Sign in to follow this  
psolk

Got an OOM with FS9. Too bad!!!

Recommended Posts

Posted in the FSX forum as well but i know how many fought the Out of Memory in FS9 so it is very relevant to these forums as well.Well this is just my opinion and please let me begin by thanking Phil and the team for finally giving us the definitive answer we need which is that neither FS9 or FSX can KEEP themselves under the 2g limit. Phil's presence in the forums adds an air of credibility to our hypothesis and some of us have been saying for quite some time it is not an A/C or a scenery but just that we have exceeded the limits of the app. It does not bode well for add-ons in FSX that people are exceeding the 2g limit with default fsx though. It took us years and hundreds of add-ons to get to this pint in FS9. We are getting it vanilla with FSX.In fact if either sim wants more than the O/S can give they will ask for it and we will get an OOM and our simming experience is over.Some of us have been fighting this issue for YEARS!!! We thought it was our setup, navdata, LC files, terrain.cfg files, if you name it someone tried it to fix the OOM errors. Now we come to find after all these years that it really is the same issue that effects MS Exchange and requires the /3gb switch on an exchange server. The only difference is that Exchange servers are not running high end video cards that are not compatible with the /3g switch in the first place.So, yes, MS wrote two sims that just like their Exchange Server can not even stay within the limitations of the O/S they run on. Phil has also said they will not modify either version of FS to stay within the limits of the O/S. In fact what we are being told is to apply the /3GB switch to XP Pro and Vista to eliminate the issue. Well anyone running high memory video cards can not do this. It does not leave enough memory for the O/S and the card and you start losing things like AA/AF. Maybe this is the DX bug Phil is speaking about but I doubt it.So I was just wondering what your thoughts were now that years of fighting the OOM comes down to an app written to be able to exceed the memory allocated to it by its own O/S and that MS is not going to fix but instead recommend a tweak that is not even viable for most...I know I am more than a little disturbed and disappointed but wanted to get others opinions.-PaulPrimary RigLiquid CooledIntel C2D E6600 @3.2 gigsAsus P5N32SLI-Plus2 gigs Corsair XMS PC6400 4 4 4 12 @810Dual OC'd XFX 8800GTX @ 2 gigs24 inch Widescreen LCD 16XAA/16XAFDual 19 inch LCD'sRaid-0+1PCPower and Cooling 1k Quad SLIhttp://home.comcast.net/~psolk/3monitorsa.htmlBackup RigAMD 4000 San Diego @ 2.72 Gigs Kingston Corsair XMS CL2XFX 7900 GTX Raid-0psolk.jpg

Share this post


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

hmmm...I flew FS9 for about 2 years with 768 megs of RAM and never had an OOM error - and I've got a ton of add-ons. Was I doing something wrong? I've recently upped the ram to a gig, but performance is about the same and of course, no OOM errors now either...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL,You are talking about 768 ,megs of RAM total. I am talking about 768 megs of RAM per video card and I have two. Come on Jim, for those of us who have fought this for years racking our brains, blaming every add-on out there and tearing FS apart to now hear that oh yeah, FS can actually exceed the 2g memory limitation of a 32 bit app is pretty darn frustrating. Especially when MS writes the O/S. To then here that MS can't change it and that the only fix is one that will not work for people with large amounts of video memory is even worse. I went to the beach for a few hours, got some color and although still frustrated, I do regret posting but such is life. -Paul Primary RigLiquid CooledIntel C2D E6600 @3.2 gigsAsus P5N32SLI-Plus2 gigs Corsair XMS PC6400 4 4 4 12 @810Dual OC'd XFX 8800GTX @ 2 gigs24 inch Widescreen LCD 16XAA/16XAFDual 19 inch LCD'sRaid-0+1PCPower and Cooling 1k Quad SLIhttp://home.comcast.net/~psolk/3monitorsa.htmlBackup RigAMD 4000 San Diego @ 2.72 Gigs Kingston Corsair XMS CL2XFX 7900 GTX Raid-0psolk.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing Phil was alluding to is the possibility that there is memory space available in the lower 2Gb, but because of fragmentation the OS can't allocate the requested range of memory. This suggests that FS needs to do a better job of compaction or cleanup after releasing memory objects.scott s..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my favorite move National Lampoons Vacation... Technically this is software that is being limited by the same companies Operating System LOL ;) So this is a software being restricted by software and people complain. The biggest reason I am complaining is because this SHOULD have been avoided if the app stays within the 32 bit application space which it was written for which it doesn't. That is not ideal coding...-PPrimary RigLiquid CooledIntel C2D E6600 @3.2 gigsAsus P5N32SLI-Plus2 gigs Corsair XMS PC6400 4 4 4 12 @810Dual OC'd XFX 8800GTX @ 2 gigs24 inch Widescreen LCD 16XAA/16XAFDual 19 inch LCD'sRaid-0+1PCPower and Cooling 1k Quad SLIhttp://home.comcast.net/~psolk/3monitorsa.htmlBackup RigAMD 4000 San Diego @ 2.72 Gigs Kingston Corsair XMS CL2XFX 7900 GTX Raid-0psolk.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my analogy...Ford builds a pickup truck, rated at 3/4 ton. I can put a 1000 lb camper on the back and it'll run all day just fine. I can put a 1500 lb camper on the back, and it'll run OK, usually without problems. I can put a 2000 lb camper in the back, and from time to time I might blow a tire or break a spring, but it'll usually run OK.But...I also want to tow a trailer, heck maybe even two or three. And I also want the truck to go fast and corner well with the big camper and the trailers. Even if I put the smallest motor available in it. And run it on ethanol.An boy, am I gonna be grumpy when I have problems that make me go back to a smaller camper, tow less than three trailers, and take the corners a little slow...FS is like the truck...you can't keep piling on the stuff indefinitely and expect the performance of a Maserati. I've been able to keep FS9 from OOMing on me by avoiding the accumulation of .dll modules in the modules folder...I put them in with batch files only when a flight needs them. If they're there, they are loaded by FS and taking a bite out of the limited 2GB address space FS has to stay within. And I try to avoid piling on the extras...big 32-bit kabillion-pixel models, sliders firewalled to the right, oodles of layers of 32-bit clouds in a bad wx scenario etc.The beauty is that you get to choose. But best not to complain when you pile on so much stuff it can't carry the load. FS isn't going to break out of this limitation in the current generation, so get over it and learn to operate within the fairly roomy performance envelope available.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A application has to manage its own Virtual Memory (VM). Windows has never done this because only the application can allocate and deallocate VM to suit its own requirements. Ever since 32-bit addressing was introduced with Win98, it's only possible to address upto 4GB of VM. Normally this is allocated as 2Gb to each application and 2Gb to the kernel. The /3GB switch changes this to 3Gb to applications and 1 GB to the kernal. However, Microsoft does warn that some video drivers can demand more of the 1Gb kernal than available and won't load. That's hardly Microsoft's fault. VM is typically allocated by either the new operator (C++) and the malloc function ©. (There are variants that do much the same thing.) These return a pointer to the allocated memmory or a NULL pointer is there is insufficient memory. Out of memory errors occur if the maximum contiguous block of VM available is less than that requested. In principle the availability of VM could be checked calling the GlobalMemoryStatusEx API function (thouigh I'm not certain if this gives the total available VM or the maximum contiguous available VM - any offers?) then using sizof to detrmine the amount of VM to be allocated by the subseqent new/malloc. However, apart from the overhead this would inroduce, what can the application do if there isn't enough VM available other than stop? I run FS9 (SP1) on a low-end PC and have never had an OOM error. Admittedly I don't have much add-on scenery but this suggests to me that a vanilla FS9 is stable in this respect. I don't think Microsoft can be held responsible for the effects of using a wide range of add-ons which may require various amounts of VM. While FS9 is running it will be continually allocating and deallocating VM depending on the particular set-up and add-ons. It's unlikely that will have exactly the same add-ons and fly the exactly the same flights so that the available VM and its state of fragmentation state will be different for different users after a period of flying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice analogy Bob but unfortunately software is a little bit different than physically overloading a truck. Software if coded correctly should not be allowed to exceed 2g no matter what. No matter how much you pile into software if it is coded properly it will always clean itself up and stay within the confines of the 32 bit lower memory restrictions. The only apps that I know of with this issue are MSExchange, MSFS and Adobe Photoshop when editing HUGE HUGE images. Even 3D CAD programs that crunch more physics and equations than MSFS can ever hope to crunch can run for days and not exceed the lower memory space restrictions. So don't tell me to get over it when I can't fly an add-on A/C into an add-on airport b/c the underlying sim can't keep itself within the memory limitations of an O/S. Every other app and company has to code to remain within this standard but this should be different and I should "get over it?" Why should I just accept it. I might not be able to change it but I can certainly voince my opinion. AD servers can handle millions of transactions per second and run for months, you give me a better answer than get over it as to why MSFS can't do the same. If you want an analogy:If my company were to go out and sell our SSL VPN software that was coded incorrectly and started locking out users because we were exceeding the 32 bit memory space and throwing an OOM I bet our customers would want it fixed... Fortunately we can handle 300,000 transactions per second and run for 3 years without reboot or issue so we don't have to worry about it but trust me if we told our customers to get over it we wouldn't be in business very long. The truth is with FS9 I have learned to do the same thing. I disable ALL of my add-on sceneries prior to my flights. I use DXT everything I shut down everything on the box and I rarely use the PMDG 747 anymore but guess what, i shouldn't have to do all of that.Now you have FSX and Vista and the FS9 issues with tons of add-ons plague people after 5 minutes of flight on vanilla FSX because MS didn't address it on a 32 bit platform and did not code for a 64 bit platform that can support it and again we should just lay down and accept it. MS just wrote a $60 sim that can't run on their own $200 O/S and we should just get over it?Maybe we just see things differently.Respectfully,-PaulMGH, you are correct, FS9 needed to be severely bloated to get to this point, FSX does not.Primary RigLiquid CooledIntel C2D E6600 @3.2 gigsAsus P5N32SLI-Plus2 gigs Corsair XMS PC6400 4 4 4 12 @810Dual OC'd XFX 8800GTX @ 2 gigs24 inch Widescreen LCD 16XAA/16XAFDual 19 inch LCD'sRaid-0+1PCPower and Cooling 1k Quad SLIhttp://home.comcast.net/~psolk/3monitorsa.htmlBackup RigAMD 4000 San Diego @ 2.72 Gigs Kingston Corsair XMS CL2XFX 7900 GTX Raid-0psolk.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it doesn't make any difference what your talking about. It's vid card memory? OK fine, I've been running the sim since the day it came out with a 128 meg vid card ( a crummy geforce4Ti 4200) and even with the heaviest of addons I own I've never had an OOM error. In fact, I've never had a ctd that I couldn't directly account for from some specific thing I'd done in the sim...why would people running much more pwerful systems than mine be having this issue and not me? It sounds like the sort of thing that should affect me about 10 times as often as it does you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to say ditto - I've always had modest specs, use 32bit paints, complex a/c, high as possible detail and never seen an OOM. Can't argue with more savvy than me re MSFS code, but something else seems to be happening to OOM sufferers.regards,Markhttp://www.dreamfleet2000.com/a320/custbanner2.jpgPC Power Silencer 470/3.2HT/2048mb/ATI X1950pro/SB Audigy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your total of 1.5 GB of video ram takes a lot out of available memory both virtual and physical. In the thread over on PMDG see the reply from D17S about PCI-E video ram mapping. Apparently unlike AGP port access this is mapped into your physical address space and can be bumped up into higher levels with a 64 bit OS and it is enabled in the BIOS. Quite a bit of your 2GB ram is wasted in your current situation it seems. That's what I got out of D17S' reply if I interpreted that correctly and the information he linked to here:http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got it Ron...That is why this affects people with higher specs and video cards with higher memory levels. The OOM sufferers are typically those with the highest system specs... The problem though is regardless of my setup. 4g-1.5g= 2.5g that should leave plenty of room for an O/S and an app to survive in a 32 bit O/S. The problem that no one seems to want to address is that with proper coding NO application should EVER exceed the 32 bit limitations. This is why I am so frustrated. A properly coded application does not suffer from OOM errors period ever end of story. It doesn't exceed the lower memory allocation of an application. FS9 and FSX both exceed 2g and so does Exchange Server which had to be moved over to 64 bit which points to MS not coding applications to their own O/S standards. There is a bigger issue here...-PaulPrimary RigLiquid CooledIntel C2D E6600 @3.2 gigsAsus P5N32SLI-Plus2 gigs Corsair XMS PC6400 4 4 4 12 @810Dual OC'd XFX 8800GTX @ 2 gigs24 inch Widescreen LCD 16XAA/16XAFDual 19 inch LCD'sRaid-0+1PCPower and Cooling 1k Quad SLIhttp://home.comcast.net/~psolk/3monitorsa.htmlBackup RigAMD 4000 San Diego @ 2.72 Gigs Kingston Corsair XMS CL2XFX 7900 GTX Raid-0psolk.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>4g-1.5g= 2.5g that should leave plenty of room for an O/S and an app to survive in a 32 bit O/S.That may or may not be true, although the evidence here suggests it isn't. However the reality is that Windows is not (and is most unlikely ever to be) designed to meet the requirements of a vanishingly snall number of FS enthusiasts with high-end systems.>with proper coding NO application should EVER exceed the 32 bit limitations. Given that FS (like all Windows applications) is event-driven and that Vitual Memory (VM)is allocated and deallocated dynamically, it is impossible to predict the usage of VM. This is compounded by the "open-archtecture" of FS which allows 3rd parties to incorporate executable files (.gau and .dll) that can also use VM. Basicallyis that if VM is available it is allocated when it's required. Once there is insufficient Windows can do nothing other than issue an OOM error. Remember, VM is needed not only for data objects but also for bitmaps when they are loaded from disk. Perhaps you could explain how a Windows could be coded to ensure that it never calls for more contiguous VM than is is available?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

psolk wrote:>The OOM sufferers are>typically those with the highest system specs... The problem>though is regardless of my setup. 4g-1.5g= 2.5g that should>leave plenty of room for an O/S and an app to survive in a 32>bit O/S.The 32-bit Windows variants are designed to give the upper 2GB of address space to the OS, and the lower 2GB to applications. When you give up 2x768MB = 1.5GB (75%) of the upper address space to the video card alone, you're crowding the space available to the OS, the other memory mapped device addresses, and the apps, and something's gotta give.The memory-mapped VRAM is not the only thing occupying that valuable upper 2GB of address space. Your sound card, your LAN card, and various other hardware devices on the PCI bus take a chunk for their hardware-mapped addresses as well. And after the smoke clears, the OS then has to either fit into whatever tiny space is left over in the upper 2GB it is designed to operate in, or it has to move down into the lower 2GB and further block the address space available to application programs.The simple truth is that FS was never designed to operate in the environment you've created for it. I think you're irate because you can't fit ten pounds of the latest-greatest stuff into the five pound bag MS has provided you. >The problem that no one seems to want to address is that with>proper coding NO application should EVER exceed the 32 bit>limitations. This is why I am so frustrated. A properly>coded application does not suffer from OOM errors period ever>end of story. "Proper" coding is in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps a paging scheme could be designed to keep FS and any conceivable combination of memory-munching add-ons (mesh, hi-res scenery and complex aircraft etc) within an arbitrarily overcrowded address space...but then the paging would kill frame rates and fluidity. IOW, the cure might be worse than the disease, and for a lot more folks than the relative few affected now. Bottom line...and the lesson to be learned by others here, is that there is more to systems design than plugging in as many of the best and most powerful components you can fit and expecting results commensurate with the dollars spent. Your system, as designed and built, imposes clearly foreseeable limitations when using any 32-bit Microsoft OS. I would think that a pair of 320MB 8800GTS boards (if you truly need SLI) or a single 640 or 768MB 8800 would prove a better design choice in a system that will be used to run FS on a 32-bit OS. And 4GB of RAM on a 32-bit system, as I've written elsewhere here before, is money wasted as well--even with a single 768MB video card, most to all of that fourth gig of RAM is inaccessible to the OS because of the same memory-mapped hardware device issues.It's frustrating, I'd think, to spend hundreds of dollars on that second video card or that last gig of RAM, and then realize that they're either sitting there useless, or even creating problems. But respectfully, I suggest to you that the problems you're having are at least as much of your own making through faulty system design as any perceived deficiency in the design of FS.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ISTM that for an app to handle this OOM issue, it would have to first allocate VM to itself, and then manage it internally rather than letting the OS do it. How good is the garbage collection in MSFS?scott s..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott,The garbage collection in MSFS is horrible. Just watch Filemon for an entire FS session and watch how FS wastes memory and then doesn't seem to recover it ever until you shut down FS. Watch all the calls to non-existent directories and files "by default" in FS that eat up at memory. To Bob, this was happening to myself with everything from 7800 GTX cards on up. Don't try and put this down to "faulty system design" when the only three applications that trigger the OOM on any of my systems or servers that run for months and TEAR through any piece of s/w under the sun are MSFS 9 and X and MS Exchange Server...It is not the users fault regardless of their system that MSFS looks for the same file that doesn't exist in 5 different places and MS just left that horrible coding in there for the end user to find themselves and that this poor coding gets exposed when FS is pushed to the limit on high end systems. If I had to sacrifice my system or the only app that doesn't run on it I will sacrifice the app and keep the crispest clearest #D modeling and video editing you can imagine. Talk to me about faulty system design when all those nifty FSX features require DX10 which requires an 8800 series card or better. Talk to me about poor system design when anything less than this can barely run FSX and yet they wrote that app for a bloated 32 bit O/S as well. Oh wait, it would cost MS to write FSX for the O/S that can actually run it with the memory and video cards it needs. MGH,the answer to your question is in my answer above. If the MSFS code was efficient to begin with we would never be CLOSE to these memory levels even with our add-ons. Inadvertent searches for files that don't exist over and over again in the base code of an application is not poor coding in the eye of the beholder it is poor coding. Primary RigLiquid CooledIntel C2D E6600 @3.2 gigsAsus P5N32SLI-Plus2 gigs Corsair XMS PC6400 4 4 4 12 @810Dual OC'd XFX 8800GTX @ 2 gigs24 inch Widescreen LCD 16XAA/16XAFDual 19 inch LCD'sRaid-0+1PCPower and Cooling 1k Quad SLIhttp://home.comcast.net/~psolk/3monitorsa.htmlBackup RigAMD 4000 San Diego @ 2.72 Gigs Kingston Corsair XMS CL2XFX 7900 GTX Raid-0psolk.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>To Bob, this was happening to myself with everything from 7800>GTX cards on up. Don't try and put this down to "faulty>system design" when the only three applications that trigger>the OOM on any of my systems or servers that run for months>and TEAR through any piece of s/w under the sun are MSFS 9 and>X and MS Exchange Server...Lots of emotion here...but unemotionally, your choice to block 1.5GB of memory address space with dual 8800GTX boards (or perhaps 1GB of address space with two 512MB 7900s?) is an obvious problem for the 32-bit Windows environment and FS9/X. Don't know about all these other apps you refer to, but I don't run anything that taxes my PC to its limits as much as FS plus the usual slew of hungry add-ons.>It is not the users fault regardless of their system that MSFS>looks for the same file that doesn't exist in 5 different>places and MS just left that horrible coding in there for the>end user to find themselves and that this poor coding gets>exposed when FS is pushed to the limit on high end systems.No, but I don't think anyone is nominating the ACES team for the Turing Trophy here. >If I had to sacrifice my system or the only app that doesn't>run on it I will sacrifice the app and keep the crispest>clearest #D modeling and video editing you can imagine. Talk>to me about faulty system design when all those nifty FSX>features require DX10 which requires an 8800 series card or>better. But my point is that you chose to put *two* 768MB 8800 cards in your PC. The consequences of that design decision, when running FS and 32-bit Windows, are quite predictable. Sorry, but I do fault your system design as it relates to the FS environment.Your system is so strong...with a few minor compromises you could have FS9 cranking at 40-50 fps with loads of add-ons in the mix. You're so pi**ed that you can't have it all, you'd rather just throw the baby out with the bath water?? That's not very good reasoning.>Talk to me about poor system design when anything>less than this can barely run FSX and yet they wrote that app>for a bloated 32 bit O/S as well. FSX is a pig, I agree, but it does run (slowly) without OOM errors on machines with slower CPUs and less RAM...but the key is that they sport more memory address headroom.>Oh wait, it would cost MS>to write FSX for the O/S that can actually run it with the>memory and video cards it needs. Someday, Joe Average and the rest of the unwashed masses will move to a 64-bit OS environment. Before that it just isn't economical for MS to write a game specifically for a 64-bit environment that is only used by a minority of professional users and power hobbyists.Until then, dial it back a notch or two, take a breath, relax, and have a happy day simming...RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what the funniest thing about this entire post is...I haven't had an actual OOM in a long long time. Actually, the last time I got an OOM with FS9 was prior to the dual 8800 GTX setup so please stop attacking my babies ;) Apologies if I was coming across to heated, I don't take it personal but sometimes sarcasm and that "yeah ok" look don't come across digitally. My point in this post was to neither throw MS under the bus nor to displace blame from myself. The only point was to try and tell others who are looking for a silver bullet or a guarnteed fix for an OOM that it very well might not exist and unfortunately FSX isn't going to fix it. Some people have been fighting this for a long long time and it is really frustrating for that group of users.Look I know better than anyone, (trust me tracking down OOM errors has been a second job for me for two years) that this doesn't happen with a default FS9. It happens to a severely bloated FS9 and certain systems. It does happen with a default FSX and Vista and that is scary. I actually figured out that the issue with OOM's and MSFS was specifically the bloating of FS and wrote a post a few months ago about de-bloating MSFS specifically. But that doesn't excuse the fact that there is some really poor coding alongside all of this fabulous coding in FS that can really do with a clean up...What I do before every flight is to disable all non-essential apps and programs.Then I remove all non-essential Dll's.Then I disable EVERY single add-on airport other than the ones being used for that particular flight.I also disabled all MYTraffic Afcad files. This still provides MORE than enough AI but doesn't load it up at all the airports I am not using. Add-on airports have their own AF2 anyway.By "de-bloating" FS9 it has become the most enjoyable FS experience I could have ever hoped for and I personally am happy. I was trying to give others a heads up but I guess it came across wrong.But back to my point; look at an application like HEAVYLOAD. http://www.jam-software.com/freeware/index.shtmlIt is a freeware program that everyone can download and try. It will run your CPU to 100% your physical memory down to ~ 2megs available out of 2 gigs and grow your swap until there is nothing left on your HD. This is one of the stress tests I use for my system and despite using every inkling of system resources down to nothing at all left HeavyLoad will run until I shut it down which is sometimes 7-10 days. Come to think of it so will 3D Studio Max and every other application under the sun...Why won't FS or Exchange that HAD to be ported over to 64 bit and why do we accept it?Cheers Bob,-PaulPrimary RigLiquid CooledIntel C2D E6600 @3.2 gigsAsus P5N32SLI-Plus2 gigs Corsair XMS PC6400 4 4 4 12 @810Dual OC'd XFX 8800GTX @ 2 gigs24 inch Widescreen LCD 16XAA/16XAFDual 19 inch LCD'sRaid-0+1PCPower and Cooling 1k Quad SLIhttp://home.comcast.net/~psolk/3monitorsa.htmlBackup RigAMD 4000 San Diego @ 2.72 Gigs Kingston Corsair XMS CL2XFX 7900 GTX Raid-0psolk.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hum...Garbage collection applies to languages such as java that havea separate thread that looks for un-referenced objects in memoryand deletes them. FS is written in a C-language derivative thatuses explicit constructors and destructor's - ie the program allocatesand then gives back memory to the process using explicit instructionsin the computer code - get this wrong and you know in seconds. Notice the last word - the memory can only be handed back to theprocess (FS9 or FSX), it cannot be handed back to the OS. This meansthat if you ever use 1.5G of memory in FS, the process size of FS9/Xwill never get smaller again on all OS I know of. (The size may be viewed as smaller occasionally as the OS may attribute buffersetc to FS9/X and these can be returned to the OS). So it appearsthat FS just gets bigger, then waits at this size, then sometimes gets a bit bigger, then waits at this size. The wait at the big size is when the process (FS9/X) has got lots of memory back and canreuse this again, until it needs more from the OS - and eventuallyyou hit 2G.As for FS having bad memory management - it does not. If you havea memory leak in such a program you soon know. As posts haveindicated - it is the open source nature and all the addons whichdon't work well together. Then there is the need for us simmers tojust want all possible addons until it all goes crunch. Finally : all video cards (apg and pci-e) have a memory shadow inthe RAM, and if you fit multiple big mem vidoe cards then, as noted, you seriously stretch the high memory error - which can then take application space. You cannot blame MS for a 32bitOS - I constantly hit the same problem under linux (32bit). Wewill have to all wait until 64 OS become normal and all the simstuff is ported properly to 64bit OS.I am writing this post since I am waiting to see if the program Iam writing will run at a particular setting within constraints ofmy 32bit linux OS; I just have to change the parameters and limitmy research to fit my computer. That is life....Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, your last line says it all. That is life... Very informative post BTW, thank you. Not coding in C I wouldn't know that the application can not release memory back to the O/S. That is life like you said. The h/w we want to really run this sim in a kick a@@ manner "can" exceed the limitations of the O/S. The h/w we will need for Vista/DX10/FSX WILL exceed the limitations of the O/S even with default FSX and that is even more disheartening. In other words simmers are now stuck in a catch 22 until like Tom says we are all running 64 bit OS's and the application has been ported over. As for memory management I still do not think MSFS is efficient. It was coded with a known memory leak where it will look for textures indefinitely due to a blank texture folder and it is consistently doing repeated searches for files that don't exist in places that don't exist and that can not be an efficient use of memory in any application, especially if it can not give the memory consumed on those bogus searches back to the o/S ;). I will take all the blame in the world for bloating FS and wanting to use a kick a@@ system to run it, I understand what everyone is saying and I am not arguing at all on that front.I just want to get the point across this is an issue that might not be fixable for those experiencing it unless they are willing to do what I wrote above and start "de-bloating" fs. We may have pushed beyond the limits of the s/w with our h/w and I am not going to give up my h/w that runs everything else spectacularly for any s/w and that is just me. When my cassettes didn't fit in my DVD player I didn't try to figure out a way to dumb down my new h/w to my old media I moved on. If FS can't keep up with the h/w and is limited by the O/S MS chose to write it for I am not going to dumb down my h/w to sim. That is just me,-PaulPS the difference with Linux is how easy it is to modify parameters. A quick VI here and there and you are on your way. Try that with MS ;) Primary RigLiquid CooledIntel C2D E6600 @3.2 gigsAsus P5N32SLI-Plus2 gigs Corsair XMS PC6400 4 4 4 12 @810Dual OC'd XFX 8800GTX @ 2 gigs24 inch Widescreen LCD 16XAA/16XAFDual 19 inch LCD'sRaid-0+1PCPower and Cooling 1k Quad SLIhttp://home.comcast.net/~psolk/3monitorsa.htmlBackup RigAMD 4000 San Diego @ 2.72 Gigs Kingston Corsair XMS CL2XFX 7900 GTX Raid-0psolk.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"So I was just wondering what your thoughts were... "Are you really?The way you're babysitting this topic and coming back at anyone's input with anti-MS sentiment says otherwise. Again, that's just me, but I've been simming for quite some time (over 20 years) and only have had one OOM issue with FS9, and that was with a very, very large and demanding addon. So in my view the manufacturer has provided a sim that IS quite stable but does allow the power users to overwhelm if THEY see fit.So there's another thought for your harvest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes,I am...When people like Tom come along and provide new information I did not know about I am grateful and I state it and thank the poster.I have conceded that yes this is a mostly self induced problem that can be avoided by "de bloating" FS as others have said so that point was taken as well.I have also said that our h/w these days "can" surpass the limitations of the O/S, another point taken from the feedback.I have apologized to Bob if I came across the wrong way.In fact I even stated that the real point here is that alongside all of that great code MS provided us there is some really inefficient code that can be cleaned up as well. So no, it is not all negative MS bashing but I call it like it is and if there is inefficient code embedded within MSFS it should be brought to light.I have also tried to point out that this is an issue that was not fixed with FSX/Vista and has actually become worse so there really may not be a "silver bullet" to fix it. How great are all those sliders MS reserved for future h/w when the O/S for the new H/w can't handle it? It is a very valid concern moving forward.As you can see, my demeanor has actually changed quite drastically from my original post based on the entire thread so to be honest I find your comments about me personally totally unjustified. You could have commented on the thread without commenting on me personally... I have not said a single thing about any individual in this topic nor will I, that is your choice to come and start judging the individual.So there is another thought for your harvest, it doesn't have to be personal.-PaulOh yeah and since you think I am babysitting maybe if you were stuck at home on new medications to help you feel your leg again after spinal surgery to be able to function again you might be watching the forums too. never judge someone until you know the full story...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PaulI suggest you go have a quite flight somewhere nice, I alwaysrecommend the French alps - really beautiful up there - cool beer,(can't do that in a real plane) ....regardsTom

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