mb and page file size was 148Mb. BTW, I increased RAM to 1Gb last week.AircraftFree RAMPage File SizeCessna 182RG617Mb317MbPSS747576Mb373MbDF737568Mb362Mb767PIC548Mb380MbPMDG737 No MAIN gauges loaded305Mb608MbPMDG737 Normal293Mb653MbFrom this it can be calculated that the load bearing over the default Cessna is 324Mb on available RAM and 336Mb on the page file. So by installing another 512Mb of RAM and extending the page file by 350Mb over current settings it should (in theory) be possible to negate the effects of the memory drain. Interesting to note the comparative readings against the 767PIC, DF737 and the rather ancient PSS747 which looks very economical in comparison.What is puzzling though is even ignoring the extremely large PMDG_737NG_Main gauge there is still a large consumption of memory by something else. Did you notice that there is a debug window commented out? This gauge is embedded in the Main gauge and I wonder if it's having any negative effect? Those lines should have been removed before release really.All very interesting and hopefully PMDG will get to the bottom of it soon.Cheers,

Yup, I'm sure they know about all of this (they made it!) and are workign on a fix as we speak...Ryan

I'm not sure Free RAM means what you think it does. If you load 767PIC and then back to the Cessna, it will remain low. It does not mean memory has been leaked, because Free RAM goes down when disk data is cached in memory. Disk cache can be reclaimed by programs as needed. In fact, Free RAM is wasted memory; it would be better used caching something you might need again soon.You can see in your example how Free RAM goes down monotonically. Reverse the order of your testing after a fresh reboot and you would conclude that the Cessna uses the most memory. Try it.Lee Hetherington (KBED)

Yeah Lee's exactly right - notice on my tests earlier in the thread how the memory usage does go down when switching back to the C172, but never back down to the original level - this is because it's not fully clearing the cache.Ryan

Hi Lee,<>Okay, I've tried it but what I'm seeing isn't what you're predicting. It's difficult to take an immediate snapshot of free RAM when changing an aircraft because XP is reasonably efficient at freeing up unused memory. I loaded them in reverse order and here are the results. Same description as before: -AircraftAvailable RAMPage File sizePMDG282632767PIC573354DF737567363PSS747530417Cessna 182RG561370I took the readings within 20 seconds of the aircraft being loaded and I used the Available Physical memory value in XPs Task Manager and although they're higher they're not a million miles away from the original numbers.The reason I took these measurements was to show that the other high-quality aircraft/panel offerings were reasonably consistent in the amount of memory they consumed comapred to the PMDG but I guess we already knew that. I just wanted to measure the difference. Your suggestion that the Cessna would use the most memory doesn't seem proven. I don't think there's much more I can add to this now - I'll just wait for the patch.Cheers,