Adding more physical memory

[martinlest2 58]

I know this will have been answered somewhere else here, but my searches haven't lead to the answer I was looking for, so apologies for asking again.I have moved my FS9.1 setup from Windows XP 32-bit to XP 64-bit. After a few days of tweaking, things seem to run fine (so far!). I currently have only 2 x 1GB of RAM installed and want to increase this to 2 x 2GBs (I don't think more than 4GBs is necessary for FS9? But what about FSX, which I have, but never fly - though perhaps I will in the future?). I suppose everyone would agree that that would be a good idea??I have already patched my FS9.exe file (/4GB patch), but can someone confirm that with XP x64 and 4 GBs of RAM I will NOT need to add any switches to the boot.ini file - I tried that with XP 32-bit and it caused me no end of texture loading problems in FS9, whatever value I gave to /userva=Will FS9 be able to use the full 4GBs under these circumstances, or only 3GBs? I know I knew the answers to all this once upon a time!! Brain cells not what they were..Thanks,Martin

[RadarManusa 0]

See if this link answers your questions.http://www.crucial.com/kb/answer.aspx?qid=3743

[altstiff 71]

If your running a 64bit OS you will not need to touch your boot.ini, you will need to set the FS9.exe to be large address aware though. FS9.EXE is a 32bit application, and even if running on a 64bit O/S it will not look beyond the process space limit set by 32bit.Remember, OOM errors have NOTHING to do with your physical ram. It is all to do with virtual ram and the process space limit of a 32bit O/S (2GB/2GB). With 64bit your not limited....(well you are but it is 16GB or something like that)So now that your running 64bit O/S all you need to do is set the FS9.EXE to be LAA and your all set.Also, if your running dual channel memory 4BG is the way to go on a 64bit O/S. If your on an I7 with triple channel then 6BG is the way to go.....Get at least 4GB and your 64bit O/S will use/see it all....

[martinlest2 58]

Thanks for the replies.Yes, I know that OoMs are not fixed by throwing RAM at the machine (its an an address space question I believe), but I think that my system would benefit from an upgrade from 2GBs to 4GBs, especially as I am now using a 64-bit O/S (XP Pro).Did I make fs9.exe LAA by patching it with the /4GB tool? http://www.ntcore.com/4gb_patch.phpOr is there something beyond that I need to do?Crucial say XP 64-bit will take a maximum of 128GBs of RAM. I'll go with 4GBs for now (FS9, non-i7 CPU) ...... (!)Martin

[altstiff 71]

Yes you did patch your FS9.EXE for LAA with NTCore.4GB will be excellent on your D/C system. Go fo it.....

[martinlest2 58]

The very VERY disappointing end result of changing from XP Home x32 to XP Pro x64 is that I now seem to have markedly inferior frame rates to those in XP 32-bit!! Nothing I read prepared me for worse performance in 64-bit!! What a waste of time.. I just flew ('staggered' would be more accurate) into Aerosoft's Heathrow - OK, it's a heavy-duty airport and I don't expect to sail in with frame rates in the forties. But whereas I used to arrive there with an fps of around 15 - flyable, now I get 7 or 8. Depressing. And that was after I changed to a default FS9 737-400. In a PMDG 747 time comes to a standstill. But even up in the clear blue yonder, whereas I would have got over 30fps on average, now I get under 20.I am not sure this is a memory problem - there was still 500MBs of free RAM according to Task Manager. I used Process Monitor, but had already shut down all unnecessary processes before the flight and saw nothing there, or in Task Manager, which was hogging the CPU. I did order the 4GBs of RAm, but am wondering whether to cancel it..Any ideas as to what is going on? I go to bed feeling very dispirited!!!!Martin

[altstiff 71]

Why did you go to XP 64bit? Would have been better going to W7 64bit or at least Vista 64bit. I actually got better frames after switching from XP 32bit to Vista 64bit.Did you install all the XP service packs? DX drivers and so on?

[Guest simmer9304]

The very VERY disappointing end result of changing from XP Home x32 to XP Pro x64 is that I now seem to have markedly inferior frame rates to those in XP 32-bit!! Nothing I read prepared me for worse performance in 64-bit!! What a waste of time.. I just flew ('staggered' would be more accurate) into Aerosoft's Heathrow - OK, it's a heavy-duty airport and I don't expect to sail in with frame rates in the forties. But whereas I used to arrive there with an fps of around 15 - flyable, now I get 7 or 8. Depressing. And that was after I changed to a default FS9 737-400. In a PMDG 747 time comes to a standstill. But even up in the clear blue yonder, whereas I would have got over 30fps on average, now I get under 20.

XP 64bit is a far worse than Win7 64bit. I don't know all the reasons but one I do know of is that most 64bit programs are built for Vista/7 and not XP. Also XP wasn't originally made to be 64bit so the conversion there may have had something to do with it.

[martinlest2 58]

Oh, it's not worth the depression - I spend hours on FlightSim every day, so I have just about decided to go for a new PC from Overclockers.co.uk: I shall only use it for FS9 and possibly FSX (though I never really took to FSX in the same way).Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bitGigabyte EX58A-UD3R Intel X58 M/BIntel Core i7 Quad Core Processor i7-950 Overclocked to 4.00GHz2 x 600GB WD VELOCIRAPTOR® SATA 6-Gb/s, 32MB CACHE (10,000rpm)1 x nVidia 2048MB GTX 4606GB (3x2GB) Corsair XMS3 DDR3 12800C9 1600MHz Triple Channel RAMetc.If I can't run Fs9 with good frame rates on that, I give up!Martin

[vonmar 123]

Martin,See if this helps:FS9 and FSX are 32 bit applications (4GB memory limit).A 64 bit operating system (computer) say with 10GB memory turns itself into a 32 bit computer (with 4GB memory max) to run these older 32 bit applications (programs). And 32 bit applications can only see 2GB memory!

[altstiff 71]

Oh, it's not worth the depression - I spend hours on FlightSim every day, so I have just about decided to go for a new PC from Overclockers.co.uk: I shall only use it for FS9 and possibly FSX (though I never really took to FSX in the same way).Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bitGigabyte EX58A-UD3R Intel X58 M/BIntel Core i7 Quad Core Processor i7-950 Overclocked to 4.00GHz2 x 600GB WD VELOCIRAPTOR® SATA 6-Gb/s, 32MB CACHE (10,000rpm)1 x nVidia 2048MB GTX 4606GB (3x2GB) Corsair XMS3 DDR3 12800C9 1600MHz Triple Channel RAMetc.If I can't run Fs9 with good frame rates on that, I give up!Martin

That will work great....(and run FSX pretty nice too)

[martinlest2 58]

Yes, there's always a trade-off when using 32-bit applications on a 64-bit OS, I know. As you are probably aware, this RAM works as a triple unit, so 3 x 2GBs seems the best option (I agree, no point having 12 GBs or whatever). FS9 will normally only see up to 2GBs (the exe file will be patched to be LAA though), but then Windows has the rest to work with. Whatever, it should be a vast improvement on what I have now - the most important factor is the CPU clocked to 4GHz..M.

[vonmar 123]

M.You asked:"Will FS9 be able to use the full 4GBs under these circumstances, or only 3GBs"FS9 and FSX will only use 2GB of your memory, on your 64 bit OS, even if your PC has more memory than that.I have never used (or had to use) and memory "switches" for any program.

[HoratioWondersocks 4]

This post says it all about the heights of joy and the depths of despair that us simmers have to bare.Martin I feel your pain.Still! You have got a nice shiny new PC to look forward toOANDYPS depths of despair with this new forum message thingy as well.Characters huge then small and then yep HUGE again

[martinlest2 58]

You asked:"Will FS9 be able to use the full 4GBs under these circumstances, or only 3GBs"Yes, guilty. Why did I ask like that? Silly! Hard being a guru all the time!!M. :-)