I've followed several threads which argued about whether there was any advantage in having 1 gig of memory over having 512 meg, for flight simulator. The clincher in the argument always seemed to be that if you looked at memory usage it was always less than 512m, so there was no need for more memory.I believe that argument is erroneous.My system was an amd 1600+ running at 1.4 mh. (not overclocked) with 512m of system memory. and the video, a GEF2 TI 500. (not overclocked) Today I found 512m of memory at a price that I thought might not come again in my lifetime, so I bought it. The new memory was installed and the agp aperture was changed from 64 to 256.The first thing that was different was that avsim.com loaded much quicker than normal. (ok, it might be because the internet was faster than normal.)The second thing was that fs2004 was MUCH smoother than normal. Before installing the new memory, when setting the propeller pitch, in vc mode, The needle didn't follow the movement of the prop control smoothly. It was jerky and was hard to set properly. With the added memory, the needle followed the control input very smoothly. Also, when in a turn, the ball was much easier to center.One other thing I noted. I have the frame rate set at 25 max. Before the memory change, this varied quite a large amount. From 25 to 15 or so depending what I was flying over and looking at. After the memory change the frame rate seldom dropped below 24.I checked the memory usage several times and it was never over 350 meg. This leads me to believe that Microsoft does things differently, depending on the amount of memory available, because there was nothing changed on the system other than agp aperture and the added memory.Bob

What OS are you running? I'm running 98SE so anything over 512 wil do me no good. Somebody got $200 so I can get XP? :X

I'm running XP. Yeah, 1 gig will do you no good. If I had $200 I'd have a better video card.Bob

"Somebody got $200 so I can get XP?"RWade... newegg sells an OEM version of XP Home w/SP1 for $91.00. Shipping is usually free on their stuff, and of course no sales tax for you (they're in California). This is what I bought and it works fine. No phone support, but that's no great loss. Oh, and no pretty retail box (aw shucks). The only problem I've had with it was my own fault... bought my OEM version 3 weeks after my wife paid the $200.00 for her retail. I'm still hearing about that!http://www.newegg.com/software/They're a great outfit... buy almost all of my computer stuff from them.

Yeah, theyr'e ok. Just wish they had a 4 gig processor for 20 bucks.Bob

I'd rather have 1GB of ram than a new graphics bord - 512MB is definitely the limit with FS9, at least when you are using addons. (Although you might argue that 768 is enough, someone would have to test it.)The new graphics bord will only increase frames when the PC is not busy loading stuff - but with 512, at least on my PC, it is loading all the time (not literally. But often enough).-Daniel

Thanks for the heads up Soarpics, just what I needed.

..."I'd rather have 1GB of ram than a new graphics bord - 512MB is definitely the limit with FS9"...This is my system:Dell Dimension 8300Intel

Hi All,I also have similar experiences when I upgraded to 1G on my Dell XPS 3.0Ghz system. I do not have the Pro version of the ATI 9800 video card (an oversite when I ordered my new system.) It was a general overall improvement.I have a question about memory useage. Below is a screen shot of my task manager. As you see the page file useage is 515 MB and available physical memory is 383,939 and when subtracted from 1,047,548 KB it leaves 663,528 KB which indecates my computer is useing 663 MB of memory, right or wrong? How does the 515 MB page file useage enter into this? Are you fellows checking memory useage some other way?http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/49709.jpg

That is the easiest way to check for free RAM, although there are other utilities that also do the task.I have posted several responses regarding memory usage in FS9 on this forum, including the tests I did on the "autogen bug" thread. On a 2 gig system, I have never seen less than 1 gig available running FS9, but I have seen RAM utilization up in the 800+ meg range with repeated flyovers in dense scenery areas. Therefore, 1 gig is enough, 512 megs forces disk caching if you do a lot of panning around, view switching, etc. Whether or not this is a source of stutters or pauses depends on your hard drive, then, and also the size of the drive's cache if textures are being re-loaded. Some 512 meg systems work OK, some exhibit problems with smoothness and jittering, etc. It also depends on where you are flying, your aircraft/panel choice and slider settings, of course.MDavis

Well, I only have a 64MB graphics card so maybe having 128MBs helps...Also you've got a quick harddrive, so that might smooth things up.-Daniel

>512MB is definitely the limit with FS9,Here's my taskman after 3 hours with the PMDG737 into UK2000 EGLL:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/49785.jpgSmall page file forces FS more into that faster RAM ;-)Cheers,Paulhttp://www.strontiumdog.plus.com/cin.gifwww.bavirtual.co.uk/cin.htm - please give generously!!Officially licenced by British Airways plc for use of name and logo[p]AMD XP2800+ Barton, Gigabyte GA-7NNXP nForce2, 1Gig Crucial PC3200 DDR 400MHz, Gainward 128 MB GF4-4200, SB Audigy, 3 x WD Caviar SE[/p]

What I meant was, you shouldn't have less than 512mb's ;)But thanks, you proved my point!-Daniel

Hi all,Thought I'd comment about this RAM issue. First of all, some details about my system. Computer sports an AMD 2K+ processor, 512 MB DDRRAM (2100), Siluro FX5200 128 MB DDR RAM. Mainboard AGP aperture size is 4x. I haven't noticed appreciable improvement when changing the video card - I had a MX420, 64MB. As you ppl say, FS doesn't seem to use all the RAM, I'm never in virtual memory and God forbid!My girlfriend has 1Gig mainboard RAM and has an MX440 64 MB card. Processor and motherboard are the same. When we fly over chicago with all display settings maxed out, we get decent framerates, around 25 fps and it's not fluctuating. When I fly over Chicago on my system with settings maxed out, I'm in for a rough ride. Oh and I can forget flying in stormy conditions!The three main issues in flight sim (with regards to the computer) are Processor, video card and mainboard RAM. Processor and video card are decent enough (OK, not top of the range but decent), so RAM seems to be the culprit. Some say, 2100 RAM is not of high quality. High quality or not, one expects better performance, no doubt! Before assembling this computer system I was flying FS in an AMD 450MHz, 128MB SDRAM and although sometimes jittery, I was satisfied with display settings set accordingly.As you point out, we're probably getting false readings about RAM usage. FS must use much more than declared, at least, on an XP system. It would be nice to know how FS performs with 512 MB RAM and Win98 OS...Storm

Im using 98SE and 512mb ram here. So far its been fine. I have a PIV on a Gigabyte mobo with Intel 845E chipset and run @3.0ghz. Radeon 9800 graphics card with 512mb PC2100DDR. Im seeing decent frame rates but I get the autogen stuttering/slowdown bug after about 45 minutes of flying. I have ALL the fps tweaks here. I run with the sliders at medium to high settings, but NOT maxed, almost everything is backed off a slight bit(still way better than 2k2) I lock at 35 as my system will do in the low 30's pretty regularly. It stays there most of the time but wont stay steady even if your sitting on a ramp with nothing on. Try that sometime and watch the frame rates!!!! This is where the problem lies, its the graphics engine doing too much or not efficiently. When flying this can be just as bad and I challenge anyone to get decent frame rates that are STABLE. Most of the time my fps stay high enough to not notice, which is good. Every now and then though the fps will do a dance, and it DOES NOT seem to be related to any add-on or major graphics load, it just DOES IT. You will see frames go from 35-21-33-1-35 all in the space of a few seconds, these are the stutters everyone is talking about. I have done a lot of testing and my HD shows NO ACIVITY during these fluctuations. This tells me its not my system as it seems to work just fine all day long and other graphics/ CPU intesive games run just fine. When I see slowdowns is with add-on AI, and scenery. Most add-on aircraft seem ok and smooth. I think the sim has some problems with how it displays the terrain and scenery/autogen which are bigger than most of us think. Also there is a definite common thread about sound with this sim that has me wondering also. I have seen sound be an issue on several occasions and when turned off does very little to the frame rate. I have pretty much stopped tweaking these days except for the occasional screenshot. I have turned the settings to bare minimum and still see the stutter happen evey now and then. The big problem is a lot depends on where you are and what you fly. Seems there is no constant with this sim and thats a bit of a problem itself. For the most part it works well, but I dont think throwing more ram at it is any kind of solution. You will still see many of the same problems, they will just load faster :) I will be upgrading to XP shortly and will go to 1 or 1.5G of ram at that point.Hornit