Hi. My system is as in my 'signature'; I run FS9 on XP/SP2. Performance is generally good, but I am beginning to regret only having chosen 1GB of RAM (2x512) for my system. As is so often the case, FS9 gradually drains the system resources (with huge collusion from Windows XP of course!) and by the end of a long flight frame rates and performance in general are nowhere near as good as when I started up FS9.I am debating whether to replace my 2 x 512 modules with 2 x 1024 MBs, so I have a totla of 2GBs. Would it be worth the expense though? I have been looking at my Task Manager performance information, but can someone tell me if I am interpreting it correctly? Although the Peak Commit Charge value never exceeds the Commit Charge Limit, it does exceed the Total Physical Memory. Which I assume means it is using the Page File (1.5GB) and I could therefore use some extra physical RAM. This is a screenshot of the Task Manager readings (with FS9 running):http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v68/martinlest/TM.jpgAdvice welcome. Would more RAM mean better FS9 performance?Thanks,Martin

Hi Martin,funny you should ask this, Only recently I replaced my graphics card because the old one, a ATI X800XT PE was going south on me,I went for an Nvidia 7800 GS with 512 on board DDR3 RAM, and that DID make a huge difference to FS9.1.I also replaced my two sticks of 512, and opted for 2 sticks on 1 gig as you mentioned.This also made a big difference too, you will not see this specifically in FS as such, but what you WILL see is a big improvement in system stability because it now has double the resources, and it will handle multiple windows better than ever before.you will also see marked improvements in the way FS handles having FS Nav and SB3 running, and the screen re-draw etc.and with RAM at the price it is now, you will make a good system better.I hope this helps you in making your decision Martin.All the best.

Thanks for the comments (and quick reply!). I rang 'Crucial' earlier and they said that I could always return the RAM within 30 days for a refund if it didn't help. I'd best get that in writing, but sounds as if I've nothing to lose, but quite a bit to gain.M.

I have what sounds like exactly the same laptop. I run FS9 comfortably within the 1GB physical RAM limit...but only after running FSAutoStart and killing off a lot of extra processes. A 1.23GB commit rate is really high...does it start out that high, or creep up during the flight? I suspect you have a memory leak. Make sure there are no empty texture folders anywhere in your FS9 directory and its subdirectories. None. Zero. You are right that any time you see commit rate above 1GB that means you are hitting the page file, and that slows things WAY down. I ran FS9 on my XPS2 hard for three straight days a few weeks ago when I was checked into the local health hobby shop for some body and fender work. The docs and nurses were amused by the gringo flying the airplane from his bed, but it made three days in the hospital pass very quickly. Not sure you really need more RAM...I'd start by looking hard at what you have running on it. BTW, how much is Crucial getting for a 2GB kit for an XPS2 these days?CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

Hi. Thanks for the reply. I have used programmes like FS AutoStart that stop 'unnecessray' services and processes, spending ages looking online to find out what's the right stuff to leave and to shut down (e.g. Black Viper - you know the site?), but (like many on other forums) not really found them all that helpful: others too have commented that they have uninstalled such software because, although it saves some memory, as visible in Task Manager, there is usually no discenible gain in FS performance (maybe you feel otherwise?); that said, I have written a few script files myself that close down major users of resources as FS9 starts up (Anti-Virius, Firewall etc. - unless I am connected to the internet when flying FS of course). To be honest, the improvement in performance (which, I repeat, is generally pretty good, but certainly with room for improvement) even then is marginal, but I do it anyway.I should have said that I run quite a number of 'peripheral' FS9-linked programmes alongside the sim, like FSHotSFX, FSNavigator, Active Sky 6 and the like - that would account perhaps for the high commit rate (and FS9 was running the PSS Concorde at Heathrow with 100% traffic at the time of my screenshot too). I certainly have no empty texture folders in my setup BTW...Crucial has 2 GBs of 'best' RAM for

>Hi. Thanks for the reply. >>I have used programmes like FS AutoStart that stop>'unnecessray' services and processes, spending ages looking>online to find out what's the right stuff to leave and to shut>down (e.g. Black Viper - you know the site?), but (like many>on other forums) not really found them all that helpful:>others too have commented that they have uninstalled such>software because, although it saves some memory, as visible in>Task Manager, there is usually no discenible gain in FS>performance (maybe you feel otherwise?)Generally there's no earth-shattering difference...but if keeping them off means the difference between pushing the commit rate up past the limits of physical RAM or not, then the difference is very significant.>I should have said that I run quite a number of 'peripheral'>FS9-linked programmes alongside the sim, like FSHotSFX,>FSNavigator, Active Sky 6 and the like - that would account>perhaps for the high commit rate (and FS9 was running the PSS>Concorde at Heathrow with 100% traffic at the time of my>screenshot too). I certainly have no empty texture folders in>my setup BTW...Well, if the commit rate starts that high and stays there, that's one thing, although I have never gotten it up that high with all sorts of add-ons running. But if it starts in the 800-900MB range and creeps up to 1.23GB, you have a leaker running somewhere, and 2GB of RAM won't likely solve that.CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

I'll double check the commit rate at start of FS9 and afterwards, just too be sure..

Just to be sure I looked for an empty folder search programme, and found a really good one. There were in fact two empty texture folders so I deleted them. Shows that a manual search (I have SO many add-on folders!) is only too fallible!http://downloads.techrepublic.com.com/5138-6240-728928.htmlStarted up AS6 and all the rest, then FS9. Went to Autosave and started an earlier PSS Concorde flight. The Commit Charge hovered around 800000, which is more normal. Can't believe it is because I deleted a few folders..May well be that the figure rises as the flight progresses, so I'll have another look tomorrow at this. Wouldn't it be great if deleting two empty texture folders made a difference - but life's not really that straight-forward, is it?M. :-)

I have ordered the 2 GB of RAM. To be honest, advice on this has been split 50/50 - some people saying it will not help, others that it definitely will. Crucial.com will refund the money I paid within 30 days if the extra RAM is not useful (excellent customer service I'd say), so I can't really lose out. PLUS RAM is quite cheap at the moment - I am paying a lot less now for 2 GB of RAM (DDR2 PC2-4200) than if I had ordered it along with the Dell machine as an upgrade -

Well, 2GB certainly won't hurt, and it allows you to leave some more of the services running if you want.But those empty texture folders are a FS9 killer...there's a long and well-known bug in FS9 that causes a memory leak when it finds and tries to do its normal thing over and over thousands of times with empty texture directories. You may well find it was as simple as that. Let's hope so!CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile