hi alli start with my specifics:- e9650 (OC to 4.05ghz: 450x9)- 4gb 2x2 corsair ram 5-5-5-15 OC to 1088- gtx 285 black edition OC to 730/1641when im flying with heavies or for example carenado 340 on ORBX scenery brisbane + AU regions + REX + ENB i get these result on my RAM (see the pic below). do i need 6gb ram? 2gb for the win7 and 4 for fsx?

You still have 1GB available there, no problem at all

You still have 1GB available there, no problem at all

Well, but you shouldn´t risk an OOM so maybe you can upgrade to 6 or 8GB.

Well, but you shouldn´t risk an OOM so maybe you can upgrade to 6 or 8GB.

I would say if it ain't broke don't fix it, but that's just me

thx guys for the reply. but why fsx doesnt use the 1gb still available? im runnung a 64bit operative system

FSX is a 32 bit program. It can only use 2G Ram, no matter how much is installed. By having more then 2G available, the operating system has the resources to do what it needs to without taking memory from FSX.

FSX is a 32 bit program. It can only use 2G Ram, no matter how much is installed. By having more then 2G available, the operating system has the resources to do what it needs to without taking memory from FSX.

+1

Actually guys it doesn't depend so much on physical RAM but Virtual RAM or the Virtual Address Space (VAS) which in the case of FSX SP2 is a maximum of 4GB. If FSX ran out of Physical RAM the whole computer would crash or you would start using the paging file. If it exceeds the VAS then you get an OOM error just for FSX not the whole system. With physical RAM it is important to use the appropriate RAM slots on a mobo and if you can avoid it do not fill all of the RAM slots on a mobo.So for a dual channel DDR3 mobo you would load 2 x 2Gb or 2 x 4GB - or not as effective 4 x 2 GB (3 x 2GB will take away cpu resources).Triple Channel DDR3 RAM (eg Intel i7 9xx series) are best loaded in 3's eg 3 x 2GB or 3 x 4GB or not as effective 6 x 2GB.Anything outside of this could affect performance.RegardsPeterH

so at least i should have 6gb of ram coz 4gb for fsx and 1,21gb (in my case) for the operative system...right?hi alli have just terminated to do few test and the result is this: if fsx reach 1,7gb of memory ram (but not more) the game is smooth and 30fps stable (using external fps) while if fsx overcome 1.7gb of memory the fps drops dows around 18-26 but the game is not smooth and fluid anymore...slow when u look around.... a few example:- ftx canberra: 2gb of memory (not fluide even i reach 17-26fps)- ftx melbourne: 1.78gb (fluid with some drop fps........stable at 30fps but then suddenly 18 for 2 seconds and then 30fps again)- ftx cairns: 1.67gb (fluid and stable..just perfect)- ftx brisbane: 1.8gb (not stable and fps drops suddenly like 26-27 to 17-18 for a couple of seconds) if i uncheck more scenery option reaching around 1.7 or 1.65gb brisbane became fluid at 30fps stable- aerosoft stuttgart: 1.62gb (stable...just perfect)- aerosoft munich: 1.7gb (stable...just perfect)- fsdreamteam new york: 1.73gb (stable at 30fps with a couple of second around 24...almost perfect)in my conclusion if fsx (for my configuration) use until 1.7gb of memory ram the fps and the performance are stable and really smooth but if fsx overcome 1.7gb i really see the fluidity and fps drops. so i think that having 4gb ONLY for fsx + 2gb for OS&Ezdok camera&activesky evolution&fspassenger is the right choice....am i wrong?ill post pictures soon..for be more understanbleps. sorry for my bad english

DavidNo - you just need 4GB, if you want more RAM, as I do for say Photoshop 64-bit, the next step is 8GB - 6GB will not be as efficient as 4GB (2x2GB) or 8GB (2 x4GB). WRT FSX physical RAM is not the issue (except for its speed and latency) it is the VAS which is more important. With most applications on a 64-bit OS - 4GB dual channel is ample (6GB on Triple Channel). As I say above if it was a physical RAM issue the whole computer would crash. Windows shares and allocates the Physical RAM between the OS and FSX and it will use as much as it can, that way it runs more efficiently. It will also use the paging file if needed. Windows also loads FSX into its own 4GB Virtual address space, so that if it crashes it does not bring the whole system down just FSX.Physical RAM is not the same as Virtual RAM (VAS) and for the latter FSX being a 32-bit program can only 'use' 4GB of VAS. Its usage of Physical RAM is not as important in terms of 'out of memory' issues.So to answer your question either stick with 4GB or increase it to 8GB for optimum efficiency but if its only for FSX 4GB is plenty. IMHO Increasing the physical RAM will not make FSX run any better or faster nor will it stop any OOM issues. RegardsPeterH

Well, but you shouldn´t risk an OOM so maybe you can upgrade to 6 or 8GB.

Peter is also very much right. There is no preventing of OOMs with increasing of RAM.You can look at it like this: FSX can use up to 4GB of VAS, which resides in RAM of course, system can use up to 2GB - so, if you have 4GB, there is gonna be a need for swapping, otherwise system will run out of memory. If you have 8GB, you can turn off swap, to prevent system from swapping and harddrive from useless work. I think 8GB is a better solution. There is negligible performance difference between 4GB and 8GB when it comes to latency. Size is what matter in this scenario.