Hi Dazz:You reading my mind I was just about to do that, :( read this Dazz what do you think "Okay. Sounds like you do have the dll in your main fsx directory. If you have the d3d9.dll in your main fsx directory, delete it. It does not belong in the fsx directory as fsx does not install this file. This is a DirectX problem so you might want to run a file checker to verify the DirectX files are valid. (Disregard the last suggestion if you have the dll in your main fsx directory as deleting it will solve your problem).It is in my main folder, should I trash it ?Regards, Rich

Hi Dazz:You reading my mind I was just about to do that, :( read this Dazz what do you think "Okay. Sounds like you do have the dll in your main fsx directory. If you have the d3d9.dll in your main fsx directory, delete it. It does not belong in the fsx directory as fsx does not install this file. This is a DirectX problem so you might want to run a file checker to verify the DirectX files are valid. (Disregard the last suggestion if you have the dll in your main fsx directory as deleting it will solve your problem).It is in my main folder, should I trash it ?Regards, Rich

Ohh, ok ok. I missed the file path. It's likely the ENBSeries d3d9.dll voiding HIGHMEMFIX and causing the problem. Try uninstalling ENBSeries and double check the d3d9.dll is removed after uninstalling ENBSeriesEDIT: I just realised that you said that it also happens without ENBSeries, but what module crashes in that case?

Edited March 31, 201115 yr by dazz

Hi Dazz:Its not crashing now so maybe its ok now, thats right I added that file dah but after using enbseries would not be the same without it, well we have narrowed it down maybe windows 7 doesn't like it, never had this problem on xp 32bit, hmm could be also another instal of dxdiag might help with pmdg issue, I always use driver cleaner.net payware with video driver installs one less issue :( you need anything just ask, going to launch it now did a reboot with new dx installed see what happens, still think I am going to do a new install on to another drive, never tried that and probablly should have a long time ago.Regards, Rich

Seem like all is well guys, so glad it wasn't the motherboard, all who helped me I thank you and hope I can return the favor, highly suggest O&O defrag and make sure all your folders have administrative rights I think that helped a lot also addon software not placed in main fsx folder if possible. I did expect more out of this build but much better than xp on that 775 motherboard, now dont get me wrong any aircraft other than the highly detailed pmdg products run great, they have never been an issue but they are not a pmdg product either, luv pmdg, I remember chatting with Rob when he first started this buisness, oh how time flys. :( Regards, Rich

Paul, if that was your point (the channel setup) how could he be on anything other than triple channel with 12GB of RAM, so how could that be a problem? don't make excuses now and please do that test and run some benchmarks comparing triple and dual channel before assuming it's such a big deal:http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/107?vs=46

Dazz, I think you should read what I actually wrote, because I am pretty sure I didn't say what you seem to think I said. To summerise what I DID say, I said one BANK of memory out performed TWO. Regardless of whether you are using dual or triple channel, or even if you are using dual channel on a triple channel capable board. Everything else about DIMMs and slots is your own invention. And using 4G DIMMs, there is only one possible configuration that would use triple channel memory with 12G RAM, there are a lot more that wont. It is hard to know what you will consider an excuse when we do not appear to be speaking the same language. Let me say for the third time, I AGREED WITH WIMS! Not all CPUs are equal and newer generation CPUs can outperform older generation CPUs at the same clock speeds. The link you gave says as much with two chips at the same speed, one was a whopping 2% faster then the other overall (you could have found better examples such as Q9650 vs i7-940 ~4%, E8600 vs i5-2500k ~20%). Of course, the newer the benchmark, the bigger the improvement. Which makes absolute sense since the newer benchmarks and applications take advantage of the improvements made to the chips. But I have to ask why you think IPC improvements were worth mentioning? To sumerize IPC improvements for anyone not familiar: Intel has found way to improve InterProcess Communication between threads which synchronise and communicate with each other across different cores. This provides a performance boost for applications which run on multiple cores (both real and/or virtual) with threads that communicate with each other. Does that sound like FSX to you? Does FSX run on multiple cores? Barely, it can manage about 3 real cores after which there is no measurable improvements, the secondary cores are only used for loaders and it can't use virtual cores at all. So how, exactly, do you think IPC improvements will help FSX? My original point remains valid. Move FSX from one box to another with similar clock speed, and you should expect similar performance.

Dazz, I think you should read what I actually wrote, because I am pretty sure I didn't say what you seem to think I said. To summerise what I DID say, I said one BANK of memory out performed TWO. Regardless of whether you are using dual or triple channel, or even if you are using dual channel on a triple channel capable board. Everything else about DIMMs and slots is your own invention. And using 4G DIMMs, there is only one possible configuration that would use triple channel memory with 12G RAM, there are a lot more that wont. It is hard to know what you will consider an excuse when we do not appear to be speaking the same language. Let me say for the third time, I AGREED WITH WIMS! Not all CPUs are equal and newer generation CPUs can outperform older generation CPUs at the same clock speeds. The link you gave says as much with two chips at the same speed, one was a whopping 2% faster then the other overall (you could have found better examples such as Q9650 vs i7-940 ~4%, E8600 vs i5-2500k ~20%). Of course, the newer the benchmark, the bigger the improvement. Which makes absolute sense since the newer benchmarks and applications take advantage of the improvements made to the chips. But I have to ask why you think IPC improvements were worth mentioning? To sumerize IPC improvements for anyone not familiar: Intel has found way to improve InterProcess Communication between threads which synchronise and communicate with each other across different cores. This provides a performance boost for applications which run on multiple cores (both real and/or virtual) with threads that communicate with each other. Does that sound like FSX to you? Does FSX run on multiple cores? Barely, it can manage about 3 real cores after which there is no measurable improvements, the secondary cores are only used for loaders and it can't use virtual cores at all. So how, exactly, do you think IPC improvements will help FSX? My original point remains valid. Move FSX from one box to another with similar clock speed, and you should expect similar performance.

By IPC I mean Intructions Per Clock. The idea was to stress the fact that there're things in newer architectures that help in older applications like FSX. Not only IPC, also overclockability, memory performance,... so in short, your original point is flawed anyway you look at it. Actually an architecture upgrade is the single most beneficial thing hardware can do to boost FSX's performance, no video card, memory upgrade or anything else will help as much as a faster CPUThe anandtech comparison was meant to give an idea of how much faster the same CPU is with triple channel memory vs dual channel, they're not different architectures because it's not different architectures what I was trying to compare there.

Q9650 vs i7-940 ~4%, E8600 vs i5-2500k ~20%

no way. A I5 2500K is already a 30-40% faster than a I7 9xx, both overclockedAnd no, 1 bank won't perform any better than 2 populated banks unless you tighten the timings or overclock higher, and even then, the performance difference is going to be small. I already commented on thatBut let's move on. The OP's issue seems to be solved, no point on draging this out