too much memory

[Guest over and out]

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

[Murmur 3,940]

>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

[Guest over and out]

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?

[Guest]

It won't help.

[Guest over and out]

ya, I figure I'm at my limit with this machine.

[W2DR 1,859]

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

[Guest Phantoms]

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.

[graemeb 14]

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).

[Mike T 208]

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.

[graemeb 14]

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.

[Guest Pilot533]

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.

[strider 0]

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

[Guest heclak]

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.

[Murmur 3,940]

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

[CanadaOne 36]

"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.