too much memory

[Bob Scott 7,714]

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

[Guest over and out]

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.

[ideoplastic 86]

>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

[GHarrall 494]

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

[ideoplastic 86]

Much obliged

[graemeb 14]

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.

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

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

[Guest Phantoms]

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.

[Guest Phantoms]

Mike, I think you're misunderstanding the 3GB switch.http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/.../05/208908.aspx

[Bob Scott 7,714]

>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

[Guest dpc]

>Being able to turn my head to see a free-flowing but absolutely>unnatural-looking badly animated cartoon-like VC does>nothing for me. I suppose if I only flew planes of your description I would be disappointed with my TrackIR as well. However, planes of your description are not your only choice in FS as I'm sure you must admit. PMG, Level-D, CoolSky? DF, Carenado? If these fit your description, then your standards are probably a bit high. :-lol I would think as a realworld pilot, you would find yourself feeling confined when using 2-D.

[Bob Scott 7,714]

My standards are indeed high, but they are met by the high-quality 2D panels from PMDG, Level-D, Dreamfleet, and a host of others. But not so in the VC department.I don't feel confined at all...I have two 22-inch displays in front, a 21" display on the side for ancillary stuff like maps, approach plates, ServInfo etc, and a laptop on the other side if I need it (rarely). Most of what I need to look at throughout a flight is up in front of me full-time at 1600x1200 res on nearly 3 square feet of monitor. When I need a brief look out the side window, I can do that with a FSUIPC-programmed joystick hat.Never said I was disappointed with the TrackIR...just don't think the inside view of any VC using it rivals a good photoreal 2D panel. Most of the r/w pilots I know that enjoy simming tend to also see it that way.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

So you don't think these two panels are comparable in quality?LDS 767 2Dhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/166361.jpgLDS 767 VChttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/166362.jpgI do.Gary

[razorseal 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?>> Victhis post makes me laugh...you are trying to simulate what, flying? have you ever flown a real plane before? they don't fly like anything we have avliable... from pmdg to level d... #### even a cessna doesnt fly like fs9 in real life... try doing 80 knots, and take a sharp turn to the left and increase the load factor... see what happens... or try doing a soft field take off in a real plane, and try the same in fs9...never, ever forget... fs9 is a GAME... when you go to the eb store, its there... ####, even xplane is a game (except the faa version, which btw sucks really bad, I have many hours on it in a level 3 sim)don't ever try to compare this 'game' to real life... if you want to fly, go do it outside... this is just for fun, and graphics are important...btw, i've been using fs since fs3, and I loved every moment of it, and it helped me tons when I got my IFR and even PPC, but remember, it is just a 'game' best thing you can do with it is practice IFR procedures and maybe the big iron's button pushing procedures...

[razorseal 0]

ok, I think I came out a little harsh. I just want people to understand 90% of simulators out there (especially ones designed for home PCs) will not ever (well maybe in years to come) simulate real life! I'm sure we have real pilots here, and maybe even few 121 guys... they will tell you, for procedures, fs is great, for actually doing manuevers like PPC or commerical stuff like lazy 8s, chandelles, slow flight, power off 180 land, or even basic stalls don't work out too well in this game! and those are very big pricipals of flying... so don't come tell me that the VC is a waste i'm here for the 2d experience and full realism and whanot... instead just be happy with what you got :) if you dont wan't VC, then don't use it, many planes out there have excellent 2d... but just remember, flying is not looking at your panel... if you really want to simulate things (especially VFR) you should spend 80% looking outside, and 20% looking inside.... :)