(1)) So for someone like myself who runs FS9.1 and winXP 32bit - the only solution to OOM errors is to get a 64 bit OS (either XP64 or Vista64) AND to do the 3GB switch modification to my FS9.1.exe file? Is that what you mean when you say "and the .exe file hi-mem enabled" . . . (2)) I currently have only 2GB of memory, from your post I take it to mean that systems with 2GB of physical ram are actually LESS susceptible to OOM errors than those with more ram?Thanks,NC

1) True, One can also set the 3G switch for the 32bit op system rather than going to a 64bit op system. However the FS9.exe file must - also - be modified. 2) In my opinion, true. There are physical memory limits too. If the program/op system team don't see 4Gs of physical ram available, they might be less aggressive in their ram scheduling (is, virtual memory) function.

Of course I still have to make a real long haul. Then I will surely return here and report.

Ok, So I did tonight. A Lufthansa Cargo MD-11F flight from Chicago O'Hare to Frankfurt Main.While descending for final approach to Frankfurt, I got OOM. :( Strange as the VM use shown was about 1.3 GB and I landed with 1.5 not once.I don't know what to think. A bit disappointed after a wasted all night flight.I will have to make two or three more longhauls to different airports to see what is going on.I wonder how are others FS9 users flying her long haul. How are your long flights, captains?Best regards,Rafal FS9.1Windows XP 32bit Home SP2Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3GHzAsus P5KC motherboard2GB RAMNVidia GeForce 8800GT

Guys. You gotta get this tool. It's the Only way to see this Virtual Memory stuff that is causing your OOMs. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinte...s/bb896653.aspxThis is what it looks like. "Virtual Size" (VS) is Window's ram scheduling function and it the value that causes OOMs. "WS Private" (WS)is physical ram usage. This VS level will Always be ahead of your WS (physical ram) level. OOMs always happen at a physical ram load - Below - the OOM limit. Note also, this "Virtual Size" ram scheduling level is NoT displayed in TM.

Well I managed a flight yesterday, Zurich to Heathrow online. Landed, parked at the gate and just as I was about to close FlightSim boom, an OOM. I'm using UK2000s Heathrow Xtreme by the way. 2.75Gb seems just to much to be used in a 1h 7min flightCheers

This was a science project, but I see > 2.5G of physical and > 3G VS all the time. Ya gotta hi-mem the system these days.

I would just like to ask one quick question.Are you guys using fsx?Sorry if I missed the answer in a previous post.If your all using fs9 then I guess I have something to worry about but I'm sure PMDG put this bird through all sorts of testing so I won't get too nervous about the long haul flights just yet.Richy

The OP is about FS9 issues. However, OOMs can occur in either X or 9. FS9 uses much less memory than FSX so the OOM impact is less, but not nonexistent. If anyone runs onto issues with either, solutions are available.

If your all using fs9 then I guess I have something to worry about but I'm sure PMDG put this bird through all sorts of testing so I won't get too nervous about the long haul flights just yet.Richy

<<MODERATOR NOTE: COMMENT REMOVED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT FACTUAL>>Please refer to the PMDG forum guidelines above

Rob-If you spend a bit of time using the search function, you will find that after EVERY release, on EITHER platform, we have a spate of people running to the forum as you have tonight- exclaiming that they KNOW we have a memory leak. (Your comment on not having problems with the 747 is a case in point here, if you go back and look at threads from August 2005, May of 2006 and October of 2007, you'll find a bunch of posts from folks who thought the 747 was creating problems for them...)In six and a half years of PMDG releases for MSFS, this has yet to turn out to be the case.In nearly all the cases, the supposed memory problems have turned out to be missing scenery textures, improperly formatted scenery BGLs, genuine out-of-memory errors on user machines that have 5,000 useless applications running in the background, etc etc etc.I hope it does not come as a surprise to you to find out that we conduct extensive testing using professional techniques to determine if we are creating memory problems or "leaking" memory.These tests, all of which are conducted prior to release, have come up negative (meaning that we do not have any problems...)I don't think you need to get a 64bit OS. Heck, I run FSX and FS9 with the MD-11 marvelously without problems in all manner of circumstances on my 32bit machines. I have run into an occasional OOM, but in most cases those were traceable to scenery that had been installed that may or may not have come from a professional source.So- in conclusion: We are ALWAYS open minded to potential problems that our software may cause- but years of experience troubleshooting issues with flight simulator has given us some pretty feedback and some pretty good lessons. If this problem was indeed caused by the MD-11, we'd have thousands of you here with the problem. We are only seeing reports of this from a very very small minority of users- so that tells us that we're looking for something else.What the "else" is, we obviously don't know yet- but with good solid data from you guys- and just a little bit of good luck- someone will catch the detail and we'll unlock that mystery. (Anyone remember the bogus BGL from the freeware airport a few years back? Was it Block Island or Newark? Details are a bit fuzzy now...)

someone will catch the detail and we'll unlock that mystery

There is no mistery, I'm afriad. Too many factors contribute here.Generally the cleaner MFS you keep the lower possibility of getting OOMS there is. Sooner or later some included addons will have a common bite dinner and eat out too much memory. Of course it would be best to fly complex aircraft like yours on a clean FS. There would probably be no OOMS, as I also believe the 744 or the MD-11 are not alone responsible for them. But most of us (including me) are crazy about tweaking and clothing our FS with realistic complex aerodromes, textures, meshes, real wx, traffic, etc. And sooner or later we have to pay a price.I for example am considering to uninstall Ultimate Terrain Europe, first time after I bought it when it was released long ago. The precise roads, towns, rivers, lakes and coastlines, these incredible 3D night lights - it's a very lifelike experience while on departure or approach. But unfortunately it is known to be a potential problem for memory (even with all the patches applied). As I wrote some posts above, I've used a lot of fixes and cleanup to get rid of OOMs. It helped a lot. I hoped it helped in 100%, but last night's flight showed it is not the case. But I will look for a problem in the Frankfurt area (the Aerosoft addon comes with its own landclass, so there might be a little clash here with the UTE landclass, so I'll doublecheck it). If I make another longhaul with my MD-11 to Fraport and see the damn OOM, I'll get rid of UTE and see what happens. And the final solution would be to reinstall FS9 from scratch and install only the necessary things (I know some folks, like Gavin, never put too much stuff in their FS, but I can't stop, I envy you, guys!).Best regards,Rafal

I for example am considering to uninstall Ultimate Terrain Europe, first time after I bought it when it was released long ago. The precise roads, towns, rivers, lakes and coastlines, these incredible 3D night lights - it's a very lifelike experience while on departure or approach. But unfortunately it is known to be a potential problem for memory (even with all the patches applied).

Rafal, don't bother if you have an extensive AI setup. FWIW my latest MD11 OOM happened approaching Frankfurt and I uninstalled UTE a while ago. Without UTE FS9 still pulls over 900Mb of physical memory just sitting at the ramp. Frankfurt does not have any memory leaks that I know of. I have tested it extensively as part of my own fight with OOMs.The problem is simple, the MD11 needs a lot of memory to run. That's it really. There are no leaks, no gremlins that are apparent. Just a lot of memory. Roughly 200Mb more than anything else I have installed.

don't bother if you have an extensive AI setup

A good point.Although I enjoy flying at VATSIM most, I also fly offline, especially learning new aircraft, like this.And then I hate empty airports, so I use 100% traffic. I'm sure I have no mistakes there as I spend quite a lot of time checking it through.But AI takes a lot of memory, it's true. So for the mere sake of compromise, I'll try turning it off and see what happens if I approach planeless Frankfurt Main.Dzieki!Best regads,Rafal

I had an OOM error last night, offlineComing into MAF2008 from UK2000 Stansted, the route DVR UL9 KONAN UL607 SPI UT180 DITEL T180 OSMAX, and OSMAX transition to ILS07L. I would guess I was 10nm out... then I heard that tell tale windows error sound... :(Short flight, but FS had been running for a few hours (as I had done EGGD-EGPH, then EGPH-EGSS without any problems...)Funnily enough, FS9's displayed RAM use in Task Manager was under 1Gb after the OOM message appeared... I have the feeling this post may not help anyone in particular, and I apologize for that. Perhaps someone else here has experienced something similar and we can pool our resources?I have a dedicated FS PC, only 20 processes run before I start FS, 2Gb of RAM and pagefiles on all disks. I use active sky 6.5 for real weather generation. I have a suspicion that there may be a link here, as the 2 OOMs I have experienced in around 10 flights in the MD11 so far were while I was descending in cloud.It could well be that a weather update occurs and that just pushes my system over the limit... I am going to play with the AS settings a little, but I am not sure if there is much I can do.I am convinced that the MD11 is NOT causing the OOMs, as I would have been experiencing this more often, particularly yesterday afternoon, as I sat on the Edinburgh cargo apron for over 3 hours... OK, she may have a larger footprint than other addons, but it is the sum of certain elements that can cause things.Andrew

Guys, I've said it before and I'll say it again - the MD11 does not have any memory leaks. The cause of all of our OOMs is its large memory footprint that is a contributing factor but not the direct cause. When we come in hot and heavy (memory wise) into a complex airport with complex weather and complex AI with all the settings maxed out (as a lot of us are running these days) all these things thrown into the mix push our FS9 over its maximum memory allocation and cause it to run out of memory (even if there is physical/virtual memory still available). It's a 32 bit OS limitation. There's nothing we can do about it, other than the already published workarounds.All PMDG can do is to attempt to lower the memory footprint, but I'm sure they have already optimized this plane to the extremes and what we have is the least amount of memory she needs to function at the level she does. The only thing I can possibly think of to lower the memory use would be to drop the VC, but that's not possible, is it?

Mack, my point exactly... thanks for putting it better than I did :)I am wondering now what I should do to reduce the FS footprint a little...Andrew