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

Reading my posts and a few others' I believe many of us share this thinking. It won't help eventually but at least we're in the same boat (plane).

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?

This question was asked a few times, even much before the release, and I'm afraid PMDG says 'no' to it.They say it's not a problem since VC doesn't contribute to lower FPS. Well, I assume it's true (they know what tey mean).But anyway there is NO use for me to have VC and each time I swtich views (especially at the end of the flight) it takes some time to load the VC textures.I wish there was an option like in their 744, but I don't want to irritate anyone, so I'd better shut up now.To sum up my thoughts, I don't think there is any other game (I know, I know...) in the world (including Sims, most famous car simulators and whatever else) being such an incredibly huge market for manufacturers and such a huge platform for us Simmers to complement. For these or those reasons we want to create an altenative (virtual) world where we can become armchair captains in an environment that resembles the reality as much as possible. And then it comes like everywhere and always: the price to pay. The Virtual Memory usage errors are the highest I've had to pay so far. All others were more or less clearly curable. Sometimes I think what we do tweaking the default MFS is like tweaking a car on and on to such a moment when (no matter how much money it takes, and it does take quite a lot) it just won't go or (maybe more like this case) won't let us get to our destination. On the other hand I don't believe there are simmers buying PMDG products (which for me means treating this hobby really seriously) and flying it in the purely default environment. So, in the long term, is it a hopeless case for many of us?Best regards,Rafal

Guys,Just a brief data for you.1. UT Series by itself is HUGE VM eater. That's the fact that your should face and decide whether to use it or not.2. The following european sceneries has landclass add-on THAT SHOULD BE REMOVED even thought it adds some nice-looking images.A. Cloud 9 EHAMB. ISD LIMCC. FSDT LSZHD. Aerosoft EDDF, EDDK, EDDV, EDDP, EDDKC. Cloud 9 ENBRF. Aerosoft/Dreamwings ESSA and EBBR.If you don't remove landclasses from these sceneries by disabling them in the scenery.cfg YOU"RE DOOMED TO HAVE CONTSTANT OOMs. especially during approach

It's all a juggling act, but I suppose AI traffic is the first thing to shed when looking to recoup some resources. The more AI, the more textures, the more memory it eats. My vanilla FS9 starts up at 92Mb (physical). Add to that a complex airport and we're sitting at 200-300Mb. By the time AI traffic is loaded in, it baloons out to 400-500Mb depending on the airport even without a complex panel, just in the default Cessna. If you cannot live without AI, at least convert the textures to DXT3! I can't stress that enough! 32 bit textures admittedly are beautiful, but eat into memory like a warm knife into butter.Add-on sceneries would be the second place to look. I'd dump the Ultimate Terrain series (as difficult of a choice that would be), it's easily the most memory hungry and the most problematic, even after the multitude of patches that had been released. You could lower the autogen, that's another (sometimes whopping) saving. Consider eliminating ground shadows (not sure of their impact on memory though - I personally leave them on). Replacement ground textures can use up a bit of memory too, especially massive photosceneries. Lastly, consider curbing the weather. Ask yourself, do you really need 20 cloud layers? 140 different high quality texture combinations? Again, convert as many textures as possible to DXT3 for both memory and performance savings. The visual quality might drop a little, but it's not all that significant to the naked eye and you probably won't see much of a difference between 32bit and DXT3 clouds unless you go out looking for them. You will see a difference in the memory use though.That's roughly it. I'm sure some cost-cutting measures I've listed are excessive, I don't use most of them (can't live without my AI or my complex weather), but, like I said, it's a juggling act of finding a sweet spot and staying there. Until something like the MD11 comes around :(

Also,I see guys that you have plenty of freetime and your simmer's religion forbid you to use "Save Flight" Option. I cannot allow to myself such luxury as 8hrs long-haul in a real-time. What is the problem to save the flight withing 200nm from destination, exit the sim then continue again. By doing that you will free huge amount of resources accumulated during the flight and avoid OOM on approach for sure

Thanks G-YMML1!That's what I meant by:

removing landclass files from addon scenery files and adding them separately (doesn't concern photoscenery)

Thanks for listing the sceneries. Unfortunately there are more potentially problematic ones, like SimWings' ones I mentioned (LEMD, LFPG, but also their Balearics). This time not only landclass but also DEM/flatten files. For instance I couldn't arrive at CDG with ANY aircraft due to OOM. After deactivating the CDG-SCC-FS9FLATTENMESH_DEM file no problems anymore. In Madrid I deactivated mad_flt_DEM and voila! And I also removed some other sceneries completely due to their unidentified but faulty behaviour (I won't name them not to insult their creators, especially that some were freeware).What a difficult hobby it became!Best regards,Rafal

Guys,A. Cloud 9 EHAMB. ISD LIMCC. FSDT LSZHD. Aerosoft EDDF, EDDK, EDDV, EDDP, EDDKC. Cloud 9 ENBRF. Aerosoft/Dreamwings ESSA and EBBR.If you don't remove landclasses from these sceneries by disabling them in the scenery.cfg YOU"RE DOOMED TO HAVE CONTSTANT OOMs. especially during approach

Proof?

Rafal,Since I have bought MD11 on Monday I completed 4 long-hauls (with 4x over Atlantic and 1x over US/Europe) + 2 short-range flights. I have both UT, ASV, GE/GE, the scenery.cfg with 150 entries, tonns of AI etc. No OOM at all with saving flight withing 150-200nm OR 50nm before TOD.

Proof?

Zero OOMs with WinXP-SP3. What other proof do you need? :(The other potential object of OOM errors is Aerosoft LFPG. With default Cessna it eats 1.1GB on start-up and 1.3-1.4 with PMDG products loaded. The bottom line is that PMDG products are not worst contributors to OOM errors. Trust me, Coolslky MD80 and DA Fokker have much more issues with OOMs (despite my respect to its developers and overall complexity of the products mentioned).

Zero OOMs with WinXP-SP3. What other proof do you need? :(

Something that conclusively shows that these sceneries are the direct cause of OOMs, before telling people to hack up their products. I own most of them in an unaltered state (or patched up to the latest version) and don't suffer from OOMs when approaching them under normal conditions. Curious as to where you got that kind of information, that's all.As far as LFPG is concerned, I'm assuming that's VM use, right? And is that with AI or just vanilla? I'll have to check how much it uses on my setup when I get home. I'm pretty sure it's much lower.

before telling people to hack up their products.

There is no need to "hack" anything or whatsoever. Just disable (uncheck) them via default FS2004 scenery interface. No rocket science at all.

these sceneries are the direct cause of OOMs, before telling people to hack up their products.

Wrong wording, sir. There is no such thing as "direct cause", there is thing such as "cumulative contributive effect". That what I was talking about.My best.

G-YMML1,You see, looks like again things go different for different people (simmers):

Coolslky MD80 and DA Fokker have much more issues with OOMs

DA Fokker is one of my favourite addon aircraft and has never given me an OMM, not related to a later cured scenery problem (like LEMD or LFPG) of course. But, I admit, that may also be due to the short time it occupies FS sessions - you won't make long hauls in it! :( PMDG MD-11 didn't OOM my MFS in short flights, either. Fortunately!Best regards,Rafal

Wrong wording, sir. There is no such thing as "direct cause", there is thing such as "cumulative contributive effect". That what I was talking about.My best.

And this is exactly what I'm talking about. These are all contributing factors. There's no conclusive evidence than any of these sceneries cause OOMs (i.e. by causing memory leaks). What you're talking about is reducing their memory footprint. This is contrary to what you stated in your first post, "YOU"RE DOOMED TO HAVE CONTSTANT OOMs. especially during approach" which implies that unless they are removed the end user will get OOMs, which, in fact, is not true. The user may experience OOMs given certain other factors occurring at the same time.Having said all that, any exercise that will reduce memory used by any and all FS9 add-ons, will, obviously, reduce the likelihood of an OOM event taking place.

As promised, I checked out LFPG. Sorry to say mate, but there's definitely something amiss with your installation. At 100% AI (221 aircraft at and around the airport), with 100% ASA supplied weather, running @ 1600x1200x32, 4xAA, 16xAF and all sliders to right, in the default Cessna sitting at the gate (on startup), I'm seeing 512Mb physical/837Mb virtual. There's no way you should be seeing 300Mb more than me (assuming you're using virtual size measurements). Holding all other settings constant but without AI, the numbers are respectively 387Mb/747VM. This is all after a pan around, to make sure anything that was meant to be loaded, has loaded.

......2. The following european sceneries has landclass add-on THAT SHOULD BE REMOVED even thought it adds some nice-looking images.A. Cloud 9 EHAMB. ISD LIMCC. FSDT LSZHD. Aerosoft EDDF, EDDK, EDDV, EDDP, EDDKC. Cloud 9 ENBRF. Aerosoft/Dreamwings ESSA and EBBR.If you don't remove landclasses from these sceneries by disabling them in the scenery.cfg YOU"RE DOOMED TO HAVE CONTSTANT OOMs. especially during approach

G-YYML 1,Sorry, but a statement like that is just industrial-strength male-cattle-manure! I use almost all of those sceneries, as well as many others such as AeroSoft EGLL 2008 - another favourite OOM culprit in the eyes of self-proclaimed prophets. I have not removed any landclass files - and never, ever suffered an OOM in FS9! That is with ASv6.5, AES, AISmooth and my VA flight monitoring sotware all running - and 95% AI.I run Vista32 with 4Gb ram, but have only made 3Gb visible to the OS through the bios, C2D E6600 overclocked to 3.2, 8800 GTX with 768Mb on board - go figure....Oh and by the way - better start signing messages with your name or you'll be history here. Check the forum rules :( Cheers,S

Do you have UT Europe? It normally adds up from 200 to 450GB of VM. Other than that, I have pretty much the same FS set-up as you, including AI. I have desktop dedicated for FS only, so I don't have any other applications in order not to increase VM usage. Also I have PF set-up manually up to 6GB. Bottom line is that I was pretty happy to minimize VM usage on my system. So far I had zero OOMs with MD11

Ok, last timeOf course "You're not doomed"..perhaps it was wrong phrase, sorry. It's been said for many years on this forum, other forums that landlclasses files may provoke memory leaks without a particular reason. It can be a single factor, it can be several factors. Last week I landed at ESSA at night with LD767. Within 15mn from RNY26 DME I had 0.9GB of VM, but once landclass file become visible, I received ~1.4GB strike message on MemInfo utililty. It settled down apparently to 1.1 GB after the landing. Then, I repeated the same approach without LC file and I had stable 0.9GB VM usage.Bottom line - removing landclass files significantly minimizes the chances of OOM to happen. Everyone agree with such statment? :(