Sign in to follow this  
Guest over and out

too much memory

Recommended Posts

I have 2 gigs of memory and upgrade to 4 gigs. Is this overkill for FS9 or would it help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

>I have 2 gigs of memory and upgrade to 4 gigs. Is this>overkill for FS9 or would it help?I think you won't see benefits in FS9, even with add-ons, but you'll see benefits in FSX.Marco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to clarify due to a typo. I have 2 gigs and can upgrade to 4gig of memory. But I'm not sure it will really matter. I have a fairly good machine: Dell XPS, 3.2 Ghz, Radeon 256mg x850 GPU etc.. FSX doesnt run very well so I'm trying to squeeze all I can out of FS9. I'm skipping FSX all together.Also, what about partitioning the HD for FS9, does this help any in performance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's overkill. You'll see no difference at all. - Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're running XP then going to 4mb would probably be a waste as many drivers use some of the space allocated for memory, meaning that some of the 4MB would never even be recognized by XP at all. The limit is still 4MB in Vista unless you're running a 64bit version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Windows XP limitation is 4Gb.By definition, a 32-bit processor uses 32 bits to refer to the location of each byte of memory. 2^32 = 4.2 billion, which means a memory address that's 32 bits long can only refer to 4.2 billion unique locations (i.e. 4 GB).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

XP only uses 3 GB of memory in its application space AND you have to enable the above 2GB statement in your boot.ini or it won't recognize anything above 2GB.BTW, it won't do a thing for you in XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike,You are correct, XP's 4GB memory space is divided into two parts, with 2GB dedicated for kernel usage, and 2GB for application usage. I believe that application gets its own 2GB, but all applications have to share the same 2GB kernel space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cpu makes the most difference in fs9, I have tried many upgrades, upgrading the cpu is the only one that made a difference. FS9 needs alot of cpu power, the other things don't matter all that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CPU will also, still, make the most difference in FSX as all promises of reducing this CPU hog have been ignored. FSX is no better than FS9 in CPU "hoggage" and STILL doesn't take advantage of the new graphics adapters RAM. FSX also doesn't know how to use dual core tech...just as FS9 didn't know how to take advantage of "hyper-threading". All in all a very SAD stetement and why I'll be flying FS9 for the next few years. MS didn't fix squat...they added more "candy" and covered it all up by requiring us all to buy new systems...so the lack of performance improvements wouldn't be so GLARINGLY obvious. They are GLARINGLY obvious when FSX is applied to my old system. Any performance improvements would have been obvious, on my old system. I got nothing but low FPS, low texture load times and BS eye candy. FSX is for gamers...it has no use for flight simulators. No TRUE 2D views? PUHLEASE! Wonderful for all those TrakIR addicts...but useless to anyone who is really trying to fly an airliner. Yes...I said it...TrackIR means nothing to me, as VC means nothing to me...it's all BS. Give me a strong 2D panel, with everything working correctly, and I'll outfly you, in an emergency situation, everyday. While you're "Bobbing and weaving", looking for the "button"...I'll be 2 steps past you in the emergency checklist...whatever it may be. FSX is the end of MSFS Flight Simulator...and the beginning of "MSFS Flight Game". Yes, yes blah, blah, blah. All of you who love to send pretty pictures of the front left quarter of your aircraft...from 12...or possibly 15...feet away will be much pleased. Those of us who actually enjoy FLYING the aircraft, who don't give a #### about the amount of rivets viewable or the various views we can present to you later, in fancy screenshots...will be flying FS9 for years to come. When MS (are ya listening!?!) decides to drop the whole "eye-candy", useless "new features"...and focuses on actual performance of the sim, and reproducing that performance from the actual cockpit...then you might see us hard core simmers buy FSXI. But, HEY!...thats just me...an MSFS user since FS95...what the #### do I know, eh? Vic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i guess an upgrade of the HDD to a SATA one if you are still using a IDE one would help. Its another bottle neck if you run lots of add-ons and stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed? :)> Yes...I said it...TrackIR means nothing to me, as VC means>nothing to me...it's all BS. Give me a strong 2D panel, with>everything working correctly, and I'll outfly you, in an>emergency situation, everyday. While you're "Bobbing and>weaving", looking for the "button"...I'll be 2 steps past you>in the emergency checklist...whatever it may be.That's a strong assertion. I'm curious to hear what VC fans will respond...Marco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"That's a strong assertion. I'm curious to hear what VC fans will respond..."Be curious no more, for here we be. :-cool The VC is paramount to a good flightsim experience. It's your connection to the sim and to the plane. Without a honking good interactive VC, it might as well be a text simulator.To accept and rely solely on 2D panels is to say that sim design peaked in FS98 and stayed there. Free flow vision of the flight environment is as vital and it is enjoyable. 2D panels are like flipping pages in a book: Center! - Left! - Center! - Right! Bleah!2D panels are an anachronism. Why on earth have a Zigawatt CPU and a Megazap video card if you're just going to look at a static screen? Sounds like the weather channel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the original topic, upgrading to 4GB will do very little...and only 3-3.5GB of that will be addressable.Funny, I have more than 1,000 hours in r/w flight simulators, and I have yet to see one with a VC.2D and VC panels are just different ways to move a limited field of view around a virtual flight deck...and with multiple monitors I already have most of what I need to see on the flight deck up in front of me without needing to switch views or pan around in a VC. But the killer for me is that most VCs still look like bad, poorly and slowly animated cartoons. I switch to a VC when I need to take a quick glance over my shoulder or when sightseeing, or if I want to get a quick peek at a robotic-looking Laura Croft lookalike serving drinks in the virtual cabin.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well thanks everyone. It seams like 4 gigs in too much, but perhaps adding one to make it three gigs of mem may benifit the system in general, but will not really help FS9. So perhaps I'll get one more gig to squeeze a little more out of my system.As for the VC, I like it and think think it enhances the experience. But typically, I'm taking off and landing in 2D so that I can see everything and get to it quickly.And as for the FSX being more "game" less simulation, I don't know, but I will not be "downgrading" to FSX since my system can not handle it.I plan on using FS9 for quite some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>XP only uses 3 GB of memory in its application space AND you>have to enable the above 2GB statement in your boot.ini or it>won't recognize anything above 2GB.MikeWould you care to share the details of that statementthat needs to be added in the boot.ini?Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you care to share the details of that statementthat needs to be added in the boot.ini?look up '3GB switch' on google

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you Bob, for me the VC is more about visual perception of space than operating instruments. I always prefer the clear and crisp detail of most 2d panels for operating the gauges. And has been said before, working from the VC is probably fun in a GA plane, but in an airliner, it is just impracticable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well since getting to TrackIR, which I originally bought just to do GA joy flights, I've gone from using 2D panels almost exclusively to using VC almost exclusively with ALL aircraft I fly (including complex jets like the LDS 767 and PMDG 737). It's hard to describe just how free flowing and natural feeling it makes one feel like messing with dials and switches in the cockpit - it makes the 2D panel experience seem so unnatural, no matter how crisp those panels are.It's sad that some of you have made up your mind about the TrackIR/VC experience without ever having actually tried it. I believe that NaturalPoint has a 30 day refund offer on TrackIR, so what do you have to lose in trying? I bet they get very few returns.Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I stated. However, that some drivers and system files also use some of that address space meaning that not all of your 4GB would be recognized by the system. There's a good thread about this over at hardocp.com that helps you to get the most of 4GB of memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>It's sad that some of you have made up your mind about the>TrackIR/VC experience without ever having actually tried it. >I believe that NaturalPoint has a 30 day refund offer on>TrackIR, so what do you have to lose in trying? I bet they>get very few returns.It's also sad that you have made some very faulty assumptions about the inputs that went into my decisions about VCs. I have a TrackIR staring me in the face right now. It has its uses, especially in some 3D shooters and combat sims, but it does not change my philosophy about VCs in FS at all. Being able to turn my head to see a free-flowing but absolutely unnatural-looking badly animated cartoon-like VC does nothing for me. For me, the TrackIR is a great tool when you need to keep your field of view moving a lot, like fire-fighting flights in terrain, combat sims, etc. But that's to keep my eyes moving outside the cockpit, not inside. VCs are still horribly fake-looking to me when compared to what can be done with good 2D photo-real technique.IMHO, putting enough monitor real estate up front to get a suite of 2D panels up full time is a way better solution.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this