Hello,My system is a fast and expensive one, so that can't be any problem (Intell Dual Core 6700, nVidea8800GTX, raptorHD, WinXP, 2GB, FS9)As written earlier in this topic, i alway's suffer from OOM and for a long time, with complex Aircraft (e.g. PMDG B744, Coolpix MD82 etc.)After ordering the PMDG MD11 it turned out that also with this one i suffer OOM's.Now here is the good part:After day's and day's of testing i came out with a solution for my OOM's.I suspected Ultimate Terrain Europe to be hard on Virtual Memory and i disabled it in my scenery.cfg.That did it !!Even in the most complex scenery, complex weather, flying online with many, many addon features my OOM's are gone now!I can again fly all the aircraft PMDG B744, MD11 etc. etc.Maybe this is working for you guy's also?O.k.....one will have to choose between UT or PMDG aircraft, for me this was not a difficult choice.Regards,Ben

After day's and day's of testing i came out with a solution for my OOM's.I suspected Ultimate Terrain Europe to be hard on Virtual Memory and i disabled it in my scenery.cfg.That did it !!

hello ben,Sure UT is a strong consumer of virtual address space. But once you get used to it you don't want to revert to default scenery ! I still prefer the 3G\ switch solution.cheersJulien

I was suspectinig UT too for the past days. The post of benvanboom is confirming this suspection for me. I will turn off UT USA and UT Europe for a while and see if any OOM will popup during my flights.Thanks for the confirmation Ben.

I can also confirm that turning off UT usually cure's OOMs. But, flying with the default scenery, it's an utter ugliness. UT simply uses lots of memory, as expected actually, and using another addons that eat the memory away (MD-11 for instance), no wonder we are seeing OOMs.I agree that 3GB switch is a good thing for FS9.But let me explain something:If you have an application that wouldn't work under 64bit system, it also won't work under 32bit system if you enable 3GB switch. So, the point is, if there are all drivers for XP64 available, there is no reason not to use it. With 64bits, FS9 can use even more than 3GB, basically limitless. No OOMs possible.

Hi Julius, Timo and Word Not Allowed,Ihave tried the 3Gb switch also, but no show......other problems (on my sound) and still OOM's.I do love UT but when this means i cannot fly my loved airplanes, then i will have to give Ut up.For me personally, FS is more about flying then it is about eyecandy.On the other hand.....when the 3GB switch is working for you guy's, i would sure let UT on my system when i was you.regards,Ben

Remember guys, both the 3G switch for the operating system And the hi mem mod for the FS9.exe file must be accomplished . . . or no affect will occur at all. With those done, 3G of Virtual memory is the limit. That effectively will limit physical ram loads to ~ 2.5Gish. For FS9, that's plenty.

Remember guys, both the 3G switch for the operating system And the hi mem mod for the FS9.exe file must be accomplished . . . or no affect will occur at all. With those done, 3G of Virtual memory is the limit. That effectively will limit physical ram loads to ~ 2.5Gish. For FS9, that's plenty.

Hi Sam,But if I understand this correctly, in 64bit OS, there is no limit, right? VS can also be 4GB or higher...

The most memory any 32bit program can use is 4Gs (VS). The op system in use does not change this absolute limit for 32 bit ProGraMs. A 32bit op system will allow 4Gs (VS) - per program/process- . Running 10, 32bit programs can (theoretically) schedule 40Gs (VS). With a 32 bit operating system, this 4G (VS) limit is split between the program and the op system. With the 32bit op system switch, that 4Gs (VS) can be reallocated to give more of that 4G (VS) to the program (but less to the op system). However this will only work if the 32bit program's .exe file is hi-mem enabled. Once we get 64bit Programs (running on 64bit op systems), this level is increased significantly, but not infinitely. We'll be right back to this same battle in 20 years, maybe sooner.

We'll be right back to this same battle in 20 years, maybe sooner.

I never thought it to be infinite, but definitely, for us, enough for now.I still remember going from 16bit to 32bit. And when we are in the same situation, we are gonna go 128bit etc etc...

Word Not Allowed, the limit is always going to be set for a 32 bit application, regardless of whether in a 32 bit OS or 64 bit OS environment. With a himem mod set for the FS9.exe, the max addressable space will be 4Gb theoretically...Now an native 64bit app in 64bit OS environment is a lot less restricted. The question lies therein as to how the OS engineers allocate the space available...Anyone expand on this? Then again, this is all moot, since FS11 may well be merely a dream now ;)Andrew

Just thought I'd throw in my OOM experiences and ask a question. My system:ASUS Rampage Extreme x48Intel C2Q 9650 3.0ghz4gb OCZ RAMBFG GTX260, 896mb(C:720, S:1480, M:1220, mhz)SoundMAX X-fiWindows XP Pro SP2FS9.1The first point I'd like to make is that I have had 3 OOM's in recent memory...the first one with the PMDG MD-11 yesterday on a 2.5 hour flight. Now, I have to say that every OOM I've ever had, in any aircraft, happens as I'm approaching add on scenery. I think this speaks volumes...and supports the PMDG response that the MD-11 does not have a memory leak. Now, in the first 2 cases, I used FSManager and found duplicate textures (one in the add-on folder and one in the main FS9 Texture folder). Renaming the culprits in the add-on folders solved all the problems at those 2 locations. Yesterdays flight in the MD-11 was from KEWR to KMEM. I have Blueprint Simulations KMEM installed. After the OOM I did a search for duplicate textures and found 2, "BLDF2.BMP" and "BLDF2LM.BMP", but, the culprits were in a VTBS scenery...not KMEM. If KMEM is calling those 2 textures, from the FS9 main Textures folder, but the textures are aslo duplicated in another addon...could the result be the same? I have never had a problem with BP's KMEM before but this is the first flight to or from since adding VTBS2008 in December...HMmmm. I have renamed the files in the VTBS2008 folder...we shall see what happens. So, before you start deleting all your nice landclass and such...I'd look for something easy, like duplicate textures. Regarding the FS9 "hi-mem" fix and the 3GB switch. I have the 3GB switch installed but I'm a bit confused on the FS9.exe hi-mem fix. In a link above by Leif A Mikkelsen, he points to a 4GB patch for FS9...but it sounds like this is only for a 64 bit OS? Is it possible to use some sort of hi-mem patch of FS9, if your running a 32 bit OS? Anyway all that and $1.00 STILL won't buy you a cup of coffee! :( Victor Buck

Regarding the FS9 "hi-mem" fix and the 3GB switch. I have the 3GB switch installed but I'm a bit confused on the FS9.exe hi-mem fix. In a link above by Leif A Mikkelsen, he points to a 4GB patch for FS9...but it sounds like this is only for a 64 bit OS? Is it possible to use some sort of hi-mem patch of FS9, if your running a 32 bit OS?

Hi,Just pasting bellow the way i did it (from my previous post in this topic !)First download the explorer from http://www.ntcore.com/exsuite.phpNext make a copy from fs9.exe. Than start "CFF Explorer" and open the orginal fs9.exe file.Now go to NT Header/File Header and click File Header. There you find a button labeled "click here". Click it. And select the mark at "App can handle> 2gb adressest "Save the modified EXE, overwrite the orginal one (You have youre copy saved?).regardsjulien

Thanks Julien...I missed that in all the posts! Did you use, also, the "/Userva=2560", or just the straight "/3GB" without the added switch?Off to give it a try! Victor Buck

Thanks Julien...I missed that in all the posts! Did you use, also, the "/Userva=2560", or just the straight "/3GB" without the added switch?Off to give it a try! Victor Buck

I use the userva and you should also because this way it give to the system a bit of virtual address space (VAS). I don't remember the value of userva I used and I am currently on a EHAM/KSFO flight so I will let you know when I have landed. Regarding the userva value, it is I think system-specific so you need to experiment (between 2000 and 3000...see support.microsoft.com/kb/316739) . I would start using 2560 and then if you still have OOM increase the value and If you don't get any start decreasing the value step by step (sound good to give the system more VAS no ?). I also remember, although I can't find the link now, that the amount of memory you have on our graphic card is important to set the amount of VAS for the system. The more video memory you have, the higher are the requirement for the system (smaller userva value).I am sorry I can't be more precise but I am not a specialist in computer sciencehope it helpsJulien

No worries, Julien...your explanation gives me enough to go on.Thanks!Victor