September 15, 200916 yr Hi. I do like my PMDG aircraft but know from bitter experience that when flying from busy airports like EGLL to other busy airports like LFPG (both 'heavy' payware addons on my setup) my little system resource LCD is likely to show a very heavy drain, sometimes leading to an out of memory error on touchdown. I have to be very careful not to swap views too much, especially with AS6, UTraffic, UTerrain etc. etc. taking up a sizeable chunk of memory themselves..I've also noticed for a long time that if you choose to save the flight, so that the screen goes black for a while, you can get at least 5% of the system resources back (drop from say 85% used to 80% used, which can make all the difference in getting to the gate after landing without FS9 crashing).Today, however, something odd has happened. As I had to go out for an hour, I paused my flight and sent FS9 to the taskbar, YBBN to NZAA (with a PMDG a/c). System resources were showing 86% used, but the flight was going OK - even though I half expected an OoM crash at NZAA. When I returned and looked at the paused flight, I saw that System Resources used were showing at 99% - certainly FS9 would CTD when I unpaused it. However, as soon as I did unpause FS9, I immediately selected 'save flight' (I have it as a keyboard shortcut - you can just cancel when the 'save flight' screen shows up), the used System Resources dropped, and dropped, and dropped. I am now continuing to fly, still with my PMDG 747, and System Resources (confirmed by memory stats in Task Manager) now show 33% used only, and have been at this low, low level for an hour now. Great.This amazes me though. How did I get back all that memory? And why is my PMDG flight running fine, in all views, with so much RAM untouched? It never happened before: when I load a flight with default FS9 a/c at default FS9 airports (which I rarely do!), I get at least 40% resources used. It's quite unheard of for me to be flying a complex payware a/c and have so much system memory unused. Anyone any ideas on what has happened? It begs the question of why on every other occasion my PMDG flights use up so much RAM if they can clearly fly perfectly when using so little.Martin S. Martin Stebbing, EGLF (UK)
September 15, 200916 yr It happen with MD-11 by PMDG too. I asked around, and around on forums, but no one answer. Sometimes it go super clean, sometimes it just fill your memory, without any reason, and BAM...ctd. I got 3gig's of memory, i even put mu page file on system menage size, but no luck. It still happen, sometimes. With other planes like, Level D, PSS, PMDG 737, i can fly for all day without exiting FS or "do the tricks". My Specification: I CAN RUN FSX IN MAX SETTINGS....i don't care about dell, bell, amd, intel, 60000 wats power supply or alien made graphic card....
September 15, 200916 yr Martin,The PMDG-OOM story is rather an old one. There are guys who will tell you they have no problems of this kind.And I have no reasons not to believe them, of course.But for many simmers, including me, PMDG heavies (744 and MD-11) are memory killers.Since they are long-haul planes, you soon lose your will to risk a, say, ten hour flight to get an OOM while approaching a big hub.Certainly it is also - to a degree - a general memory and resources problem. But on MY system other complex addons (Level-D 763, Maddog MD-82, DA Fokker 70/100) don't suffer from OOMs.And I know at least several simmers who share the same experience.The reasons? Don't know. IMHO there is something about the way PMDG program their gauges and/or the way they use memory.However I don't want to play a computer guru, who I am not. What I'm writing here is purely my longtime experience, nothing else.Which is a pity since these addons are no doubt very good ones. And did cost me quite a lot...And to all PMDG fans: please do understand my point. I'm not accusing PMDG of anything here.I really value their planes myself (why else would I spend my money on the MD-11?), but they always turn out too hard for my rig.There are some potential solutions around here. Like the 3GB switch to allow the use of more RAM.Or simply using top hardware with a lot of RAM and 64-bit system. I think it is the definite solution, isn't it?You could try that if you wish.Just sharing my thoughts and experience.
Create an account or sign in to comment