Running out of memory

[Gary A 8]

>Thank you guys, I'll try my best to fix it.I used the 3/GB switch because I had to. Choice is not fly FSX or put the switch in, simple as that. I agree the switch shouldn

[Sharrow 0]

Well, I happen to run my entire graphic design business during the day on this same machine. Every moment it is down is a very big issue for me. Some are lucky enough to afford two separate rigs. Sure, if you only got basic stuff on your machine then by all means tweak and hack away.My point is that a lot of tweaks and hacks have the potential to mess up your machine. Some seriously! Throw into this mix xp SP3, a quad core, DDR3, high FSB speeds and things can go south in no time. I'll bet you that a lot of these OOM errors are simply folks with over ambitious autogen, scenery complexity and/or weather settings, especially with complex addons.In my opinion lowering expectations/sliders just that little bit is the much better long term fix for OOM errors.All I ask is that folks add a "Use at own risk" warning when suggesting these types of fixes. That's it. :-kewl Konrad

[Gary A 8]

>Well, I happen to run my entire graphic design business>during the day on this same machine. Every moment it is down>is a very big issue for me. Some are lucky enough to afford>two separate rigs. Sure, if you only got basic stuff on your>machine then by all means tweak and hack away.>>My point is that a lot of tweaks and hacks have the potential>to mess up your machine. Some seriously! Throw into this mix>xp SP3, a quad core, DDR3, high FSB speeds and things can go>south in no time. I'll bet you that a lot of these OOM errors>are simply folks with over ambitious autogen, scenery>complexity and/or weather settings, especially with complex>addons.>>In my opinion lowering expectations/sliders just that little>bit is the much better long term fix for OOM errors.>>All I ask is that folks add a "Use at own risk" warning when>suggesting these types of fixes. That's it. :-kewl >>Konrad>Konrad, good point it is always user beware. I think that most know or should know the inherent risks of playing with anything on their computers. I play with all sorts of computer settings that I shouldn

[Sharrow 0]

The trick, in my case, is to do the learning without the reformatting!Gaming on a work rig - why not? I go through about 4 AAA games a year on this machine. Crysis all on high at 1600x1050 purrs like a well fed kitten. Been doing it for more than a decade now without any major hassles. Installed xp (willingly) only about 3 times since release for major system upgrades only. I kid you not - it takes me 3 working days to re-install everything I need from scratch. Obviously I have extensive backup systems and seperate hard drives for mission critical stuff.FSX, by itself is one thing. FSX with 774X and a few scenery addons is something else entirely. The elixir you refer to will probably be 2nd gen Nehalem quad core at 3+GHz (8 cores with hyper threading), 4 to 8 GB of 2500+MHz DDR3 triple-channel RAM with Vista 64bit SP3. Oh, and FSX SP3 at least, if not SP4. End of 2009..?I suggest you go Vista 64 bit for your next re-install (not included on your Vista install disk?). I doubt you will see any OOM's there. I am looking at Vista 64bit for my next (voluntary) install. Gives you a whole new OS to tweak and subsequently re-install...! ;) Konrad

[Sharrow 0]

>Yet another side note: MS actually recommend the 3/GB switch>for certain server applications and at least one AutoCAD>manufacturer suggests its use for certain circumstances. >Think HP or IBM recommend it under certain circumstances as>well, and correct me if I am wrong but I believe Aces>recommend it as well to correct the OOM issue. Certain server applications sure. Whether Aces recommend it is a very interesting question. If MS does not support it for general use I see no way of Aces doing so (at least officially) for FSX?Konrad

[RPRIEVER 52]

Well, this was an interesting thread.....I also booted up FSX this morning for a 747-400X flight, and had the same problem...."Computer has run out of available memory......" I have a Dell XPS 410 with a 250g hard drive (more than 100g free space), 4g ram, and a Nvidea 7900GS card. All other apps seem to be running normally. I tried rebooting, but got the same error msg. So, this is obviously not an isolated problem. I'll monitor this thread to see if anyone comes up with any other solutions.Ron

[Sharrow 0]

Hi RonNo, not an isolated case at all. FSX + 744X (or any complex addon) + very high settings = potential OOM errors. I guess anyone here could replicate them if they tried hard enough - I know I certainly can if I push things.Solution for most OOM errors:1. Turn down autogen/scenery complexity/ai traffic etc.2. Turning LOD down may help as well.3. Water effects on low to mid4. Try with CO display disabledAlso check your virtual memory/paging file settings (lots of posts about this here)Then there's always the 3GB switch of course... (obviously at your own risk!)My understanding is that very few folks, if any, experience OOM's with 64 bit OS and 4GB RAM. No real mystery why that should be so...Hope this helpsKonrad

[Gary A 8]

>>Yet another side note: MS actually recommend the 3/GB>switch>>for certain server applications and at least one AutoCAD>>manufacturer suggests its use for certain circumstances. >>Think HP or IBM recommend it under certain circumstances as>>well, and correct me if I am wrong but I believe Aces>>recommend it as well to correct the OOM issue. >>Certain server applications sure. Whether Aces recommend it is>a very interesting question. If MS does not support it for>general use I see no way of Aces doing so (at least>officially) for FSX?>>KonradJust an FYI, Aces may not recommend it but they certainly aren't opposing it either. They did put the large address flag on SP2, see Phil's blog here:http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007...ress-space.aspxand:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...99256&mode=full

[Guest D17S]

Anyone with a 32bit op system AnD 4Gs of physical memory (sans the 3G switch) is Especially vulnerable to OOMs. Additionally, the second 2Gs of physical ram will NeVer be used by FS under this configuration. So, do NoT install 4Gs of physical ram for a FS dedicated box (32bit op system/sans 3G switch). The game will not use it anyway. Remember, OOMs are caused by a 'stratch-pad' number the op system tracks as a physical ram usage forecasting tool (call it VS for lack of a better term). If a 32bit system has 4Gs of physical ram, it will see ~3.5Gs . . . and so will the program. The program will see there's plenty of physical ram available and tell VS "I'm gonna want more of that free ram in a little bit." VS will obediently schedule that future use. Additionally, VS always runs above the current physical ram usage. Between these 2 dynamics, VS will then ramp above 2Gs and bamm, OOM. Physical ram usage may still be at only 1.5Gs . . . but the 4G user still had fully 2Gs of physical ram available. What's up with that? Dis is what's up with dat. However, with only 2Gs of physical ram on board, it is less likely VS will exceed 2Gs for the FS application. After all, FS is competing for physical ram just like the op system and other processes. The op system Does know how much physical ram is on board and will divi up this physical ram as it sees fit. In this case, there may only be 1.5Gs of physical ram available - At All - for FS to covet. VS will look at FS's current physical ram usage, and forecast from there. The further FS's physical ram usage stays away from 2Gs, the Less likely VS will schedule above 2Gs (and OOM the game). If a 32bit user does Not want to use the 3G switch try1) Reducing physical ram to 2Gs. Anything above 2Gs of physical ram will not be used anyway (for FS). As soon as FS gets close to 2Gs of physical ram usage, VS will go Above 2Gs and OOM the game. 4Gs of physical ram onboard only makes OOMs MoRe likely. It will NeVeR be used (by FS) and thereby provide No advantage (to FS). 2) Burn up some physical ram with some other (non-CPU intensive) app. If the physical ram is Not available (by whatever means) FS will not tell VS to schedule it.But a 64bit op system is still the real answer. This will take the bar to 4Gs/VS. OOMs can still occur at 4Gs/VS, but it takes some real determination.

[3-2-1-Now 126]

>> If a 32bit system has 4Gs of physical ram, it will see ~3.5Gs . . . >> and so will the program.I experienced this first-hand when I did some testing with it.I made FS2004 CTD very quickly in this config, doing nothing in particular.The reason is to do with memory mapping in the 64-bit config.My board has two modes: memory re-map on/off.When operating in 64-bit mode, it wants to be set ON. When the POST runs and displays the memory available, it shows 4096Mb available.If I run a 32-bit OS in this config with 32-bit apps, because it was never intended that 32-bit apps run in the memory space above 2Gb, when the OS says "yeah, I got the memory", it is inadvertently assigning memory that isn't usable.The app goes to make a memory write, but it is stopped by the OS. Boom - OOME or other memory fault (I got write errors).When I reconfigure the board for 32-bit OS, when the POST runs, it shows I only have 2688Mb of memory installed. This is for two reasons:1) The memory mapped I/O is occupying the top part of the memory (in the upper 4Gb of the address space)2) 32-bit OS can't handle memory above the 2.6Gb boundary for running programs (I presume due to architectural limitations).In this config, no problems ensue. Note that the BIOS "reserves" the upper 1408Mb of "memory" for other functions (it takes those address lines for hardware and other I/O).If your system is reporting 4Gb of memory with a 32-bit OS, I suggest you have a scout around your BIOS looking for a memory remap feature. It might be called different things depending on your BIOS. You should find the system is more stable after changing it.Best regards,Robin.

[Sharrow 0]

>>Konrad>>Just an FYI, Aces may not recommend it but they certainly>aren't opposing it either. They did put the large address>flag on SP2, see Phil's blog here:>Hi GaryI had alluded earlier to seeing this 3GB switch discussed at "high level" (such as Phil Taylors Blog, MS support) and I have read most of them. To this moment there is little (if any?) information with specific reference to XP SP3. Does it change anything? What about quad core/fsb/ram stability with this switch on?You can see my specs below and I had MAJOR issues with this switch, to the point where XP, even in safe mode, was totally inacessible. For a number of reboots I could not get past the initial POST screen to access the BIOS. Once finally in I had to load default settings and only then could I get in XP Safe mode to remove the switch from my boot.ini file. All this on an otherwise rock solid system (OCCT overnight stress test passes no problem).One final thought: Do you reckon MS can "afford" to allow XP users access to more than 3odd GB of RAM? This kind of functionality removes one of the last real reasons for moving to Vista 64 bit. Even if this switch had worked for me I would probably stress everytime MS issued any patch for XP or DirectX etc.Konrad

[3-2-1-Now 126]

>> One final thought: Do you reckon MS can "afford" to allow XP users >> access to more than 3odd GB of RAM?What happened to XP x64?I want to get my hands on that OS to give it a thorough work-out.XP Pro SP3 is rock-solid and danm quick!! If XP x64 is anything like it, I'm moving for sure! All the benefits of 64-bit with XP performance.Best regards,Robin.

[Sharrow 0]

>XP Pro SP3 is rock-solid and danm quick!! If XP x64 is>anything like it, I'm moving for sure! All the benefits of>64-bit with XP performance.Drivers are a potentially very big issue with XP 64bit, especially going forward. The XP 64bit install base was historically very small and the new surge of 64bit users are pretty much all Vista. I see you are on Vista 64 bit already, can't imagine why you would want to try out XP 64bit? I am on the verge of moving to Vista 64bit myself and would not for a second consider moving to XP 64bit.Konrad