Ijust added another gig of ram to my system.On my motherboard I moved the two 512,s from the # 1and 2 slots to the 2&3slots,installed the 1gig memory in the #1slot.Rebooted windows as advised but now the system says the total ram is 1.5. Any help on this problem would be appreciated.

Try putting the two 512's back where they were, then try the 1G in slot 2 first and, if that doesn't work, then slot 3. If all else fails, consult your mobo manual for valid memory configs!Gary

Thanks Gary,that did the trick.

hjeck- Did adding this RAM improve FPS? I've got a similar FS9 RAM config and have wondered about increasing from present 1.28Gb to 2.0 . Which FS are you running- 9 or X?Alex Reid

When I went from 1 gig to 2, I consistently saw the system use more than 1 gig with FS running. FS alone would use .8 ti 1.2 gig. When I went to 4 gig, 32 bit Vista recognized 3.0 gig. I consistently saw the system using over 2 gig and could push memory over the 3 gig that Vista reported. FS alone would occasionally use up 2+ gig. I'm so constrained by other components, I did not see a difference. However it's interesting to note that: 1) The system will use more that Vista recognizes. The ram number that Vista reports available is not a hard number. 2) FSX alone will use over 2 gigs if it is available. FSX at a 4 gig install consistently ran with ~.5 gig higher ram load vs the 2 gig install.I'm thinking the best strategy might be to just give the system all it can possibly, physically use. Somehow, it'll probably use it. For this next build, I'm pricing 2, 2gig sticks. Ram is sooo cheap these days.

Sam- interesting comments. I'm still with FS9 (on XP) and from what I've read, it can't use more than 2 GB. Gary feels that 2GB would be overkill- however, I'm running TRIPLE VIEWS LFwd,Fwd,RFwd plus all popups open on three monitors and that means my old processor (AMD 1.8GHz) is generating a lot more bites to be distributed to 3 different video cards (GeForce FX5200). So I'm still wondering about the role of RAM in this config.An interesting curiosity is that initially I had impossible stutters with this system-until I retarded HDWE ACCEL for the outer/secondary monitors. COMPLETELY eliminated stutters without any effect on FPS - seems to do away with unrestrained competition for data by the vid cards.This is why I continue to wonder if more RAM than my current 1.28 GB could be useful- in a multi-monitor environment.Alex Reid

FPS went up ,runs right@30 locked;using both 9 and X, didnt see any change in 9 as it just hammers away with everything to the right,X is a different animal....Just glad I didntspend the bucks on it!I would go for the bigger ram,prices are good right now:-rotor

With 4 gigs installed. FSX was always at (or above) a 1.5GB load. With FSX running the total system load was AlwAyS over 2 gig. With only 2 gigs installed, FSX's memory usage will generally be constrained. Will increasing FSX's ram load translate into FPS at higher sliders? It didn't for me, but I was constrained by so many other components. It entirely depends on the existing bottleneck.At 1.28 gig installed, add more ram? It sounds like 2x512 + 1X128 DDR400 sticks. That means only one slot is left and you are entirely out of dual channel mode. Hummm.Really, it sounds like it might be time to spend that next $150 on 4 gigs-o-DDR2-667 as an initial investment in a whole new system. Continue to use the PCI Vcards until the G92 comes out. I've squeezed more out of mine than I ever thought I could. I've finally decided that it's time for the ol' trooper to retire-with-honors to the server farm.