The problem is not a lack of virtual memory for every user that experiences these issues. Virtual memory deprivation is easily measurable using Windows tools or Process Monitor. The memory issue is most likely to affect people using a 32-bit operating system. However as Mats indicates Vista and W7 have different memory management strategies than XP and due to these different strategies even Vista 64 or W7-64 users can experience issues but not all do. This issue is virtually non existent in XP-64.Speaking to 32-bit versus 64-bit operating systems in general and not related specifically to FSX. The issue in 32-bit code is that it was once thought we would never exceed the 4GB memory limit. New programs today are easily exceeding the former 4GB limit, as we learned even FSX with add-ons is very easily capable of exceeding these limits. For people on 32-bit systems the answer is to move to 64-bit systems. If you must stay on a 32-bit system apply the 3/GB switch or userva command for Vista/W7 users. Even with a 64-bit system FSX is in need of updating which will never likely happen since Aces is no more. Question now is will Microsoft ever address the memory management strategy in Vista or W7 so that it can play nice with FSX. Regardless of any updates for Vista or W7 32-bit systems, a 32-bit system will never be sufficient for FSX and a switch to a 64-bit system will be in order. You simply cannot make a 32-bit system act like a 64-bit system due to the differences in code short of rewriting the entire system which in effect was what was done in the writing of 64-bit code. The current best solution is to run FSX with XP-64, followed by running FSX with W7-64 and if running W7 hope you do not experience the issues that the people in this thread are experiencing.

XP64, of all the MS OS options, has very limited hardware driver support to begin with as it was never widely used outside of a small passionate user base. I

............... I think it is entirely reasonable for MS to consider such a request given that they have decided on terminating the MSFS brand while simultaneously making it available for retail sale.

OK,If this is an OS memory management issue, then how do we go about requesting Microsoft fixes the issue?Would it be better that the developers (PMDG, Aerosoft etc) approach Microsoft on the users behalf?Pete

OK,If this is an OS memory management issue, then how do we go about requesting Microsoft fixes the issue?Would it be better that the developers (PMDG, Aerosoft etc) approach Microsoft on the users behalf?Pete

I'm sure they would just ignore them as they ignore everyone else. I have placed several questions to Microsoft under my company name to Microsoft and never got a reply other than the pre written crap saying "blah bah blah, thanks for your feedback in making MS Windows great, blah blah blah. I also posted several questions on forums that were monitored by MS just to watch them gt deleted, so I am pretty sure they don't give a flying ...If someone every does get some pull with MS though, please be sure to also ask why all their latest OS's need admin rights on home edition versions that only have 1 user. Of course I could list a million similar questions but don't want to get started. My last question to them was this and it of course was deleted, well also the fact that I quoted one of their reps saying "Based on our users input" and asked for a list of whatever idiots they get their input from so I could see if they actually existed (and if so, maybe put an end to their existance haha).

Would it be better that the developers (PMDG, Aerosoft etc) approach Microsoft on the users behalf?

I wonder that developers are so quiet concerning this problem, do they know about this problem?.No assistance at all, let people tweak and test, we don't care.....I think this is the wrong way because I don't need further addons for FSX if all my flights end up with a black screen or disappearing textures.Then I will stick with FS2004 with plenty of addons and the best, everything is working fine.I don't need FSX flying a Cessna all the time because this aircraft doesn't demand much graphic load, I' am flying jetliners for several hours and this isn't possible at the moment.So why should I purchase addons like REX, offering clouds in 4096 resolution but you can only adjust a textursize of 1024 in FSX, otherwise you'll get a black screen after some time? Same here for addons like PMDG, LDS, CS and others with high graphic load or in conjunction with HD textures.Therefore developers have to work on a solution with Microsoft for their own good to change the way that the video memory manager maintains the content of video memory resources, so that a permanent virtual address range does not have to be used for each virtualized allocation.Sincerely Mats Weinberger

If this is an OS memory management issue, then how do we go about requesting Microsoft fixes the issue?Would it be better that the developers (PMDG, Aerosoft etc) approach Microsoft on the users behalf?Pete

I think it would be better if all the big time developers would all partner up with Aerosoft and help them build their new Flight Simulator 2012 so that it is compatible with FSX addons, then we will be golden.

That will never happen. Aerosoft are developing a flight sim from the ground up using DX11 minimum - it will have no relationship with fsx or FS9. On their forum this has been stated as the main reason fsx is in such a mess is because of all the 'try to make it compatible with older code'. A clean break is needed with Flight Simulator 2012 for the best performance.

That will never happen. Aerosoft are developing a flight sim from the ground up using DX11 minimum - it will have no relationship with fsx or FS9. On their forum this has been stated as the main reason fsx is in such a mess is because of all the 'try to make it compatible with older code'. A clean break is needed with Flight Simulator 2012 for the best performance.

The problem with running Aerosofts version of FS will be inline with their Why I get 50 fps in FSX and you might not is finding hardware old enough to actually run it! LOLSeriously though as much as we all like to bash Microsoft they are king of the software world. When I consider the shear access to technology available to them and the time and resources spent (say what you will) in developing a product like FSX then I look at a company like Aerosoft that does not sell a single piece of software that I own (excluding a Beaver); you will forgive me if I don

"A clean break is needed with Flight Simulator 2012 for the best performance. " Thats what they all said about FSX, Since then nothing has worked right, I.E. complex aircraft,memory allocation,etc,excepting Level D 767. I cant fly a long distance flight with PMDG 747, Or MD11.

"A clean break is needed with Flight Simulator 2012 for the best performance. " Thats what they all said about FSX, Since then nothing has worked right, I.E. complex aircraft,memory allocation,etc,excepting Level D 767. I cant fly a long distance flight with PMDG 747, Or MD11.

FSX on WinXp 64 is pretty darn perfect. I have flown 10 hours flights with no problems. I have flown up to three two hours flights all in a row with not problem. This I could not do in Vista.That is why my perfect scenario would be Aerosoft to release a flight sim that can run on the new Windows OSs yet still has some sort of compatibility mode than can run the current add-ons I already have.If Aerosoft's sim will not be able to run my current addon aircraft, then there will be very little chance I will ever buy, just due to the fact of all the money I have invested in my numerous add-ons, from scenery, to aircraft, weather programs, flightplanning, ATC, its just too big an investment to think about replacing.

Sorry for not posting my full name - no need for hostility, we're all adults.I too would wish for compatibility with fsx, as I have spent thousands on my sim, but fsx is buggy and will become more so in the future ( ever tried running a win98 game on vista? ) and there is very little chance of FSXII. We just need to accept that. While I feel a new flight sim using current and future technology 'could' be amazing, I realise this might take a long time for it to become anything like as deep as fsx with loads of add-ons. However, FSX IS locked into the past and as tech progresses it won't make the most of it - It does benefit from ssd's but new M/B and higher RAM GB will have little affect....unfortunately.Chris Farrell [There! happy now]

Daniel, since you know what you are doing you might want to try this suggestion:YOU NEED to read carefully and follow the steps EXACTLY...1) Locate the ShadersHLSL inside your FSX folder.2) Now, locate the 'Common' folder inside ShadersHLSL3) You'll see a file called: Common.fxh Locate the following line in that file:dword State_TextureWrap : STATE_TEXTUREWRAP = D3DTADDRESS_WRAP;Now, LOOK CAREFULLY at the begining of the file... there is a declaration for D3DTADDRESS_WRAP which is:#define D3DTADDRESS_WRAP 1I've been testing the past two weeks a fix that 'seemed' to COMPLETELY eliminate the source of corruption and black textures, and I think it was due to Texture Compression of ALREADY compressed textures.. so I changed the line:dword State_TextureWrap : STATE_TEXTUREWRAP = D3DTADDRESS_WRAP;todword State_TextureWrap : STATE_TEXTUREWRAP = 0;REMEMBER, you need to delete the shaders cache (so it is rebuilt again using the above parameters) the shaders cache is located in:C:\Users\USERNAME\AppData\Local\Microsoft\FSX\Shadersyou need to COMPLETELY remove the Shaders directory and it will be rebuilt the next time your start FSX.Then, try again, you should not experience texture corruption anymore. Enjoy :)

While this actually does elimate the black texture problem and black screen issue ..... yippeee, great!!! it seems to cause problems with 2004>fsx crossover planes i.e. 737PIC and Virtualcol Fokker 50,....All I see are gauges and no cockpit or external textures.Anyone else seen this? It might an easy fix but I suspect the shader edit may cause issues with some older planes.Chris Farrell

Anyone else seen this? It might an easy fix but I suspect the shader edit may cause issues with some older planes.

I have this issue with the Do27 wich is also just an port-over.But the issue isn't the changing of any parameters it is the deleted Shaders folder!

you need to COMPLETELY remove the Shaders directory and it will be rebuilt the next time your start FSX.

Don't do this!I have tried it and copied back my old shader folder from the paperbin and the Do27 worked again...It is right that the shader folder will be rebuilt at the next FS restart, but the only solution to get my Do27 back was to get the deleted shader folder back....Beside this, the whole tweak doesn't work for me. Still get texture corruption with MD11 and 747.Win 7 64 prof. 6 gig RAM, 8800GTS 640But these are the only aircraft, it's a shame that PMDG doesn't make any comments about this issue...

I applied and suggested "Sound Quality" tweak, but the missing VC texture problem finally happened again.yes... that tweak helped the situation a little bit (it has lowered the probability), but it was definitely not an ultimate solution. I also have changed my hardware (CPU, M/B, RAM), but expriencing same problem. :( so, my conclusion : PMDG airplanes for FSX are "unflyable" in FSX.MD11 and B744 are long range jets, but we can't fly them "long range"I can't believe that only few portions of users are expreiencing it.sooner or later, the problem necessarily happens. if we have to wait new flight simulator program, that's not too bad. then, however, the PMDG airplane (yes, that's what we have paid for) with FSX remains unflyable.I know, I know, it's all ACE team's fault. they created buggy program.but, PMDG says their products are 'compatible' with that 'buggy' FSX. if FSX cannot handle massive texture due to its crappy code, then PMDG should have been aware of it.so, I think, at least, we should(or can) request low resolution VC textures which does not trigger texture corruption issue.that'll be quick fix for the problem. we cannot wait ressurrection of ACE team or aerosoft's new FS.

hello everyone I had the same problem for long time. Finally and after reading almost all forums and solutions, I fixed mine by 3 simple steps. what I did is as follow.* Upgrading my sound card driver* Upgrading to latest version of Direct X* Downgrade the sound quality to phone qualityI didn't test it by higher sound quality, Actually I afraid to change my settings at this time... :( I did a lot of long range flights (LFPG-KLAS), (LFPG-VHHH), (LFPG-KLAX) & ... without any problem.also I use the menu to load FS2Crew panel state and alt+Enter to check the weather data (ASE). Today during normal web surfing I find the following link. I didn't test it, thus I don't know if it could helps or not. please check it and let us know about it. (Windows Vista, 7 Users)http://support.microsoft.com/KB/976264and finally have to say, Thank you PMDG for the excellent job. Waiting for 737 NGX and My favorite bird, T7. Good LuckKeyhan PanahiAsus Rampage II Extreme, i7 920(4.2 Ghz), 6GB OCZ, 4x500 GB HDD (Raid 0), GTX 250 1GB OC, Cool master V10 CPU Cooler

I applied and suggested "Sound Quality" tweak, but the missing VC texture problem finally happened again.yes... that tweak helped the situation a little bit (it has lowered the probability), but it was definitely not an ultimate solution. I also have changed my hardware (CPU, M/B, RAM), but expriencing same problem. :( so, my conclusion : PMDG airplanes for FSX are "unflyable" in FSX.MD11 and B744 are long range jets, but we can't fly them "long range"I can't believe that only few portions of users are expreiencing it.sooner or later, the problem necessarily happens. if we have to wait new flight simulator program, that's not too bad. then, however, the PMDG airplane (yes, that's what we have paid for) with FSX remains unflyable.I know, I know, it's all ACE team's fault. they created buggy program.but, PMDG says their products are 'compatible' with that 'buggy' FSX. if FSX cannot handle massive texture due to its crappy code, then PMDG should have been aware of it.so, I think, at least, we should(or can) request low resolution VC textures which does not trigger texture corruption issue.that'll be quick fix for the problem. we cannot wait ressurrection of ACE team or aerosoft's new FS.

The problem does not "necessarily happen" - I have personally never seen it, nor have any of the other developer team members. If this was as widespread as you claim we'd have thousands of people here complaining - we don't. The issue is not simply the texture resolution, we think it's likely related to how much "stuff" you have in the sim. The sim seems to have finite internal resources in some way and when those get exhausted, this problem starts up. Scenery seems to be a major culprit here. I tested the other night and when you load the plane itself in the free flight window (which loads the textures), my card reports somewhere around 100-120MB of video RAM used. As soon as you load the plane up in a high detail scenery area in the sim though, it jumps to 500+MB and higher depending on the exact area you're in. With FTX PNW, UT2 traffic, and REX, at high slider settings I was able to get very close to my GTX260's 896MB limit.We can't fix a problem that isn't caused by us and that's something complicated inside the engine where no one cause can be pinpointed. People have seen and reported this issue in FS9 too, that isn't some kind of solution. People have reported it with the LDS 763 and Captain Sim 757. ACES is not around for us to ask them what causes this or how to fix it. Believe me, I wish we knew how to fix it. I don't know what we're supposed to do when people see it on BETTER systems than the ones we ourselves are running... That doesn't make sense if it's our problem as you claim.