Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Domestos

Vista64 bit and FS9

Recommended Posts

My computer is currently cooking up an install of Vista 64Bit. When I install FS9 again do I need to patch the executable (FS9.EXE) to be aware of the large address space or is that not neccesary in 64bit land???I'm a trifle confused!! any help gratefully recieved...Jim Harris

Share this post


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

No. You should be fine with your current configuration and OOMs should be a history. I would also manually increase PF file as 130% of RAM available. For example, I have 6GB with P6T mobo that Vista-64 fully recognizes on both BIOS start-up and Win-system menu. Therefore, I added another 30% for PF file to minimize swapping and increase it to 9GB.Perhaps some tech-guru will shed some more light on that as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. You should be fine with your current configuration and OOMs should be a history. I would also manually increase PF file as 130% of RAM available. For example, I have 6GB with P6T mobo that Vista-64 fully recognizes on both BIOS start-up and Win-system menu. Therefore, I added another 30% for PF file to minimize swapping and increase it to 9GB.Perhaps some tech-guru will shed some more light on that as well
Many thanks!! I'm almost there, only about three more hours of staring at my desktop whilst things sort themselves out. I'm sure I'm going to get square eyes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Dimitry said, no need for large address aware. I have 4GB and use the suggested (by windows) 6GB swap file (manually added) Switching to 64bit is the best thing I did as far as flight simming goes. FS loads and runs faster now as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with the previous posters, and suggest that you indeed should patch the executable to set the LARGEADDRESSAWARE flags in the executable.It is true that a 64-bit OS will improve things even without setting the flag, but if FS9 tries to grow beyond a 2GB address space without the LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag set, Windows will trap it as an error and you'll get an OOM. If you are using FS9 with a complex aircraft (i.e. PMDG 747/MD-11, Level D 767, etc) and/or complex scenery and/or hi-def 32-bit clouds and/or high levels of traffic, you can drive FS into making memory allocation requests that exceed the 2GB address space reserved for 32-bit programs. By setting the flag, you tell your 64-bit OS to permit the program to use a virtual address space of 4GB instead of 2GB. Without the flag set, you are not getting the full benefit of using a 64-bit OS.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a starnge one indeed Bob. I have done several flights with my 64bit OS that would always end in an OOM error on my 32bit system. I have yet to encounter one while using my 64bit system. PMDG 747 KJFK to EGLL a couple times and nary a problem.Would setting the flag cause any ill effects I wonder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is a starnge one indeed Bob. I have done several flights with my 64bit OS that would always end in an OOM error on my 32bit system. I have yet to encounter one while using my 64bit system. PMDG 747 KJFK to EGLL a couple times and nary a problem.Would setting the flag cause any ill effects I wonder?
Some people have no problems on a 32-bit system. There are a lot of variables. I'm not saying it's necessary for everyone, but for some people, especially power users with sliders up high and lots of complex add-ons, OOMs are possible even with a 64-bit OS if they don't have the LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag set. FWIW, one of the changes made in FSuX SP2 was to set the flag.Ill effects are possible if you have an add-on program that uses sneaky programmer tricks on the high order bit in the address. That said, I have not encountered any such program so far in FS9. Since I went to Vista 64 with the LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag set in fs9.exe, I Haven't had a single OOM. Without the flag set, I had a few, especially approaching a complex airport add-on at the end of a long flight (9+ hrs) in the PMDG 747.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does have me perplexed (not hard to do). I run my sliders all the way up and have much invested in add on's (airports, active sky, ge pro, UT Can/USA, PMDG and so on, you name it I pretty much have it) and I have yet to have a single OOM error where as on my 32bit system I could not fly the PMDG 747 KORD-KJFK with out getting one.It makes sense now though Bob, a 32bit app is only going to see 2GB unless told otherwise. My only fear is AES had problems with the LAA fix added on my 32bit system (something Oliver at Aerosoft is aware of). Are you using AES as well? And if so are you having an g3d.dll errors? (something you get when you have the LAA fix and AES running)....Link>>>http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=17418

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Ive just flown EGLL-EDDF with no pausing, no OOM's and the terrain looked perfect all the way. I also flew overnight from Frankfurt to Newark NJ and when I woke up this morning my MD11 was still there, paused at FL320 waiting for me to take over. This would never have happened with 32bit Vista (or XP) so I'm a Chuffed Bunny. I will try setting the large address switch to see if it makes a difference, logic says it should! but fer now, thanks everyone for your help.CheersJim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It does have me perplexed (not hard to do). I run my sliders all the way up and have much invested in add on's (airports, active sky, ge pro, UT Can/USA, PMDG and so on, you name it I pretty much have it) and I have yet to have a single OOM error where as on my 32bit system I could not fly the PMDG 747 KORD-KJFK with out getting one.It makes sense now though Bob, a 32bit app is only going to see 2GB unless told otherwise. My only fear is AES had problems with the LAA fix added on my 32bit system (something Oliver at Aerosoft is aware of). Are you using AES as well? And if so are you having an g3d.dll errors? (something you get when you have the LAA fix and AES running)....
I do use AES, and have had no problems with it and the LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag on a 64-bit OS.When using the LAA flag on a 32-bit OS, you also have to use the /3GB switch...and that can cause trouble as it crowds the OS and all the memory-mapped RAM into just 1 GB of address space. It's especially problematic with vidcards sporting large (>256MB) memory arrays. I had a number of problems with the 3GB and LAA switches in Win XP, hence my move to Vista 64.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was happening (in AES when LAA was enabled) is when it was called upon outside the normal 2GB it would CTD with a g3d.dll error (when the gates would try to load, normally on short final some 6miles out). So with 32bit you had a choice, 3GB switch and no AES or AES and the very good possiblity of an OOM error on a flight longer than an hour.That being said 64bit is worlds better and thanks for the heads up Bob. I did some testing last night with it enabled flying from a non AES airport to one that had AES (short flights that would always end in a 3gd.ll error in the past) and it all went well.BTW, I feel for you Bob. Nine hour flights ending in OOM must have been hellish! It's a wonder your still at it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites