Last kick at the OOM can

[crash_continental 0]

Hi there,A beaten to death topic, I know, but after trying absolutely everything I know (and researched) to solve my PMDG 747-400/Aerosoft Heathrow 2008 OOM errors, I've finally come here as the last resort. I know PMDG has tested their plane extensively and find no memory leaks, but I wonder is someone from the team can clarify an error message I get from FILEMON whenever running the 747-400:891509 10:50:08 PM FS9.EXE:3976 UNLOCK C:Program FilesMicrosoft GamesFlight Simulator 9PMDG747400gauges.ini RANGE NOT LOCKED Offset: 0 Length: -1 Thanks if someone from the team can help at all.For the record:Quadcore Q6600, 2.42G RAMASUS P5K-E motherboardSamsung 2693HM 25.5" monitor (running fs2004 @ 1920 x 1200 x 32)Logitech G15 KeyboardLogitech X-540 5.1 surround sound speakersSaitek ProFlight Yoke SystemCH Pro PedalsFS9.1AsV6.5 & FSPassengers running.Solutions tried:/3G switch (both boot.ini file and FS9.exe modified)no duplicate AFCADssearch for missing textures (almost impossible to find)pagefile correctly setRebuilding of FS2004- daniel

[MELKOR 5]

That message is not of any concern, and cannot cause a memory leak.FYI: What CAN cause a memory leak, however, is ill-behaved scenery files...- Bill

[crash_continental 0]

Ok, thanks for clearing that up.- daniel

[3-2-1-Now 126]

Hi,I've no OOMEs with Heathrow 2008 and the 747. I've yet to fly TO Heathrow, but certainly flying from it isn't a problem.Note that this is on a clean install of Windows XP SP3, FS2004, Heathrow 2008 and the 747 V1.2.I had an OOME with the 747 at Kai Tak, but that was due to a memory leak bug in the landclass, which removal of the landclass fixed.Best regards,Robin.

[crash_continental 0]

Yes, the OOM is always flying into Heathrow, not out off. Which I guess points to some landclass file somewhere in the area? But I just can't find it. It's so frustrating...- daniel

[Guest D17S]

With the PMDG airplane, I often run above 3g VS. That will take out ANY 32 bit system, 3G switched or not. Ya'll are going to just break down start running 64bit op systems. Vista 64 works fine. That'll give VS 4Gs to work with and it's virtually Impossible to OOM . . . unless you really, really, Really try . . . Like I did:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/190895.jpgVirtual Size is the OOM stuff and WS Private is physical ram. This is outbound from aerosoft's Frankfurt. I was headed to their EGLL, but never made it. If you are really interested in monitoring the OOM stuff, download Process explorer here:http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinte...s/bb896653.aspxThen load up Vista 64 and GoFly.

[3-2-1-Now 126]

...but FS2004 can't handle more than 2Gb - it's a 32-bit Windows limitation.There is definitely something about when the Heathrow scenery loads.I used to get CTDs in the LSH MadDog 2006 simply by flying a circuit and landing on another runway (opposite direction to the departure), but I'm not able to re-create it.I've yet to put FS Terrain 2004 back on the system - maybe it'll start doing it then?Would flying from Schipol to Heathrow be sufficient to trigger it for you? It's a nice short flight to use for testing.Best regards,Robin.

[BAW9DV 2]

Daniel,As someone who has struggled for some time with OOMs using the PMDG 747 for FS9, my first question to you has to be .... "How many scenery add-ons do you have?"For the record, I had about 150 sceneries loaded and showing in the SCENERY.CFG file and in my FS2004 SCENERY LIBRARY list!After all else failed, I began removing sceneries from the Library listing. Just to clear this up, I didn't actually un-install any scenery add-ons I had - rather, I took a screenshot of my FS2004 scenery library listing (so I could see what I had and in what order I had it loaded - ended up with about 9 JPGs!) and then via the FS2004 Scenery Library menu, began DELETING each scenery entry from the library listing, as I did not need it.I removed about two thirds of my installed scenery this way - and noticed an instant improvement! No more OOMs!Now, what I do is I never let my installed scenery - and by that I mean the scenery that is actually loaded into FS2004 via the Scenery Library listing - get too high in number. I still have over 160 or so installed sceneries on my FS2004 installation.Note that I never remove the actual folder scenery installations from my computer's hard drive; They all stay in place. All I do is remove the sceneries (temporarily) from showing up in the SCENERY.CFG and the Scenery Library List, by deleting the entry in the Library List.Now, when I need a scenery back again to fly it, I simply ADD it back to the library list and set it as before (using the JPG images to show me how it was listed).This may help you - it could certainly help if one of your sceneries is badly coded.Good luck!cheers,Lee

[crash_continental 0]

I can create the OOM everytime flying from KSFO or KLAX to EGLL. However, I seem to able to complete flight from KBOS. My head is spinning with all the possible factors involved here...Vista 64? I would desperately like not to move to Vista, if at all possible. I despise the Vista interface; it's on one of the computers in the house and even doing something like finding a file on the computer can be a total exercise in frustration. I hate the menu systems, the way you navigate through files... everything. I even hate the LOOK of it, to be honest, not that that makes much of a difference. The thought of putting out hundreds of dollars for Vista frankly makes me want to retch...However; it seems like the time for fs2004 and XP might be drawing to a close, with all the OOM errors out there...- daniel

[mburkhard 23]

Daniel,try XP 64bit if you don't want Vista.I know I know everyone keeps saying XP 64 is bad, bad drivers and whatever else, but the truth is using XP 64 together with FS9 got me the most stable operation of that sim of all time. A year ago I moved to XP 32 because everyone kept telling me those drivers are so much better... And guess what... I started to get OOMs! I've never had one using XP 64, but with XP 32 I had lots of them.So for me it is crystal clear: XP 32 is NOT capable of running FS9 with all the high-end add-ons out there... it's just not... The days of 32bit operating systems for flight simulations are over. There are just too many complex add-ons out there...Today I'm running Vista 64 for FSX and I'm happy with that, no OOMs at all.Markus

[crash_continental 0]

Okay, so I guess my question for you then Markus, is how is my system likely to to fare with Windows XP, given my above specs. I had thought XP 64 was for AMD machines.What drivers are most likely affected?Thanks for your time, BTW.- daniel

[Guest D17S]

...but FS2004 can't handle more than 2Gb - it's a 32-bit Windows limitation.It's very important to keep in mind that these OOMs have nothing to do with physical memory. Any op system keeps a tally sheet tracking - Projected - ram usage. Each program/process has its own tally sheet. It's called VS (Virtual Size/Space or memory.Take your choice).32bit programs default is 2G VS. The 3G switch take this to 3G. A64 bit op system takes this to 4G with a 32bit program, Finally 64bit ops with a 64bit program takes this to 8Terabits. That ought to do it. The first step is to understand what is ActuaLLy going on. Run Process explorer while you are flying. OOMs occur because of VS, Not physical memory usage. These descriptions of particular airport problems, memory leaks (leak into WhaT?), amount of ram load from addons suggests a more targeted Troubleshooting method might be helpful. (Here's that pic 4G OOM pic from the higher post. Appears the up load feature is working today) http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/190901.jpg

[3-2-1-Now 126]

>> memory leaks (leak into WhaT?)A memory leak occurs when an app requests a certain amount of memory, but then fails to free that memory. The OS forever thinks that memory is taken, even though it isn't. Eventually the OS thinks it has no more memory to offer when the memory request becomes large enough, and BOOM - OOME (or CTD, depending).I thought 32-bit apps were limited to 2G under 64-bit, as they're not coded to be aware of anything bigger? The /3GB is a hack that changes the memory allocation from 2G/2G to 1G/3G memory model. You can run out of addressing space before you run out of actual program memory in that case.In order for FS2004 to see any additional memory over 2G, it must have a flag LARGEMEMORYADDRESSAWARE set in its program header. If it doesn't, it can't use more than 2G.FSX can use 4Gb because it is programmed to do so. Good luck with FS2004. ;)One problem is peoples exuberant use of 32-bit textures. For every object using a texture, the texture itself is copied in memory for that single object. If you use DXT textures, the texture is only copied once in memory, and shared between multiple objects.1) It's faster2) It consumes precisely (tex_size*num_obj)-tex_size less memoryYes, people say there is a deterioration in quality, but you have to be looking for it. I think the trade-off of the very slight drop in quality is more than made up for in performance gain and reduced use of system resources.Best regards,Robin.

[Guest D17S]

That LARGEMEMORYADDRESSAWARE flag is set in the program's exe file to allow it to use additional - Physical - memory, and . . . "It's very important to keep in mind that these OOMs have nothing to do with - Physical - memory. Any op system keeps a tally sheet tracking - Projected - ram usage. Each program/process has its own tally sheet. It's called VS (Virtual Size/Space or memory. Take your choice)."The op system/program team will throttle - physical - memory usage based on what's available (i.e., LARGEMEMORYADDRESSAWARE + opsys version + physical install). Physical memory will never "overfill" and cause an OOM event. I still don't understand if this "memory leak" thing is occurring in physical memory or VS. If it is occurring in VS, this could cause an early OOM. However if it's in physical ram, the symptom would be something else. The program simply would not be able to load something. . . similar having 2Gs of physical ram vs having 4G installed. If you provide FS with additional physical ram, it will use it. Note my pic with FS at 3.3Gs and total system usage at 3.8Gs of - Physical - ram. With 4G installed, I still had room. Note too, that VS was at > 4G. ThaT is what caused the OOM.Conversely, if FS has less physical ram space -- by means of less physical ram installed OR because less physical ram is available from the existing sticks because of one of these "leaks" -- it will simply use less ram. It will NoT OOM.PMDG fliers are especially susceptible to this. If a user is simply tired of dealing with this OOM issue (and the nuance of these techo-babble arguements!), install Vista 64 and 4Gs of physical ram . . . and be done with it.

[3-2-1-Now 126]

I don't remember mentioning physical RAM, nor do I consider this "techno-babble".You are correct - physical RAM has little to do with it. HOWEVER... it has EVERYTHING to do with addressable memory.The 2Gb limitation is per-process I should add.Theoretically the maximum number of processes that can be launched before you run out of heap memory is 2202 processes (or so) on a 32-bit machine.>> I still don't understand if this "memory leak" thing is occurring in >> physical memory or VS. If it is occurring in VS, this could cause an >> early OOM.It makes no difference. If the OS thinks it has no memory left to allocate, it's game over.One problem exists with the swap file being dynamic in size. There is a race condition between a memory request and the swap file being re-sized in time for it to be allocated. Sometimes the memory is allocated before the swap file has been re-sized to accommodate it, and memory errors ensue. By using a fixed-size swap file (set the the maximum size) then this problem doesn't exist.Best regards,Robin.