or just install Vista 64 and 4Gs of physical ram. . . and be done with it.

OK, so...Is it wise for me to install XP 64 on my machine? It's an investment, and it seems only to be able to run EGLL2008 and the PMDG 747-400. But if it has a reasonable chance of working out, I will do it.(Must admit, I can follow these debates for a little while, and then get completely confused...)- daniel

Yes. However Vista 64 is the more modern 64bit op system. I have it installed and it has presented no problems. As you saw, it IS possible to OOM a 64bit op system running a 32bit program, but you must really, really try. I was staggering along with the PMDG 744 at 2FPS with everything maxed. This was a Proof of Concept, Intentional OOM engagement. For all practical purposes, a 64bit op system will - Stop - OOM events with current 32 bit software titles. However it will not fix other (FS) problems that can cause all other kinds of havoc. For instance, I expect the OP is experiencing other situations. I agree this stuff can get deep, quick. Sometimes it's just better to cut to the chase. Everyone . . . . Use a 64bit op system. It's time.

>> or just install Vista 64 and 4Gs of physical ram>> . . . and be done with it....or not. FS2004 under Vista 64-bit for me at least, is a full 40 FPS slower for the same settings.With the Queen at Heathrow 2008, I get a cool 80-100 FPS under XP. Vista? Try 30-40. :( I'm actually enjoying the VC in the Queen for a change.It's a no-contest for me (and no OOME either).Best regards,Robin.

Hi,OK - I've flown Schipol (Cloud 9) -> Heathrow (Aerosoft) several times now with the 744, and it will not OOME. I can only conclude there is something else on your system besides the aircraft and Heathrow scenery that is causing an issue. :(Do you have traffic add-ons? Do you have AI traffic enabled (I don't).Memory usage in the descent, and in visual range of the airport was 1.07 Gb (according to TaskMan). On the tarmac just after shutdown (but other systems powered), 1.06Gb.I have a full 1Gb to play with. I'm going to leave it flying overnight (Kai Tak -> Heathrow) in the 744, and I shall report back tomorrow.Note that this is under XP Pro SP3. Note also that Kai Tak has a known memory problem, but I've removed the offending landclass.Best regards,Robin.

Ok thanks guys for all your input, I do appreciate it. Robin: I do have AI traffic enabled, which is a pretty big hit, but I find the sim lifeless without it. I don't think EHAM - EGLL is much of a problem for OOM, but Kai Tak - EGLL might be. In the meantime, should I perhaps install XP SP3 for my current system? I've heard so-so results... (I'm XP SP2 right now).I'm going to mull over the 64 bit OP very seriously now, even Vista (although I hate the awful Vista interface).- daniel

>> should I perhaps install XP SP3 for my current system?DEFINITELY!! I'm running it and it makes a lot of difference to the performance of the OS (although I do cut it down anyway, so I'm only running the things I really need). Print Spooler is history etc.. :)Vista isn't all it is made out to be. Yes the memory management is better (that's because the actual management is different, and not just because it is 64-bit - that only affects how much memory can be addressed).I've been testing it quite heavily for the last couple of months, and my verdict is that it is useless for gaming. FSX is probably the only thing that really benefits as it was designed to use the memory in the first place, but other than that, I've generally found Vista to be detrimental to gaming by a significant margin.Falcon in Vista = fixed at 60 FPS (interestingly, the monitor refresh rate) yet on XP - 300 FPS. I think that says a lot about the video subsystem in Vista.FS2004 in Vista = ~30 FPS at best with the 744 at Heathrow. 80 FPS under XP for the same settings.For office stuff I think it is actually an improvement over XP (seems better to work with in that context), but XP is definitely ahead when it comes to gaming in general. :)It seems some people don't rate 3DMark2006, but Vista scores approx. 50% of XPs benchmark result. Take that how you want, but compared to "real-world" testing, I've found it to stand true.Right now, memory usage is standing at 1.062Gb for FS. System usage = 1.23Gb, so plenty left there.Under XP the memory is limited to 2.688Gb, so it has over 2.5Gb of memory to play with before it has to consider the swap file.I've yet to disable the swap file on XP, but on Vista it is disabled. I'll disable it later and shall let you know.Best regards,Robin.

CTD.Mem usage by FS2004 = 1.3Gb. It occurred immediately as the Heathrow scenery should have been visible.I think we need to contact the (scenery) devs and see if we can get a fix for this.The only add-ons in my sim are:* Kai Tak (with the memory leaking landclass removed)* Cloud 9 Schipol* Heathrow 2008* PMDG 744 (V1.2)The 744 isn't the only aircraft with which I suffer CTDs with this particular scenery. I think it is the approach lighting that's the cause.Best regards,Robin.

That's exactly when it happens to me, and exact same memory usuage. The aerosoft forum was the first place I went, but no joy there either. They are, however, open to possibilities - even if they think it's probably PMDG and LevelD's fault. There are a lot of people having this problem.Many have blamed the AFCAD, with the ILS freqs being the same for both ends of runway and backcourse enabled. This is, I assume, because the OOM usually happens around about the time the PMDG is autotuning the ILS freq. Perhaps it's also when the lighting systems pop into view?Would be nice to have you put in your two cents worth there, too, with a new thread.- daniel(p.s. if I can find it in the scenery, I'll try and remove the approach lighting files and see what happens)

I got sick of trying to fix OOM errors with band aid fixes on decrepid WXP...moving to Vista 64 abolished that problem. No trouble with the add-ons, RC4, ASX, PMDG 744x, Fs2Crew, FS Commander 8.3, Track IR4, Saitek Yoke and pedals, all working fine.