If FS9 hits 4GB VA in PE, it will always crash.

I know, I know hehe. It was just to confirm it was hitting the VAS limit

Oh yes, you know, can never be too careful :Thinking: :Just Kidding:

Oh yes, you know, can never be too careful :Thinking: :Just Kidding:

LOL, I was asking if it always crashed at 4GB VAS usage, and never before that to make sure it was not a physical memory issue due to the VRAM shadow copy thing

I know what you ment :) Was j/k... interesting thing with this shadow copy. Though I never came accross it before... as being an unclear issue.I never had it cause me any trouble. And yeah, I also did have small amounts of RAM running (2GB), but not with todays GPUs of course.It would be interesting if we could confirm on another computer that has a possibility to run 2GB of RAM with virtual memory and a good GPU (someone who has 4x2GB and would pull 3 sticks out for a test for instance...).Though ronski said it's not an issue on W7, so...Hey Oli, how about upgrading to W7? :Whistle:But... I'm still not persuaded it's an issue with VRAM shadow copy in the RAM. Besides, can't this be turned off via BIOS? I remember doing something like that WAY back...I still think it's some memory leak in FS9.I hope that FS9.1 patch is installed!!??EDIT: And btw... I read he IS running Vista already, so there is NO video shadowing. LOL...

I know what you ment :) Was j/k... interesting thing with this shadow copy. Though I never came accross it before... as being an unclear issue.I never had it cause me any trouble. And yeah, I also did have small amounts of RAM running (2GB), but not with todays GPUs of course.It would be interesting if we could confirm on another computer that has a possibility to run 2GB of RAM with virtual memory and a good GPU (someone who has 4x2GB and would pull 3 sticks out for a test for instance...).Though ronski said it's not an issue on W7, so...Hey Oli, how about upgrading to W7? :Whistle:But... I'm still not persuaded it's an issue with VRAM shadow copy in the RAM. Besides, can't this be turned off via BIOS? I remember doing something like that WAY back...I still think it's some memory leak in FS9.I hope that FS9.1 patch is installed!!??EDIT: And btw... I read he IS running Vista already, so there is NO video shadowing. LOL...

There is apparently a VRAM copy for DX9 applications. Since Vista's WDDM, the whole VRAM didn't need to be completely loaded in VM for DX10 apps, it used a memory "window" instead, but for compatibility reasons DX9 apps still do.

There is apparently a VRAM copy for DX9 applications. Since Vista's WDDM, the whole VRAM didn't need to be completely loaded in VM for DX10 apps, it used a memory "window" instead, but for compatibility reasons DX9 apps still do.

Ahh ok. So how does this work out if you disable VM?

Ahh ok. So how does this work out if you disable VM?

What do you mean by disabling VM? The page file?

What do you mean by disabling VM? The page file?

Yes, the page file.Since both FS9 and FSX are DX9, it would mean both keep a VRAM shadow copy of the stuff in the virtual memory as I understand it - if you turn it off, you either are preventing that or it does it in RAM.Still, the VAS has nothing to do with virtual memory, physical memory or shadow copy of VRAM. And it is VAS that is causing troubles...

I think you are right when you say I should try a complete uninstall/reinstall of FS9 and all associated stuff and start completely from square one again. Have you guys got any tips on how to do this the best as I know sometimes uninstallers are a little bit flaky and files get left in various places.Also was the suggestion of upgrading with W7 a serious one? It's something I have been looking into because I know that Vista is on the heavy side when it comes to resources.And yes - I do have the 9.1 patch applied.

I think you are right when you say I should try a complete uninstall/reinstall of FS9 and all associated stuff and start completely from square one again. Have you guys got any tips on how to do this the best as I know sometimes uninstallers are a little bit flaky and files get left in various places.

Quite simple: 1) run uninstallers for all software you have additionally installed for FS92) run uninstaller for FS9 (I think there is no patch uninstaller for FS9)3) go to Program Files (there are two in 64bit OS) and delete ANYTHING that has to do with Flightsim4) this is in W7, I don't think Vista won't be much different: C:\Users\(Username)\AppData\Local+Roaming - delete anything that is in connection to Flightsim (don't miss the ...Roaming\Microsoft\FS9 folder)5) My Documents\Flight Simulator Files - delete or rename this folder - it's your personal data when it comes to FSThat's it.

Also was the suggestion of upgrading with W7 a serious one? It's something I have been looking into because I know that Vista is on the heavy side when it comes to resources.

W7 is way way better than Vista. It's faster, it uses less memory and has better memory management. It's definitely a huge improvement.

I'm testing on 2GB of RAM (did I say 1GB? ). FSX hit 2.4GB of VAS witrh no crash. Now with extended LOD (7.5):Dusk, at YBBN (ORBX scenery) with the PMDG MD11, maxed out sliders, LOD=7.5, TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=4096, AA=4v12, 16xAF, 8xSGSS...Also tried FS9 and max VAS I could get it 1.2GB

Yes, the page file.Since both FS9 and FSX are DX9, it would mean both keep a VRAM shadow copy of the stuff in the virtual memory as I understand it - if you turn it off, you either are preventing that or it does it in RAM.Still, the VAS has nothing to do with virtual memory, physical memory or shadow copy of VRAM. And it is VAS that is causing troubles...

And repeated the test in FSX with the page file disabled, and FSX wouldn't even load before crashing (OOM) Then I tried to open Firefox and windows displayed the low system memory message. The first 10 processes summed more than 2GB of RAM, so disabling the page file doesn't seem to prevent swapping

I'm testing on 2GB of RAM (did I say 1GB? ). FSX hit 2.4GB of VAS witrh no crash. Now with extended LOD (7.5):Dusk, at YBBN (ORBX scenery) with the PMDG MD11, maxed out sliders, LOD=7.5, TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=4096, AA=4v12, 16xAF, 8xSGSS...Also tried FS9 and max VAS I could get it 1.2GB

Now, this is an awesome thing! I have 2x4, otherwise I would've tested it gladly! And where's that VRAM shadowing? :)And yet again, a proof that VAS has nothing to do with physical et al.Oh and btw... I see FSX hitting 3GB, not 2.4 :Batting Eyelashes:

And repeated the test in FSX with the page file disabled, and FSX wouldn't even load before crashing (OOM) Then I tried to open Firefox and windows displayed the low system memory message. The first 10 processes summed more than 2GB of RAM, so disabling the page file doesn't seem to prevent swapping

Hold on, you must differentiate physical vs. working space.If you disable swapping and fill the RAM, windows is gonna crash. And disabling virtual, you disabled swapping effectively, and there is no more pagefile.sys. I know, because I'm higly anal about this file. I don't like it, don't want it running, and I always look for it to be deleted.

Oh and btw... I see FSX hitting 3GB, not 2.4 :Batting Eyelashes:

Yes, I run a first test with standard LOD (4.5) and it hit 2.4GB, then the second one with 7.5 is the one in the pic

Hold on, you must differentiate physical vs. working space.If you disable swapping and fill the RAM, windows is gonna crash. And disabling virtual, you disabled swapping effectively, and there is no more pagefile.sys. I know, because I'm higly anal about this file. I don't like it, don't want it running, and I always look for it to be deleted.

Ok, I assumed that having 5 - 10 processes with a combined VAS of more than 2GB meant that there would be swapping, but it could be that it was just reserved space or something, and as soon as a page needs to be offloaded from RAM when the system runs out of it, it crashes with no page file available. I really don't know, but makes sense that no page file = no swapping available.I'm in the mood for some testing. Can you please suggest a scenario to test page file on vs off please?@Oli have you tried different driver versions?

I'm in the mood for some testing. Can you please suggest a scenario to test page file on vs off please?

FSX ain't enough? It works with, it crashes without. FSX is a huge app, that needs on boot around 2GB, with OS... impossible.But start opening programs, lots of them and heavy ones, and you'll see a windows out of memory error soon enough.I don't quite get it what do you want to check?