Jan, you may want to reconsider your link to advancepctweaking tool from your website as it is banned by my Eset anti virus for being a dangersous site. You may also wish to consider commenting directly on these forums with your personal experiences and advices. A large part of our interaction here carries a social as well as a technical component. Your self promotion to your website is becoming distracting and boarders spam. A nice website by the way, some parts are interesting while others I consider pure hogwash.

Next to that tweaking is dangerous...apparently also @yours? Which page/link is it? And btw what is the hogwash?

Next to that tweaking is dangerous...apparently also @yours? Which page/link is it? And btw what is the hogwash?

He's saying that some of the content on the website you're advertising frequently is incorrect or misleading. My Bitdefender also flagged the advancedpctweaking tool as malicious.

I've changed the link or type in your browser http://www.advancedpctweaker.com/

I've changed the link or type in your browser

That link is a malcious and dangerous, not to mention not related to the original subject of the post.

Nothing dangerous in my side Gary, using IE9 + MS Essentials + Malwarebytes

Maybe a false positive. My BD throws up a warning.

Yes, that's how I understand it too. It's just that sometimes the page file - swap space is incorrectly refered to as virtual memory

Way too often unfortunately.

Actually from some more nonscientific tests the OOM's seem to be related more to slider values in conjunction with (usually) high end resource hungry addons. I have two .cfg's that I load while flying. 1) LOD 6.5 with max autogen water 2x but no ai traffic - for flying in rural areas with less cpu hungry payware. and 2) default lod 4.5 with dense autogen and lower scenery sliders for Orbx Land. Now during testing I tried loading cfg #2 and that it caused a CTD with the NGX. So I got drastic and dropped autogen to normal, some scenery like water to 1x high and no ai traffic (#3). I then flew the same flight over and over. It only CTD with Scenario #1 and #2. I also tried running the Citation Mustang in this flgiht sequence - I was suprised it did not CTD. I figured the mustang would be an issue but I also believe the tweak, Texture Max Load of 4096 is causing issues. All this stuff adds up and perhaps the Mustang isn't enough to bring it down all the time but the NGX is the most advanced (visually) plane for FSX and it may be too powerful to run this very high settings. It's ironic that we finally have these big rigs to run FSX but now we have to turn down sliders near larger cities because the airplanes are too advanced LMAO!

Actually from some more nonscientific tests the OOM's seem to be related more to slider values in conjunction with (usually) high end resource hungry addons. I have two .cfg's that I load while flying. 1) LOD 6.5 with max autogen water 2x but no ai traffic - for flying in rural areas with less cpu hungry payware. and 2) default lod 4.5 with dense autogen and lower scenery sliders for Orbx Land. Now during testing I tried loading cfg #2 and that it caused a CTD with the NGX. So I got drastic and dropped autogen to normal, some scenery like water to 1x high and no ai traffic (#3). I then flew the same flight over and over. It only CTD with Scenario #1 and #2. I also tried running the Citation Mustang in this flgiht sequence - I was suprised it did not CTD. I figured the mustang would be an issue but I also believe the tweak, Texture Max Load of 4096 is causing issues. All this stuff adds up and perhaps the Mustang isn't enough to bring it down all the time but the NGX is the most advanced (visually) plane for FSX and it may be too powerful to run this very high settings. It's ironic that we finally have these big rigs to run FSX but now we have to turn down sliders near larger cities because the airplanes are too advanced LMAO!

Developers vs PC Builders war. So far the developers (PMDG) are winning...

Ryan if you want to fly with these high settings and NGX, find someone of the old Aces guys and ask him to make a 64 bit patch for FSX.

I have refused to run textures any higher than 1024 from day one. When FEX went 'HD' I saw the perf drop and .cfg edit as asking for trouble. Now you have addon aircraft, clouds, water all with these massive textures and all expecting to run at the same time AND with increased LOD radius in many cases! IMHO its still asking for trouble 5 years later in 2011.......

I have refused to run textures any higher than 1024 from day one. When FEX went 'HD' I saw the perf drop and .cfg edit as asking for trouble. Now you have addon aircraft, clouds, water all with these massive textures and all expecting to run at the same time AND with increased LOD radius in many cases! IMHO its still asking for trouble 5 years later in 2011.......

I tend to agree. Though I'm using "4096", I've contemplated going back to 1024 and leaving the sliders right. The NGX caused an OOM a few days ago flying into KMIA from a 3 1/2 flight. I was not a happy camper, but for test's sake reran the same flight with autogen at the middle. Voilà. Problem solved.

IMHO its still asking for trouble 5 years later in 2011.......

It is - I actually thought mine was set at 1024 (I've always used the FEX 1024 clouds), until I checked my cfg recently and it said 4096 - probably set by the NGX. Does anyone have the plane, what does it look like @ 1024?

I tend to agree. Though I'm using "4096", I've contemplated going back to 1024 and leaving the sliders right. The NGX caused an OOM a few days ago flying into KMIA from a 3 1/2 flight. I was not a happy camper, but for test's sake reran the same flight with autogen at the middle. Voilà. Problem solved.

Ditto I had a quick one (yes Ive been having OOM's and CTD g3d anywhere in Orbx Land) SEA to PDX - on final for PDX... boom CTD. I've had OOM's on the same flight. So far I've lowered my sliders and made a custom cfg for orbx flying, now I've made an even leaner cfg for NGX/Orbx flying.

I just said that OOMs are related to virtual memory as opposed to physical memory. The amount of virtual memory used by a certain process is shown in that "virtual size" column, yes

I also theorize that CTD's (g3d.dll related) are a function of virtual memory.

Well I tried the same flight and was unable to get a G3d.dll CTD - but before that I was able to get a OOM lol. Of course I was running at my #1 config with LOD 6.5... as soon as the vram hit 4GB - whammo - OOM. I'm confident I can get the g3d CTD if I lower the settings just enough to the point where the vram is still highly saturated but approaching OLM vor from the N, I believe that's where the sim loads some more tiles and my NGX displays some of the t/d and waypoints ahead on the MFD. Also my weather settings were a little different from last weekend when I ran the tests. I will note on cfg #3 (the drastically low FSX settings, with tml 4096), the sim did not crash and I continued as normal. Vram steady around 2.5GB in that case. If "Private Bytes" or "Working set" is the physical memory it's amazing how much FSX is using!

Developers vs PC Builders war. So far the developers (PMDG) are winning...

Oh, I'm definitely not saying it's the devs fault. It would be mine or anyone else tweaking the cfg (when I say tweaking I mean adding lines that weren't intended to be there). PMDG would assume the purchases are running stock .cfg files and only manipulating levels with the sliders. Once users go beyond that... the onus is on the user when problems occur. All I need to do now is find that threshold... where I can run the NGX and Orbx for say 3 hours at a time without OOM's or CTD's. And then save the cfg and load it next time I fly a route on vatsim.

I also theorize that CTD's (g3d.dll related) are a function of virtual memory.

and the only time I've seen g3d.dll CTD's were OOM's, so your theory makes complete sense to me