No, you're not.I have memstatus running and merely at my desktop, I have 523,773,120 of usage!!!That's over HALF A GIG----JUST SITTING ON MY DESKTOP with Norton, a MOUSE control and a SPEAKER control.I think NOBODY has all the answers to memory usage by XP.That's what I'm starting to think, lol.All I know, is that my system has never run better, or faster, or loaded programs as fast.Another thing about having 3 Gigs,' is that you will have put your memory capacity at OPTIMUM for XP, in that with having to have dual pairs, you have the right 'mix' to enjoy balanced dual channel configuration. Now your system can take on anything besides FSX, like video, music files, etc...You soon forget about the extra $130.00 and just know that you have memory to spare. Those not having an extra $130.00 lying around your computer desk, SHOULD NOT TRY THIS AT HOME! Remember...keep a sense of humor!!!I'm lovin' it.Mitch R.

I have 2GB physical ram and 3GB of virtual memory split between three hard drives (1.5 times real memory). For some strange reason when running FSX the physical ram in use for FSX is only 500mb. With minimal things running in the background brings this up to about 850mb (see attached picture). Therefore there is 1GB of free physical ram and 3gb and virtual memory not being used and frame rates that vary from 5fps to 20fps. Is there any way that I can get FSX (or windows for that matter) to use more of the free memory?http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/160760.jpg

Hey Jerry, I don't take ANY OF THIS in a personal vein. :)I only started this thread with reporting my honest performance increases. In fact, I didn't even know what to truly expect.That's why the religious outburst came, when I fired up FSX.I'll do that for you and report back when I have your test flight FPS results.In general, I now run with all scenery sliders full open, with the exception of AUTO-GEN at NORMAL. I can honestly carry DENSE with only a 3 FPS hit down to 15 nominal, but (and here is the biggest laugh of all....) I found that I like only NORMAL's amount of houses around the airport perimeters and all. So...I'm sticking to that default setting..The funny thing, is that I now have a choice to piddle with which AUTO-GEN level I'm going to view, when before my 2 extra gigs were added on, I could only LOOK at that slider...and dream on....LOLOLOLOLOL.Yeah...I'm having fun now...Cheers!Mitch R.

I'm not sure how to do that for you, BUT...there is one glaring difference between having 3 true gigs of physical to 2 gig of virtual.You have to access the hard drive to load INTO your physical RAM limit.What you really have with virtual is a place holder-prefetch/cacheI think what is happening in my system, is that FSX is loading what it wants that can be had at the speed of light, in physical memory.No mechanical processes as the go-between, and no latent CPU wait cycles.Just my feelings on it, with no degree held in Computer Sciences. :)Mitch R.

Mitch what are your settings for your page file? I'm just curious.

OK Jerry, flying just as you asked me..here are my results.Sitting on 34L with lots of FedEX and other A.I. doing their thing9.9-to just under 11 FPSHaving taken off, and coming over the city, 13.6 FPS.Having gone over the city and my starting my turn to view the mountains across the channel, I bump up to my nominal 18 and up.I usually don't much top 18 (I have it locked down to 20)Believe me, this was on a system that with just 1 gig, it would have been in the 8's for the most part and probably 3-5's at KSEA.FSX is really enjoyable now. I guess that the bottom line.Cheers!Mitch R.

[bufferPools]PoolSize=5000000The above,Mitch

I just found the same thing. I had 2GB, and now 3.5 and everything is a lot more smoother. RAM is cheap, video cards aren't, I'd recommend upgrading if you can.I never noticed much page file swapping, and in task manager FSX never said it was using more than 500MB of my RAM, HOWEVER, there definitely is a big difference since adding more ram.opteron 165 @ 2.25GHz7800GT 256mb vid card4gb of ram (only 3.5GB detected.)

Hi Mitch -Thanks for these numbers. I fly with lower AI and Normal to Dense Autogen at KSEA. In other areas, I move the sliders to the right. At detailed city/airport areas, I need to move them down. So - my FPS values are on par with what you reported.Try this - change the FPS to Unlimited!I know, it goes against what ACES suggests and all we've read, but for some strange reason, some people report higher FPS values (with no or little stutters).JerryG

Did a little reading on the web after seeing this thread and here's my thoughts on what might be happening.XP does have a standard limit of 2 gigs of memory per process. With varying amounts of memory, I think the split between FSX physical memory and system physical memory will vary. For example:1GB 512MB physical memory each2GB 1GB physical memory for each3GB 1.5GB physical memory for each or maybe 2GB for FSX and 1GB for systemGranted this is just an educated guess, but the memory's gotta be split somehow, and from what I've read with 4GB the split is right down the middle. 4GB is tricky because some memory addresses in the 4GB range are already used for other stuff like your video card memory.And if your memory comes on DIMMs, (Dual Inline Memory Modules) you shouldn't have to install in pairs. SIMMs (Single Inline Memory Modules) had to be installed in identical pairs. But as far as I know DDR and DDR2 only come on DIMMs."The main difference between SIMMs and DIMMs is that SIMMs have a 32-bit data path, while DIMMs have a 64-bit data path. Since Intel's Pentium has (as do several other processors) a 64-bit bus width, it required SIMMs installed in matched pairs in order to use them. The processor would then access the two SIMMs simultaneously. DIMMs were introduced to eliminate this inefficiency."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIMMAs far as memory affecting preformance, if FlightSim is using the swapfile a lot when flying, then upgrading memory should help FPS. (Unless of course FlightSim already has 2GB of physical memory to use.) I know upgrading my memory on my old system FlightSim made a major difference."Let me help you out. You're cleared to taxi any way you can to any runway you see."

I am extremely skeptical of these perceived benefits. The developers never figured it out? I have logged over 60 hours in FSX since purchasing it the first week of October. My fps are ALL OVER the place depending on what, where and when I am flying. Additionally, we all have different hardware and software (applications), updates, and FSX tweaks. How can we compare anything when nothing is constant except personal taste? I'll be interested to read comments a week from now from those who found huge gains.This reminds me of a drug user who appeared high all the time and had a surprise drug test at work. His test came back negative; exclaimed "I don't have a problem, but my dealer does!" With great respect Mitch. :)Bob..

Will do. ;)Thanks for the tip,Mitch

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!So...I'm not going nuts?!?!?This is good to realize, ROTFLMBO!Take care,Mitch R, 'The 3 GIG Guy' (chuckle)

Mitch leans towards the coffee table and spread a line of FPS...(SNORT)"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.........."ROTFLMOB X6 ;)Mitch

That's fine Bob. I understand you should be sceptical because it doesn't make any sense... considering that I have never seen FSX use even close to 1GB of ram, let alone 2 or 3.However, I registered here this morning to create my own post advising people of my findings, then after doing that found this thread with the exact same message... coincidence?