I carried out an experiment with the default FSX to determine its memory usage. I took off from Heathrow using the default B747 and climbed to 10,000 ft. My PC is the family computer which I had before FSX, and is low/mid range with an AMD Athlon XP 3200+ 2.2GHz processor with 1 Gb of RAM, and Radeon 9800 XT graphics .I used Process Explorer to measure:Virtual Size which is the total amount of virtual address space:Working Set which is the number of bytes in physical memory:Private Bytes which is the virtual memory that can't be shared with other processes.I first flew wich my default settings that result in about 30 fps. The results were that:Virtual Size varied between 674 Mb and 690 MbPeak Working Set was 435 MbPeak Private Bytes were 466 Mb.I then moved all the sliders fully right and ticked all the boxes. This killed my frame rate, giving less than 3 fps. The results were:Virtual Size varied between 1,218Mb and 1,249MbPeak Working Set was 552 MbPeak Private Bytes were 932 MbThis suggests that default FSX is nowhere near the 2Gb limit. Even in the extreme case with all sliders to the right and all boxes ticked, its Virtual Size is less than 1.3 GB.PS - Ived already posted this information in the Flight forum, but have decided to post here as well because it may be of wider interest.

I think it's Video Memory (VRAM) which is the main issue for most. My card has 1Gb of VRAM and I frequently see that almost at full capacity in FSX.Regards,Tom

If you see a slow-down, it's not due to RAM.It's mostly your settings (too much for the computer to handle), or VRAM gets filled. 256mb not nearly enough for FSX full right... (mind you, there IS a reason why people are buying strongest CPUs, overclocking the bejesus out of them and throwing last gen videocards into the mix to run FSX good).To check VRAM, GPUZ.

I think it's Video Memory (VRAM) which is the main issue for most. My card has 1Gb of VRAM and I frequently see that almost at full capacity in FSX.Regards,Tom

That may be less of a problem in future.http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940105

I carried out an experiment with the default FSX to determine its memory usage.

OK, but how many users fly with default FSX?If you add the Flight1 Mustang and Orbx PNW scenery, just as a start,your numbers go up sharply..Now change the LOD_Radius to 5.5 or more... and pretty soon...

OK, but how many users fly with default FSX?If you add the Flight1 Mustang and Orbx PNW scenery, just as a start,your numbers go up sharply..Now change the LOD_Radius to 5.5 or more... and pretty soon...

I don't doubt it but is it not a little unreasonable to have expected Microsoft to make provision for any add-ons that anyone may now care to install in any quantity?

I don't doubt it but is it not a little unreasonable to have expected Microsoft to make provision for any add-ons that anyone may now care to install in any quantity?

I don't think anyone here has expressed that expectation. Microsoft did make that provision in FSX with service packs. No one expects any program to be infinitely expandable - even enterprise server software has limits that are hit from time to time. On the other hand, this discussion originated in the 'Flight' forum and was rooted in the hope that 'Flight' would offer a 64 bit version that would expand the current limits. I know the additional technical effort required is relatively low if the software is developed with that in mind - OTOH, if there is a substantial legacy code base in use, the effort may be considerable and not deemed to be worth the extra cost. No argument as to the relative number of 32 bit vs 64 bit machines can be usefully made, IMOH, since there is no clear indication from MS as to when 'Flight' might be released. If the timeline is on the order of a couple of years, it's pretty clear that 64 bit machines will have made substantial inroads into the market since the OEMs will have been offering them as base purchases for 3 years.DJ

I don't think anyone here has expressed that expectation. Microsoft did make that provision in FSX with service packs. No one expects any program to be infinitely expandable - even enterprise server software has limits that are hit from time to time. On the other hand, this discussion originated in the 'Flight' forum and was rooted in the hope that 'Flight' would offer a 64 bit version that would expand the current limits. I know the additional technical effort required is relatively low if the software is developed with that in mind - OTOH, if there is a substantial legacy code base in use, the effort may be considerable and not deemed to be worth the extra cost. No argument as to the relative number of 32 bit vs 64 bit machines can be usefully made, IMOH, since there is no clear indication from MS as to when 'Flight' might be released. If the timeline is on the order of a couple of years, it's pretty clear that 64 bit machines will have made substantial inroads into the market since the OEMs will have been offering them as base purchases for 3 years.DJ

May be not in this thread but you will find many elsewhere who do,. They never seem to criticise 3rd party developers or graphics card suppliers for using large amounts of memory.

May be not in this thread but you will find many elsewhere who do,. They never seem to criticise 3rd party developers or graphics card suppliers for using large amounts of memory.

Since the folks who frequent the FS forums demand ever increasing detail and complexity, it seems to me to be wildly unlikely that they would critisize the devs for providing what they are demanding. Note, however, that some devs do provide methods for reducing the memory footprint of their creations where possible. As far as graphics cards suppliers go, they are faced with same demands plus performance and the limitations of whatever OS is being run. Certainly Win7 has a much better memory scheme for graphics than did XP and its predecessors...DJ

... As far as graphics cards suppliers go, they are faced with same demands plus performance and the limitations of whatever OS is being run. ...

Actually, they dont. 32 bit environments will limit the virtual address space to 4 gigs, with a 64bit environment the limit is much, much higher, I believe its 256TB virtual address space (48 bit). It does however have nothing to do with Win XP or Win 7

Since the folks who frequent the FS forums demand ever increasing detail and complexity, it seems to me to be wildly unlikely that they would critisize the devs for providing what they are demanding.DJ

But that doesn't prevent them from overloading their PCs and then complainng about OOM errors.

But that doesn't prevent them from overloading their PCs and then complainng about OOM errors.

There are folks in forums all across the web who would complain if someone was giving away free money... what's the point in belaboring the question?DJ