md-11 oom errors

[Guest Knikolaes]

>Which addons don't work in 64. I only use 64 and everything>works-EVERYTHING. Usually when something is not compatible I>check to see what they say about it- cause maybe there is a>way and then if they don't have that they usually release a>compatible version within a couple of months, but evey addon I>have seen will work with 64.Do the Flight1 installers work with X64? The last time I tried was about a year ago and the license keys generated for some reason didn't recognize and F1 even told me it was because I was trying to run them E-Commerce in an x64 OS. However if that is changed then awesome.Now the wrapper enables you to log in to activate the product instead of validating license keys, so i wonder if they work now in Vista 64? If that's the case, I will HAPPILY uninstall FSX and reinstall on a 64 platform. 8GB of memory may just be the cure for this.<<>> Forgot to add -- a little over a year or so ago I also had similar issues with FSD installers in 64 bit.

[tfm 184]

I did a complete uninstall and reinstall of all my FSX stuff yesterday. The results are a little good and a little bad.I installed in this sequence: 1. FSX > Accel > MD-11 > FSInn. Testing on that setup I could not trigger any black screens.2. I then added Aerosoft Heathrow X and repeated the test. Again, I could not trigger any black screens.3. I then added Ultimate Terrain X Europe, updated to the latest version and repeated the test. This time, I could trigger black screens relatively swiftly.Disabling UTX (which I had tried previously, of course) did NOT make the problem go away. I had to use a system restore to get back to stage 2.Could be pure coincidence, but monitoring memory use from Sysinternals shows that once Virtual RAM (EDIT: actually "Virtual Size" in Sysinternals) gets to over 2Gb I'm almost certain to have a black screen - although sometimes it can get to ~2.1Gb without a crash. Put differently: I am not aware of having had this problem while Virtual RAM (EDIT: actually "Virtual Size" in Sysinternals) shows under 2Gb.Choosing between the MD-11 and UTX Europe is a tough call but for the time being that seems to be the only option for me.Maybe UTX is somehow to blame, but I feel very unsure about that possibility because it never gave problems with the Level-D 767X. I suspect a more likely explanation is this: if RAM is a camel's back, then the MD-11 is the half-ton bale of hay sitting on top of it; and something else (which in my setup just happens to be UTX) is the last straw which breaks it.Anyway I've spent as much time I am willing or able trying to sort this out. I hope PMDG will look at it seriously just in case there is something that can be done at their end.Tim

[Guest D17S]

"Virtual Memory?" What's the Specific column's name in Process Explorer? I'm not seeing any columns with that name.

[tfm 184]

Sam: I don't have it open in front of my bleary eyes right now, but from one of your own screenshots I see you're quite right: it's actually labelled "Virtual Size" not "Virtual RAM". I hope I have not caused any confusion but sorry if I did. (EDIT: and I've now corrected the original post).Tim

[Guest D17S]

No problem. I thought it might be that, but "Virtual" can mean virtually anything these days. If you're running 32bits, double check the switch 'took' and the FSX/SP2 is correctly loaded. Non-problematic VS ops @ < 2Gs with a switched 32bit-er or a 64bit op system is an operating system function.

[tfm 184]

I thought I'd mentioned that I'm on Vista 64 but for someone as disorganised as me it's difficult to keep up with all these posts so sorry if not. Obviously a 32-bit system would just be asking for trouble!Incidentally, even on Vista 64, you can force the OS to boot with the virtual memory switch (or whatever it's called) set to "on" using BCEDIT or (more easily) a little free utility called Vista Boot Pro. I've tried both with and without this switch forced "on": no difference for the black screens problem.Tim

[stevenp 1]

>>Which addons don't work in 64. I only use 64 and everything>>works-EVERYTHING. Usually when something is not compatible I>>check to see what they say about it- cause maybe there is a>>way and then if they don't have that they usually release a>>compatible version within a couple of months, but evey addon>I>>have seen will work with 64.>>Do the Flight1 installers work with X64? The last time I>tried was about a year ago and the license keys generated for>some reason didn't recognize and F1 even told me it was>because I was trying to run them E-Commerce in an x64 OS. >However if that is changed then awesome.>>Now the wrapper enables you to log in to activate the product>instead of validating license keys, so i wonder if they work>now in Vista 64? If that's the case, I will HAPPILY uninstall>FSX and reinstall on a 64 platform. 8GB of memory may just be>the cure for this.>><<>> Forgot to add -- a little over a year or so ago I>also had similar issues with FSD installers in 64 bit.Works fine for me. Go and try it. It will work.

[Guest Knikolaes]

>>>>Do the Flight1 installers work with X64? >>Works fine for me. Go and try it. It will work.Okay I tried an experiment. Installed FSX into Vista Ultimate 64 bit. Installed Flight1's C172R without a single issue. If my FSD installers have the same success I am switching to 64 bit exclusively. I also installed the MD-11 with no issues at all. Before I install any scenery add-ons at all i am going to run through a long series of tests with this, and run the tests between each add-on install. Maybe i can narrow it down to a specific conflict.Chris

[stevenp 1]

Good well at least its going good so far with vista 64.

[Guest Knikolaes]

>Good well at least its going good so far with vista 64.At this point I am going to start thinking this is a conflict with another add-on in 32 bit windows.After installing, I decided to make my maiden flight a simple 5 hour flight to hawaii. I am now an hour into the flight and decided to randomly start switching windows, switching between full screen and windowed mode, and exploring internal FS menus (such as display settings). I just did all this without a single glitch and on 32 bit windows even with all the patches I crashed the sim less than 20 mins into the flight just by accessing the menu or switching to another screen.In 64 Bit windows i have NOT done any of the tweaks mentioned in this thread. No manual editing of any sort has been done. This is a virgin FSX with the only add-ons installed so far being the MD-11, Flight1's C172R and Eaglesoft's Piper Twin Commanche. My current display settings are as follows:GRAPHICS - Ulta High + Anistropic Antialiasing running at 1680x1050x32AIRCRAFT - Very Low (basically kill off shadows. Don't need em and they interfere with AI traffic at detailed add-on airports from the Mega_Airport series).SCENERY - Medium High (I only use Ultra High for GA flights)WEATHER - Ultra HighTRAFFIC - Ultra HighSo far all is well. I'll post again once at PHNL and shut down on the ground. At this point I cannot say add-on conflict or just 32 bit windows issue, but since 64 bit user(s) above reported the issue as well, i think we need to start coordinating and finding if all of the folks having issues have one particular add-on in common . . .<<>> Forgot to add. When in Windowed mode I glanced at my sidebar gadget for CPU Usage. FSX is indeed utilizing both cores effectively at 80-100% (for some reason in 32 bit it kept trying to use only 1 core) and my physical memory usage with the sim running at cruise altitude is 53% steady with only 2 2GB sticks installed (I wanted to test this on 4GB of memory to mimick the approximate available amount in 32 bit). Going to LOVE to see this with all 8 GB installed, but I hope this helps in troubleshooting here for other users.

[stevenp 1]

You will never have a problem with 8, but the only thing thats limiting you is that cpu. Get a new one and you will go much faster.

[B777ER 2,492]

Lots of good work happening from the users here to nail this down. Curious to know if anyone from PMDG is actually looking into this issue?

[Guest Knikolaes]

>You will never have a problem with 8, but the only thing>thats limiting you is that cpu. Get a new one and you will go>much faster.So far so good. I am now 4 hours and 19 minutes into the flight and just did another round of menus, windowed modes and alt-tabbing. Still siting at solid 53 percent memory usage and no crashes. Everything is smooth as glass.I agree on the processor bit. I just found a halfway decent upgrade I'd like to do. Thinking of switching to a dual LGA-771 mobo with dual LGA 771 quad cores. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16813121330and . . . . . . two of these . . . http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16819115044Along with this:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820231183Liquid cooling comes to mind at this point. And a second mortgage. It'll be next summer with an extra job to pay for this one.At least for now switching FSX to the 64 bit OS seems to be making a huge difference in performance. Heck, without tweaks I am getting better rates than 32 bit OS with FSX tweaked to the max. No OOMs yet on the MD-11.

[Guest D17S]

Couple of things to keep in mind. 1) FSX frame rates are influenced - only - by the clock on core 0. The other cores (2-4 or 2-8) only help with the scenery loading chores. I really expect an octi-core machine would not provide even a perceivable improvement over a quad core.2) A 32 bit Program is limited to 4Gs of ram usage under - any - circumstance. Vista 64 only allows this 32bit program to use that 4Gs of ram. However also remember that OOMs are caused by the op system's prediction tally-sheet number, VS. This VS number always leads physical ram loads. I OOM'd FSX on Vista64 right on schedule at a VS of 4.001G VS, but a ~ 3.3Gs physical ram load. A user will Never get to (even) a full 4Gs of physical ram use by a single 32bit program, regardless of the total amount of ram installed in the system. The 32bit - Program - will OOM long before this 4G/physical ram load is reached. That additional +4Gs of ram (to 8 total) will Not help any single 32bit - Program - . . . including FSX.

[Guest Knikolaes]

>Couple of things to keep in mind. >>1) FSX frame rates are influenced - only - by the clock on>core 0. The other cores (2-4 or 2-8) only help with the>scenery loading chores. I really expect an octi-core machine>would not provide even a perceivable improvement over a quad>core.>>2) A 32 bit Program is limited to 4Gs of ram usage under - any>- circumstance. Vista 64 only allows this 32bit program to use>that 4Gs of ram. However also remember that OOMs are caused by>the op system's prediction tally-sheet number, VS. This VS>number always leads physical ram loads. I OOM'd FSX on Vista64>right on schedule at a VS of 4.001G VS, but a ~ 3.3Gs physical>ram load. >>A user will Never get to (even) a full 4Gs of physical ram use>by a single 32bit program, regardless of the total amount of>ram installed in the system. The 32bit - Program - will OOM>long before this 4G/physical ram load is reached. >>That additional +4Gs of ram (to 8 total) will Not help any>single 32bit - Program - . . . including FSX. Oh wow. interesting. So noted then. So what's a good recommendation for a processor that would be perfect for FSX?