Hello everyone, :( I have been using FSX in Windows XP 32-bit since trying to no avail in Win7 64-bit to make it stable. Recently, I have purchased Amsterdam X by Aerosoft and also Radar Contact 4.3. When I fly into Amsterdam, at the final 10 miles or so, on approach, I am unable to avoid getting out of memory errors. FSX shuts down and today, I realized that Radar Contact can't seem to resume from last save at all. I will have to look into this further with Radar Contact but the issue is the OOMs! :( I have tuned the USERVA to 2432MB in the boot.ini file. It was originally 2304 (this was before Radar Contact) but I was still getting OOMs. I have a 1GB video card - the Sapphire HD5770. Also, I use the FSX Acceleration pack which is "supposed" to be able to use memory above 2GB.Is there any solution to this? I also use System Mechanic (latest version 9.5) to "defragment" memory before launching FSX. I have done regular cleanups of my temp files and defragmented the hard drive also. No change. Basically, FSX is becoming unusable and I am really not sure if I should try again to see if I can get it working in Win7 64-bit. But any suggestions about WinXP 32-bit (professional) is appreciated. Setting up FSX ALL OVER again in Win7 will be a pain so I would like to avoid this if possible. :( Thanks.John

Much sympathy. Not getting these things sorted is a right royal pita.Not sure what to suggest, except: in Vista 32, I had OOM errors. I used the "use extra memory" tweak that you find in Nick's guide, and that helped a lot.When I upgraded, I went Win 7 64 bit and have had zero problems since. And that is with complex aircraft, landing at complex scenery, with RC4 and FSPAX running in the background.So - I would re-try Win 7. It's without a doubt the best OS I've ever used. I'd not go back to Vista or XP now. Update your drivers, ensure you're using 64 bit, have say 6gig of ram, and cross fingers.

Much sympathy. Not getting these things sorted is a right royal pita.Not sure what to suggest, except: in Vista 32, I had OOM errors. I used the "use extra memory" tweak that you find in Nick's guide, and that helped a lot.When I upgraded, I went Win 7 64 bit and have had zero problems since. And that is with complex aircraft, landing at complex scenery, with RC4 and FSPAX running in the background.So - I would re-try Win 7. It's without a doubt the best OS I've ever used. I'd not go back to Vista or XP now. Update your drivers, ensure you're using 64 bit, have say 6gig of ram, and cross fingers.

Hi Paul and thanks for your comments ... and sympathy! :( I do wonder if INCREASING the USERVA switch amount, rather than decreasing it is better. I am not sure if I understand the switch because I thought I had understood it but now I'm confused a bit. The amount in the USERVA switch (using over 2GB of memory for memory address space) - what is it for, the OS or applications? The REMAINING amount (the amount between, in my case, 2432 and 4096MB since I have 4GB of RAM) is for what - the OS or applications? I think I may have to try Win7 64-bit since it is already setup on my PC. But if anyone can just clarify this USERVA for me again, it would be nice. I had a discussion about this back in February but I don't seem to understand it properly for some reason. I know apps need a "contiguous" 1MB of memory in 32-bit OSes but how does all this fit in with increasing and decreasing the amount for the USERVA switch. If I have a 1GB video card, will FSX REALLY NEED 1GB or can it cope with less video memory? Does increasing the USERVA switch effect the amount of video memory avaible to FSX?

Keep in mind that this entire issue has absolutely nothing to do with physical memory. It would have been more helpful if the error message had been worded differently, perhaps saying "Out of Virtual Memory Addresses" instead...To put it as simply as possible, think of it as a case of "robbing Peter to pay Paul," or perhaps more aptly a balance scale (teeter-totter)...On one side of the balance scale, is the amount of userva allocated to any application. Note that every application (program) has its own userva table.On the other side of the balance scale, is the amount of userva allocated to the OS + video card's virtual address space.The "userva" setting affects how large the userva allocation is for the left side, meaning any amount added there will decrease the userva available for the right side.So yes, increasing the allocation for your application(s) is the correct approach, but be aware that if you make it too large, then you run the risk of not leaving enough for the operating system and the video card's address requirements! :(

think of it as a case of "robbing Peter to pay Paul,"

I'd like to make it clear that I've not been paid a penny for this... :(

Keep in mind that this entire issue has absolutely nothing to do with physical memory. It would have been more helpful if the error message had been worded differently, perhaps saying "Out of Virtual Memory Addresses" instead...To put it as simply as possible, think of it as a case of "robbing Peter to pay Paul," or perhaps more aptly a balance scale (teeter-totter)...On one side of the balance scale, is the amount of userva allocated to any application. Note that every application (program) has its own userva table.On the other side of the balance scale, is the amount of userva allocated to the OS + video card's virtual address space.The "userva" setting affects how large the userva allocation is for the left side, meaning any amount added there will decrease the userva available for the right side.So yes, increasing the allocation for your application(s) is the correct approach, but be aware that if you make it too large, then you run the risk of not leaving enough for the operating system and the video card's address requirements! :(

OK, thanks. I thought I had understood this after reading Nick's tweaks. (by the way, aren't YOU Nick? :( ) But the question is, if I go to 2560, with a 1GB video card, that would only leave 500MB for the OS plus the video card right? Since Windows XP 32-bit only sees up to 3072MB of RAM... is this right? Or will the full 4GB be used?John

The video card will take its share of the virtual adress space, so the bigger the video card memory is the earlier you will run into OOM errors in a 32 bit environment

The video card will take its share of the virtual adress space, so the bigger the video card memory is the earlier you will run into OOM errors in a 32 bit environment

Right, thanks Wims.The 32-bit OS environment sounds a bit like a bunch of loan-sharks or mafia dudes killing each other, with each trying to take the biggest share they can of the available cash and goods!Time to see what I have left to do with WinXP and seriously think about moving back to Windows 7 64-bit.John

OK, thanks. I thought I had understood this after reading Nick's tweaks. (by the way, aren't YOU Nick? :( )

I can be Nick if you can be George... Nope, my name is Bill. :(

I can be Nick if you can be George... Nope, my name is Bill. :(

Yeah, I saw your original posting in this thread now... when replying we do not see the signatures. Also, I am a bit dizzied with the 2 hours or so I took to get things straight before doing my flight today on FSX. And then the ending of the flight (from Istanbul LTBA to Amsterdam EHAM) where OOM occurred, wasted another 45 mins or so. So my mind is a bit mushy now.Bye Nick!sign: George. :( :(

the question is, if I go to 2560, with a 1GB video card, John

This was my setting for the longest time, John - with a 1gig gpu and 32bit XP Pro, and it should work just fine for you. Note (you probably are aware of this anyway) - you do need FSX SP2 or Acceleration installed OR you need to make FSX.exe LargeAddressAware by using CFF Explorer.

This was my setting for the longest time, John - with a 1gig gpu and 32bit XP Pro, and it should work just fine for you. Note (you probably are aware of this anyway) - you do need FSX SP2 or Acceleration installed OR you need to make FSX.exe LargeAddressAware by using CFF Explorer.

OK, thanks Paul. I will try the 2560 switch and hope it works.

I have this same issue with the same scenery, including the addon companies' last release, Brussels X. I have win7 x64 and 6gb ram. FSX Acceleration

I have this same issue with the same scenery, including the addon companies' last release, Brussels X. I have win7 x64 and 6gb ram. FSX Acceleration

Really? Then from what I understand you have a different issue. Some things on your PC are really gobbling up huge amounts of RAM. Do you close unnecessary processes and services in Windows 7? Heaven knows, Win7 also has its share of extraneous processes and services which can be turned off, at least during flight simming. Also, I remember from FS2004 that bad "landclass" or perhaps conflicting airport scenery and another third-party landclass as well as third-party textures (e.g. FSGLOBAL, FSCENE) may end up quickly depleting your available memory.I started using SYSTEM MECHANIC by Iolo technologies. This is a fairly mature product. It explains the function of all the services and processes and offers you a list of services and processes to turn off or disable. Have you ever used it or heard of it? It may be helpful and it detects FULL-SCREEN mode and does not do any activities (like memory optimization) during full-screen games. Also, you have full control of which things should be done automatically and which you want disabled.John

While I understand your attempt to help, it really doesn't make any sense considering I run countless other addons including FSDreamteam JFK, Frankfurt X (crashes before their acceleration patch) and others that ONLY getting OOM and dll crashes at Amsterdam X and Brussels X all by the same company makes it hard to believe anything other than something is wrong with their scenery. Missing textures, corrupted, something with their scenery.