Hello all,I remember seeing a post not more than a week or two ago describing a way to use a hex editor to modify the FS9.exe file to make use of 64-Bit levels of RAM rather than being restricted to 32-Bit amounts. It was a strictly "try at your own risk" type of thing, but I find myself wanting to give it a try as I feel that my machine is being limited by the fact that FS9 can only run on one core and only use up to 3GB of ram, when I have 4 cores and 4GB of ram. That being said, I haven't been able to find the original instructions after a day of searching, whether I'm using the wrong keywords or because I'm looking in the wrong places. So I'm here hoping someone has seen where it is and can point me in the right direction, and even perhaps tried it and can share some results.Thanks,Greg

Hello all,I remember seeing a post not more than a week or two ago describing a way to use a hex editor to modify the FS9.exe file to make use of 64-Bit levels of RAM rather than being restricted to 32-Bit amounts. It was a strictly "try at your own risk" type of thing, but I find myself wanting to give it a try as I feel that my machine is being limited by the fact that FS9 can only run on one core and only use up to 3GB of ram, when I have 4 cores and 4GB of ram. That being said, I haven't been able to find the original instructions after a day of searching, whether I'm using the wrong keywords or because I'm looking in the wrong places. So I'm here hoping someone has seen where it is and can point me in the right direction, and even perhaps tried it and can share some results.Thanks,Greg

Greg I know I used Explorer Suite, which is available on the Microsoft site. You should be able to figure it out from there, once you look at the program. I don't have the instructions though. But I remember there was a check box for large memory aware when I selected FS2004.Ed

I can't offer much insight as per your question, but I can say this(and someone can correct me if I'm wrong): You shouldn't need to use that much ram on FS9. My system rarely uses a large amount of ram with the sim running. If it isn't broken, don't fix it!Also, my system already utilizes both cores when I start FS9, but if yours doesn't: Just open the task manager, right click fs9.exe and change the affinity mask to use only core 0. Close task manager. Open task manager again and set the affinity to all cores. That was an old trick I used a few windows service packs ago. Many others still do that.Anyway, just my $.02

I don't think you can make fs9.exe use "64-bit levels of RAM". There is a possibility perhaps of changing the amount of virtual memory fs9.exe can allocate by setting the LARGE_ADDRESS_SPACE_AWARE attribute in the exe file, which I think is what the hack you are thinking of does. You still need to add the 3GB switch to your Win XP 32 boot.ini before the Win XP 32 memory manager will allocate more than 2GB to any app.this is independent of any utilization of RAM, which is limited in an XP or Vista 32 system to a little over 3 GB because of system hardware mapped into the upper 1 GB of system memory space.scott s..

I can't offer much insight as per your question, but I can say this(and someone can correct me if I'm wrong): You shouldn't need to use that much ram on FS9. My system rarely uses a large amount of ram with the sim running. If it isn't broken, don't fix it!Also, my system already utilizes both cores when I start FS9, but if yours doesn't: Just open the task manager, right click fs9.exe and change the affinity mask to use only core 0. Close task manager. Open task manager again and set the affinity to all cores. That was an old trick I used a few windows service packs ago. Many others still do that.Anyway, just my $.02

I have to agree that FS9 really doesn't use enough memory to need to 64bit unlock the memory. This is more of a FSX issue.With FS9 I see a greater tax on the GPU memory and CPU. Mine is also using the dual cores, so it runs well.I have switch from 64bit to 32bit...not pleased, but another story. It seems to use the same amount of RAM, but this does mean that i have 1GB lost that other applicatipons in the background could be using. :(

This is copied from another post in the PMDG forum but it is what you want, I use this tweak in Vista 64 and it works fine.

First download the explorer from http://www.ntcore.com/exsuite.phpNext make a copy of fs9.exe and back it up safely to another location. 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?).

Greg I know I used Explorer Suite, which is available on the Microsoft site. You should be able to figure it out from there, once you look at the program. I don't have the instructions though. But I remember there was a check box for large memory aware when I selected FS2004.Ed

I'll have to have a look at this, though I'm 99% sure this isn't what I read about. The "mod" I'm referring to was specifically a hex edit that was supposed to fool the computer into thinking that FS9 was a 64-Bit program so that it doesn't apply the same limits to it.

I can't offer much insight as per your question, but I can say this(and someone can correct me if I'm wrong): You shouldn't need to use that much ram on FS9. My system rarely uses a large amount of ram with the sim running. If it isn't broken, don't fix it!Also, my system already utilizes both cores when I start FS9, but if yours doesn't: Just open the task manager, right click fs9.exe and change the affinity mask to use only core 0. Close task manager. Open task manager again and set the affinity to all cores. That was an old trick I used a few windows service packs ago. Many others still do that.Anyway, just my $.02

I've done this on several occasions, and I've found that it tends to slow down my whole system rather than speed up FS9. This, I surmised, is because FS9 isn't designed to operate on more than one core, so by placing it onto more than one, you drop the overall efficiency of the program, making it take more CPU to get it going properly, and also forcing the other cores to divert their resources to running FS9 rather than the other programs I'm running (VA software, etc.). As far as the amount of RAM my system is using, when running FS9 its hovering at an extremely steady 3GB, even though I'm running a 64-bit OS and have 4GB of RAM. It may be the graphics / processor heavy sceneries and aircraft which I run that pump it up that high, but I'm not about to drop what makes FS9 worthwhile just to get better frames, especially since my system should be able to chew through massive fps without a second thought in FS9. (I'll elaborate on my system in a min)

I don't think you can make fs9.exe use "64-bit levels of RAM". There is a possibility perhaps of changing the amount of virtual memory fs9.exe can allocate by setting the LARGE_ADDRESS_SPACE_AWARE attribute in the exe file, which I think is what the hack you are thinking of does. You still need to add the 3GB switch to your Win XP 32 boot.ini before the Win XP 32 memory manager will allocate more than 2GB to any app.this is independent of any utilization of RAM, which is limited in an XP or Vista 32 system to a little over 3 GB because of system hardware mapped into the upper 1 GB of system memory space.scott s..

Again, the "mod" I'm referring to is designed to allow a 64-bit OS to allocate more than 2GB of RAM to a 32-bit program, something that I think would, at the very least, smooth things out a little in dense scenery areas.

I have to agree that FS9 really doesn't use enough memory to need to 64bit unlock the memory. This is more of a FSX issue.With FS9 I see a greater tax on the GPU memory and CPU. Mine is also using the dual cores, so it runs well.I have switch from 64bit to 32bit...not pleased, but another story. It seems to use the same amount of RAM, but this does mean that i have 1GB lost that other applicatipons in the background could be using. :(

For the most part I've been happy with the 64-bit OS, and in all of the programs I've used with it so far, the only one I've ever hand any trouble with is MSFS. For some reason I'm able to run almost any graphics heavy program, sometimes even several at the same time (I've been up to 3... EVE, Silent Hunter IV, and R6 Vegas 2) without so much as a stutter from my system (all running at 36fps or better), but running MSFS (either FS9 and FSX) will generate sometimes as little as 8fps in dense areas. I've been told that this has something to do with the way they handle scenery objects, but its still kinda ridiculous that my system can chews through modern, graphics heavy, games using multiple shader passes over massive amounts of particle animations at high fps, while even an older, relatively graphics + cpu light MSFS (FS9) gets at best 1/3 and sometimes as low as 1/10 the frames in much less visually complex situations.And, as far as FS9 being heavier on the GPU than the CPU, I'm not really seeing it... I've got an ATI HD 4870X2 (don't even bother to tell me to buy an nVidia card, I'm perfectly happy with the ATI in every other program I use... I also refuse to believe that as powerful as the 4870x2 is, that it would be humbled by a 6 year old game just because it doesn't handle graphics the same way the nVidia does... if there is a problem it is in the setup or the implementation (drivers and/or software manufacturers), furthermore, there has to be a way to mod and/or fix it to work properly...), and with the latest drivers, the GPU is only pulling a load of about 25% while the 0 core on my CPU is pulling nearly 100%. Maybe I've got something set up incorrectly in my fs9.cfg that is forcing the CPU to carry more load than it normally would, but I've not been able to find any reference to it (sadly, there are over 2500 references to tweaking the fs9.cfg, and I've yet to find one that refers to much more than the most common 3-6 tweaks like "texture_bandwidth_mult"), so perhaps someone could point me in that sort of direction as well?Thanks,GregPS: Here is my system... probably should have included it in the first place...OS: Windows 7 x64 Build 7100CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 Quad-Core 2.83GHzRAM: 4GB Corsair Dominator 1066 in 2x2 configGPU: ATI Radeon HD4870X2 (2GB GDDR5 VRAM)HDD: OS Drive: Samsung Spinpoint 160GB Program Drive: Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB Storage Drive: Samsung Spinpoint 750GBMotherboard: ASUS Rampage ForumulaPPS: As you can see, my machine should be eating FS9 alive, but instead its not really running it any better than my previous computer which was a 3GHz Pentium 4 Dell with an old AGP Video card... Does this make sense to anyone?

This is copied from another post in the PMDG forum but it is what you want, I use this tweak in Vista 64 and it works fine.

Thank you, is there any way that you could link to the whole thread?Thanks,Greg

http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...39523&st=86

FS9 is a CPU and GPU intensive software. It actually doesn't need much RAM. VRAM however, is very useful.you will get much better results by shutting down more services and giving the CPU more breathing room :)these types of tweaks are more likely to cause more problems such as crashes, etc then help. There are no magic formulas when it comes to FS9. It's a software like anything else out there. Unless you dramatically upgrade your hardware, the performance boost is minimum if you are already running on a lean/clean system. Keep it simple:- Fast CPU- Fast GPU with lots of VRAM- Clean operating system with little services running as possible. For XP Pro, 15-25 is max- Clean install of FS9 with no junk installed (too many repaints, useless gauges, effects, sounds, readme texts, pdfs, etc.)-feng

FS9 is a CPU and GPU intensive software. It actually doesn't need much RAM. VRAM however, is very useful.you will get much better results by shutting down more services and giving the CPU more breathing room :)these types of tweaks are more likely to cause more problems such as crashes, etc then help. There are no magic formulas when it comes to FS9. It's a software like anything else out there. Unless you dramatically upgrade your hardware, the performance boost is minimum if you are already running on a lean/clean system. Keep it simple:- Fast CPU- Fast GPU with lots of VRAM- Clean operating system with little services running as possible. For XP Pro, 15-25 is max- Clean install of FS9 with no junk installed (too many repaints, useless gauges, effects, sounds, readme texts, pdfs, etc.)-feng

FS9 was plagued with OOM errors long before FSX was released. That is part of what is so frustrating; MS never addressed it with FSX until SP1 where they basically applied the same patch the OP was asking about for FS9. Switching to a 64 bit OS with the LargeAddressAware flag in FS9 has completely done away with any OOM's for me. I think anyone who has made the move to XP 64 has been nothing but pleased. Not sure about Vista64 but Win 7 64 Bit appears to be a winner. I would say if you can find a copy of XP64 go for it, if not wait for Win7...No longer do I worry about tweaking or praying FS wont crash on final after a 12 hour flight, I can fly for days without issues. All of my issues with FS9 stability went away with a 64 Bit OS...Just my .02,-Paul

Ditto Paul in Vista 64 with the LargeAddressAware flag set is the way to go, that's why I posted the link just to the tool to do it. 32bit OS's are so last century, lol.

As far as the amount of RAM my system is using, when running FS9 its hovering at an extremely steady 3GB

That's a pretty sizable footprint. I've never seen near that amount with the heaviest of the heavy. I max out the clouds, traffic, have a few scenery addons. Level-d, Captain Sim stuff... :(

Ditto Paul in Vista 64 with the LargeAddressAware flag set is the way to go, that's why I posted the link just to the tool to do it. 32bit OS's are so last century, lol.

Absolutely Andy, a thing of the past IMHO...-Paul

http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...39523&st=86

Thank you very much.

FS9 is a CPU and GPU intensive software. It actually doesn't need much RAM. VRAM however, is very useful.you will get much better results by shutting down more services and giving the CPU more breathing room :)these types of tweaks are more likely to cause more problems such as crashes, etc then help. There are no magic formulas when it comes to FS9. It's a software like anything else out there. Unless you dramatically upgrade your hardware, the performance boost is minimum if you are already running on a lean/clean system. Keep it simple:- Fast CPU- Fast GPU with lots of VRAM- Clean operating system with little services running as possible. For XP Pro, 15-25 is max- Clean install of FS9 with no junk installed (too many repaints, useless gauges, effects, sounds, readme texts, pdfs, etc.)-feng

Again, I'm back to the last question I asked... "does this make sense"... I've got more VRAM on this system than I had total system memory on my last and yet I'm still running slow and choppy. If there are other tweaks out there that actually force memory usage or even GPU usage, I'm all over them, but someone needs to point me in the right direction since, if they do exist, they seem to be almost impossible to find. I'm amazed that in this day and age of desktop computers that have more computing power than whole rooms of supercomputers from 10 years ago, that we can't simply control the way in which they process the data we give to them (ie tell FSX to process graphics on the GPU rather than the CPU...).

FS9 was plagued with OOM errors long before FSX was released. That is part of what is so frustrating; MS never addressed it with FSX until SP1 where they basically applied the same patch the OP was asking about for FS9. Switching to a 64 bit OS with the LargeAddressAware flag in FS9 has completely done away with any OOM's for me. I think anyone who has made the move to XP 64 has been nothing but pleased. Not sure about Vista64 but Win 7 64 Bit appears to be a winner. I would say if you can find a copy of XP64 go for it, if not wait for Win7...No longer do I worry about tweaking or praying FS wont crash on final after a 12 hour flight, I can fly for days without issues. All of my issues with FS9 stability went away with a 64 Bit OS...Just my .02,-Paul

Yes, Windows 7 x64 is definitely a winner, though I had Vista x64 before this and it wasn't such a loser. The problem with Vista wasn't so much that it was a bad OS, but that they designed it with the least common denominator in mind, leading to a rock solid (I never got a BSOD in 6 months... more than I can say for Win7), yet almost impossible to work with on an advanced level OS. By the time I made the switch up to Win7, I had hacked the TCPIP.sys, manually disabled (read removed) the UAC, force-implemented a whole new network protocol so I could let my wife's XP system use my printer, and force-installed several XP x64 drivers to get some of my hardware to run stably. Win7 on the other hand has been a breeze, if a little less stable. It uses between 30% and 60% less system resources to run the OS, and its infinitely better at managing memory usage so that programs don't end up forcing the OS to choose between allowing the program to operate and continuing to operate itself. I've also not had to implement ANY of the hacks I had to to get Vista to work to my liking. All of them are either already implemented, or are readily available through the control panel. Overall, I'd highly recommend it as a replacement OS ON RELEASE, with and SP's to come only making it a better system....Of course, I still wish someone would get their head on straight and produce a Windows alternative that will be fully windows program compatible but not windows... MS's 95% market share is due only to the fact that 95% of all software is designed specifically for that platform. If someone produced an OS that would run ALL of it, they would get a serious run for their money...

That's a pretty sizable footprint. I've never seen near that amount with the heaviest of the heavy. I max out the clouds, traffic, have a few scenery addons. Level-d, Captain Sim stuff... :(

One thing to keep in mind is that 64bit OS use a greater amount of physical memory to run the same programs as would a 32bit OS. This has to do with the fact that memory addresses are twice as long, so the physical amount is larger (though for some reason not twice as large... but that is a description for someone far geekier than I). This is especially apparent when working with a 32bit program in a 64bit OS, as the 32bit program is not only using more memory than it normally would on a 32bit OS, but it is also not optimized to make use of the larger amounts of memory available so it ends up being a little limited all other things being equal. This I think is where the 3GB quantity comes from, though I also suspect that the fact that I'm usually running at least ASv6, 1-2 ACARS type VA programs, SquawkBox3, Firefox with at least 5 tabs, and several other small programs at the same time contribute to it. That being said, I've still usually got at least 80% of 3 of my 4 cores available and about 1GB of system RAM (I don't know how to check the VRAM on my card), so I think that at least one of the limiting factors is the 32bit max memory limit, which I'll be implementing today to see how it works.Thanks,Greg

I must say I'm impressed with the difference I'm seeing...FS9 is not actually using more memory, at least system memory, but it is running approximately 10-20fps higher in the busiest of airports with 100% traffic and high levels of clouds displayed. Thank you Andy for sharing this one with me.Thanks,Greg