Out of Memory Errors (yet another post!)

[martinlest2 58]

Now I know that the OoMs are not caused by a lack of memory (physical or virtual) per se - it's an issue of address space I understand: I've read dozens of posts here on this subject and contributed to quite a few too. This post is to ask a specific question though.I run FS9.1 on a Windows XP SP2 32-bit system. I am toying with the idea of changing to Windows 7 64-bit, (though I'm not 100% confident yet that my machine will fully support it, but that's an issue I can sort out elsewhere). Meanwhile however, I wonder whether I can prevent some of my OoM CTDs by increasing my physical RAM. If I change my 2 x 1GB sticks to 2 x 2GBs (DDR2 PC2-6400), surely that will make a difference?: flying from New York to San Fransisco in a PMDG a/c and with Ultimate Terrain loaded (for instance) is achievable at the moment, but I am likely to get an OoM on landing, when all the 3rd. party airport scenery loads up. If there's an extra 2GBs of physical memory, won't this help to avert a CTD? I would need 4GBs of RAM in any case if I do change over to Win7 64-bit - and I can get 4GBs of RAM from crucial.com for £60 or so at the moment, so it seems worth the outlay.Anyone any advice on this - preferably from people who have done the same sort of thing?Many thanks,Martin

[Richard99_Photography 2]

Hi there are lots of threads here about that. I experienced it just some months ago and fixed it with a 100% success unistalling MyWorld2004 Landclass. It went in conflict with UTE and UT USA. Since that action I did not have any OOMs (almost 25 flights in a row without problems, before 1 OOM every 5 flights). Bye.

[John Hinson 22]

I run FS9.1 on a Windows XP SP2 32-bit system. I am toying with the idea of changing to Windows 7 64-bit, (though I'm not 100% confident yet that my machine will fully support it, but that's an issue I can sort out elsewhere). Meanwhile however, I wonder whether I can prevent some of my OoM CTDs by increasing my physical RAM. If I change my 2 x 1GB sticks to 2 x 2GBs (DDR2 PC2-6400), surely that will make a difference?: flying from New York to San Fransisco in a PMDG a/c and with Ultimate Terrain loaded (for instance) is achievable at the moment, but I am likely to get an OoM on landing, when all the 3rd. party airport scenery loads up. If there's an extra 2GBs of physical memory, won't this help to avert a CTD? I would need 4GBs of RAM in any case if I do change over to Win7 64-bit - and I can get 4GBs of RAM from crucial.com for £60 or so at the moment, so it seems worth the outlay.Anyone any advice on this - preferably from people who have done the same sort of thing?Many thanks,Martin

Surely if you have read so many posts you would have already read (not that you can always believe what you read) that simply adding memory will not make the slightest difference. It is the amount of memory that FS9 was built to use that is the limitation.I have a very similar setup to you (apart from already having more RAM) and experienced these problems many years ago. I fixed the issue with the so-called 4 GB patch (which we read isn't actually 4 GB) from http://ntcore.com/ and have never ever experienced such an issue since. However, you would need the extra memory to benefit from this patch.That's the way I would go in your position. John

[martinlest2 58]

Yes, I've read it many times, as you say John: it's just that I don't quite see how adding RAM can make no difference at all - you see the physical memory slowly getting less in Task Manager. If you have twice as much, won't it take that much longer to deplete to the stage where you get an OoM CTD?I'll follow your link.. thanks,Martin(I don't have MyWorld landclass installed BTW)

[martinlest2 58]

Elsewhere, I've had this comment, which was my own understanding (and my reason for asking about adding more RAM). Is it not true then?FS9 can only access 2GB of address space, which is mappedinto physical memory as required. If you only have 2GB ofRAM, that RAM is also being shared with the OS, and otherbackground apps. If you go to 4GB of RAM, then FS9 willhave access to more of the 2GB of physical memory, as therewill be room for the OS, etc. Of course, with a 32 bit OS the4GB of address space is also being shared with hardware,mainly the video RAM. Martin

[ubersu 78]

Now I know that the OoMs are not caused by a lack of memory (physical or virtual) per se - it's an issue of address space I understand: I've read dozens of posts here on this subject and contributed to quite a few too. This post is to ask a specific question though.I run FS9.1 on a Windows XP SP2 32-bit system. I am toying with the idea of changing to Windows 7 64-bit, (though I'm not 100% confident yet that my machine will fully support it, but that's an issue I can sort out elsewhere). Meanwhile however, I wonder whether I can prevent some of my OoM CTDs by increasing my physical RAM. If I change my 2 x 1GB sticks to 2 x 2GBs (DDR2 PC2-6400), surely that will make a difference?: flying from New York to San Fransisco in a PMDG a/c and with Ultimate Terrain loaded (for instance) is achievable at the moment, but I am likely to get an OoM on landing, when all the 3rd. party airport scenery loads up. If there's an extra 2GBs of physical memory, won't this help to avert a CTD? I would need 4GBs of RAM in any case if I do change over to Win7 64-bit - and I can get 4GBs of RAM from crucial.com for £60 or so at the moment, so it seems worth the outlay.Anyone any advice on this - preferably from people who have done the same sort of thing?Many thanks,Martin

Martin,The additional RAM will not solve your problem - 32 bit programs on a 32 bit OS can only access 3GB (for all practical purposes) if patched to be large address aware so that the virtual address table can point to it. Every program in a 32 bit environment gets a 4GB address space: the OS gets (approx) 1 GB of that space, the remaining 3GB is divided between your program and the video ram and all of the loaded libraries (all the stuff in the modules directory in FS). Consequently, on a good day, you can squeeze out about 2.25 to 2.5GB for FS itself. Doesn't make any difference whether you have 1GB or 4GB of physical memory in the system; you will get the 4GB address space allocation and so will every other program running on your system - that's why we have page files and that's why memory gets fragemented. In addition, the /3GB switch can cause instability in some systems - some devices really don't like it. The only real solution is to run a 64 bit system. Even then, it is possible for a 32 bit patched program to OOM but it is very unlikely since the way things get loaded up is very different. The additional memory on your 32 bit OS will allow smoother operation of your system with multiple tasks running, but won't help FS a bit. As a side comment regarding your system and its ability to support Win7 x64: MS has a tool that you can download to check your system's ability to support Win7.DJ

[Bob Scott 7,714]

Without a lengthy rehash of the "why" contained in the many posts others and I have made on OOMs and their causes and cures, here's what I recommend:1. A 64-bit OS, either Win 7 64, Vista 64, or XP 642. Patch FS9.exe to set the LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag in the executable PE header3. 4+ GB of physical RAM in your system (6 GB is optimum for Vista/Win 7)RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

[martinlest2 58]

Thanks very much for the replies. I downloaded the Win7 compatibility tool the other day but haven't got round to running it yet (too 'busy' flying around the world - KATL to KSFO yesterday: saved my flight once, when Task manager showed dodgy levels of resources left, shut down FS9 & reloaded it, so got to the gate at San Francisco OK!).Clearly the way to go is Win7-64 - possibly on a new system (though the Dell/Alienware 'ideal' I priced online was well over £4000, so I will have to think again!!). Getting 2 x $GB sticks of RAM for my current setup is £255 instead of the £65 for 2 x 2GBs, so that's not too attractive either..Martin"2 x $GB" ... 2 x 4GBs !

[nickksy 0]

Now I know that the OoMs are not caused by a lack of memory (physical or virtual) per se - it's an issue of address space I understand: I've read dozens of posts here on this subject and contributed to quite a few too. This post is to ask a specific question though.I run FS9.1 on a Windows XP SP2 32-bit system. I am toying with the idea of changing to Windows 7 64-bit, (though I'm not 100% confident yet that my machine will fully support it, but that's an issue I can sort out elsewhere). Meanwhile however, I wonder whether I can prevent some of my OoM CTDs by increasing my physical RAM. If I change my 2 x 1GB sticks to 2 x 2GBs (DDR2 PC2-6400), surely that will make a difference?: flying from New York to San Fransisco in a PMDG a/c and with Ultimate Terrain loaded (for instance) is achievable at the moment, but I am likely to get an OoM on landing, when all the 3rd. party airport scenery loads up. If there's an extra 2GBs of physical memory, won't this help to avert a CTD? I would need 4GBs of RAM in any case if I do change over to Win7 64-bit - and I can get 4GBs of RAM from crucial.com for £60 or so at the moment, so it seems worth the outlay.Anyone any advice on this - preferably from people who have done the same sort of thing?Many thanks,Martin

simple solution to OoM's is to increase the system Paging File size... thats it... NO MORE OoM...!!! :)

[Richard99_Photography 2]

simple solution to OoM's is to increase the system Paging File size... thats it... NO MORE OoM...!!! :)

Hi, how?

[altstiff 71]

simple solution to OoM's is to increase the system Paging File size... thats it... NO MORE OoM...!!! :)

Page file size has NOTHING to do with OOM errors...OOM errors are because of "Virtual" ram or AKA, address space. Again it has nothing to do with your page file or physical memory.http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ptaylor/archive/2007/06/15/fsx-and-win32-process-address-space.aspxPlease stop spreading this mis information.

[martinlest2 58]

The web is FULL of misinformation - I suppose people post what they think is true. No need to be so aggressive with the fellow.In th end I bit the bullet and bought a new PC, specs below, so I shouldn't get OoM errors any more (in theory!),Martin

[altstiff 71]

Not really being agressive. It is not my nature.On another not Martin. It is amazing what lengths and expence we simmers go to for our FS fix. Any other software that gave us this much trouble would go in the bin!

[Avantime 81]

Anyone having texture loading/loading screen problems with the /3GB switch and Nvidia video cards? For me the texture loading is really slow (e.g. In spot view one side of the aircraft will be grey and texture-less for up to 5 minutes) and scenery refreshes takes forever.I'm on Win XP x86 SP3, /USERVA 2176, 2-4GB paging file on all drives, Nvidia 258.96 Drivers and GTS 250 512MB.

[nickksy 0]

Page file size has NOTHING to do with OOM errors...OOM errors are because of "Virtual" ram or AKA, address space. Again it has nothing to do with your page file or physical memory.http://blogs.msdn.co...ress-space.aspxPlease stop spreading this mis information.

hey there... i noticed 2 types of OoM's. the one that says "Not enough memory to run FS" is fixed 100% by increasing PAGING FILE SIZE... other scenario is ofcourse that your system is eating up a lot of RAM for that ProcessExplorer will give you some valuable information.... so just chill and give it a try maybe it works may be not it worked for me..... using Win 7 32bit- 2gb ram 512mb vc and FS9 customized as hell...CHILL DUDE....!!! :)