FS9 XP32 vs. Vista64 Discussion

[Kosta 122]

Hello,I just wanted to open another thread on 32bit vs. 64bit.I bet D17S will move in with me here soon ;)OK, what I noticed. In my quest to find the reason why a long flight tends to crash on my PC, I noticed one very interesting thing!Under XP32, Virtual Size keeps growing and growing. It always crashes at landing after 8 hours, but I figured there's some limit that has to be crossed (setting in fs9.cfg, TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS). If 4, it crashes, if 0 it doesn't. If 4 it also displays more textures, obviously. Usually, reported Virtual Size is around 1500mb while inflight, and 1600-1700 when landing. That is with setting at 4.But, under Vista64, and with setting at 4, inflight reported Virtual Size memory is around 950mb and when landing maybe climbs up to 1150mb.This was the SAME FS9 installation and same fs9.cfg file, I only changed the OS.Can it really be that Vista's memory management is so much better than XPs? I can't believe that 64bit brings such difference...I might try XP64 to see, but can't use that OS, cuz not all drivers are available for my hardware.EDIT: All measurements were made with Process Explorer.

[Kosta 122]

UPDATE:Installed XP with FS9, drivers+updates only, no tweaks or anything. Same behaviour.Addons installed for this kind of behaviour: Aerosoft Heathrow, Gatwick Extreme, Imaginesim Atlanta, Ultimate Terrain USA, Canada and Europe, Ground Environment Pro, Flight Environment, complete FSGenesis, aircraft used PSS 777. Flight from KATL to EGKK.Without any of these addons, flights go well. With all above addons activated, FS9 crashes on landing.

[krishcanag 0]

KostaSo what would you recommend for FS9? and what would you recommend for FSX?This is my issue, I want to build a PC, apart from still struggling with what compoents, I as also not sure what OS, it would appear that the best OS for FS9 is XP xx and for FSX is vista, is that correct.krishan

[Kosta 122]

Well, I thought up until now that the best OS for FS9 would be XP. My tests show me that Vista manages memory much better than XP, and when using Vista, my FS9's Virtual Size (Process Explorer) is after 8 hour flight the same as it was after 1 hour... In XP, in about 2-3 hours, it climbs from 900mb up to 1500mb, and stays there.I also tested one same flight in XP and Vista, while it crashed in XP, it went normally through in Vista.And if you go Vista, go 64bit and 4GB of RAM. No need for swapping any more, you can turn it off completely.While I do like XP much better for some of its features, especially not bloated file-management (classical folders), I have to say, Vista has a big advantage concerning the memory management.Oh, and concerning FPS? No difference.Smoothness? Subjectively better.

[greggerm 312]

As a sidenote - Vista 32 will manage memory just as cleanly as Vista 64, with the big difference being that V64 can natively address memory over the 3GB limit imposed on 32-bit operating systems. (Making the 4GB investment listed above a worthwhile item)Be sure to check you system thoroughly for components which need drivers and ensure they are available for V64. That's really the only big headache with 64-bit OS's. -Greg

[Kosta 122]

I was also implying that 32bit Vistas memory management is same as 64bits. It would be pretty incredible if it were any other way ;)Drivers were basically the only reason I waited so long, my soundcard driver wasn't available, and even now, only a beta.

[Guest D17S]

As you are aware, the OOM levels are hard stops. 32bit at 2G/VS without the switch and 3G/VS with the switch. 64bit will run up to 4G/VS. If VS is not at these levels when the crashes occur, somethings else is causing the crashes.Oh yea, and also keep in mind that the .exe file must Also be HiMem enabled. If it's not, the op system switches will not help. VS will be hard stopped at 2G/VS regardless of Anything else. The FS9.exe file must be HiMem hacked for any of the op system swithn' or 64 bitn' to work.

[Kosta 122]

Yes, "something" else. The weirdest thing of all, is that VS usage is going up under XP and *NOT* going up under Vista. Same FS9 installation, same files, same aircraft, same config file. Different OS.

[Guest D17S]

Where VS ends up doesn't matter, as long as it remains below its OOM hard stop.(and you saw the FS9.exe hack edit above?)

[Kosta 122]

Yeah, but the fact is, that OOM hard stop never happens below or around 1600mb. If at say 1500mb, it goes through. If 1600 it crashes. If 1800, it crashes.I never even managed 2000 really. I never even made it crash inflight. It only crashes at landing. With those sceneries activated. Only with setting at 4. And only in XP.And it also happens on one another computer. So it's a sure software thing, and not "my error".I simply don't get it.Yes, now I saw the hack - though my thought is less the crack, but more, why isn't memory usage climbing in Vista??Cuz, since its not climbing, I have no problems with 2GB, cuz it barely crosses 1GB with all my addons!!!

[Guest D17S]

Yea, the addons are getting all tangled up. These are not OOMs. Start pulling stuff out. . . or start over and start adding stuff in.

[Kosta 122]

We managed to find the combination which crashed both FS9s. As I said, all UT titles, Gatwick, Heathrow and setting at 4. Crash.You can test it if you have everything.

[Kosta 122]

UPDATE:Vista might be good in memory management, but the fact is:- BAV ACARS isn't working (online tool of British Airways Virtual)- Most of audio applications aren't working (like Cubase etc...)- Problems with Logitech Setpoint (loads sometimes twice, making your clicks doubleclicks...)- Flat panel scaling isn't working in 640x480 (other resolutions higher than 800x600 its ok)