Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Foghorn

CTD's and Faulty Memory Modules

Recommended Posts

I'm wondering how many people having CTD's with the NGX is pehaps an issue with faulty memory modules. I've read numerous posts regarding CTD's and OOM's but nobody has ever raised the issue of faulty modules. Aside from recently upgrading my PC I haven't worked on PC's for quite some time but years ago faulty memory modules were a frequent occurance. Just a thought......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Do yourself a favour. Download the lastest copy of MemTest86 (FREE), burn the Bootable iso to a CD, and run it at least for 12 hours (overnight). If you have marginal Ram, it should find it for you. I just got a new Dev System that has Brand new Ram in it.W7 appeared to be running fine.MemTest86 identified a Bad Stick. ( Triple Channel set of 3) With just that one BAD module in, memTest86 failed,With either of the other single sticks in, NO Failure. http://www.memtest.org/ ( Bootable disk, runs without Operating system, so is Operating system independant )( you are 100% testing your RAM, and not your Windows Operating system) Geoff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Geoff..handy link tho I'm one of the blessed with no CTD's or OOM errors. It was just a thought as memory modules may go faulty in part, not the entire module. It may be of assist to those who are getting errors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know the OOM issues are related to 'addressable memory' not 'physical memory'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main issue is not that so many people are having CTD'S because of memory modules, because if that was the case it would be an almost X File like occurance that they should all fail after the installation of the NGX. I think it is fairly obvious that PMDG have made a mess of the release. I bought the NGX because unfortunately I am a PMDG ######. I already have the other NGX which runs fine, infact the PMDG NGX runs very nicely thank you apart from these dam CTD's. I await a solution better than those already offered. The hotfix did nothing for me. I did uninstall FSUIPC last night but have yet to test that theory. Wycliffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The main issue is not that so many people are having CTD'S because of memory modules, because if that was the case it would be an almost X File like occurance that they should all fail after the installation of the NGX. I think it is fairly obvious that PMDG have made a mess of the release. I bought the NGX because unfortunately I am a PMDG ######. I already have the other NGX which runs fine, infact the PMDG NGX runs very nicely thank you apart from these dam CTD's. I await a solution better than those already offered. The hotfix did nothing for me. I did uninstall FSUIPC last night but have yet to test that theory. Wycliffe
I wouldn't go that far!! I think the main problem is they tried to give us a no holds bar full detailed simulation of this aircraft. In doing so, they have taken the base application (FSX) to the limit of what it's capable of. I run this on Windows 32 bit Vista (Originally WinXP but just recently lost that partition). The only way I can get this to run without a OOM, is to allocate 2.8GB Virtual Address Space to it, and still on one of my flights that still wasn't enough. I've seen the task manage indicate it was using 1.7GB memory. This is the highest I've ever seen FSX use.There is one area where I think they went overboard on, and that is the high definition textures.FSX just was not designed to use these high resolution textures, hence why it reverts back to 1024 if you change settings. It is also what causes the slow load times for this aircraft. Standard textures look almost as good, use less memory, and load faster. I think PMDG realizes this now and said they may add a reduced resolution texture pack.With the myriad of system configurations out there and a addon like this that reduces the wiggle room in terms of system resources, there are bound to be problems like we are seeing. The only problem I have incurred so far is an occasional OOM, which are mostly alleviated by increasing the USERVA to 2816 on my system. Other CTD's and freezes that are being reported, may be caused by hardware problems as this thread alleges or possibly their Over clock configuration. My system isn't (Cant be, it's a DELL!) over clocked, and other than the OOM's from using this addon (again before I upped the VAS) I never experience any other type of CTD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If PMDG waited till EVERY possible bug was guaranteed to be fixed (1) The product would NEVER get released.(2) PMDG would go out of business, with no sales (same applies to any manfacturing company) How much longer would you want to wait ?? I think PMDG got the release time about right. One assumes that their beta Testers had found the majority of issue that they were ever going to find with their small sub-set of computer configurations. It is only now, on a much bigger set of vastly varying systems, that a few remaining issues are showing up. Most of these issues, thay have been quick to address in the first week of the release, There is always the old truth -- IF you don't want to experience teething problems with software, do not buy & try using version 1.0 Unlike FSX itself, at least PMDG are around to fix these issues. Its only been less than two weeks. Give them a chance. You are frustrated -- then imagine how frustrated they must be !! This is their BABY Given their current progess, I can see them fixing any remaining Major issues, far before many of us have time to read, and DIGEST the supplied documentation, cover to cover. It is pathetic to see so many, obviously not haven even read the PMDG Introduction, with its tips of system setup, instead moaning and crying because they are having issues, most of which are addressed by the introduction. Ryan has the patience of a Saint !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I run this on Windows 32 bit Vista (Originally WinXP but just recently lost that partition). The only way I can get this to run without a OOM, is to allocate 2.8GB Virtual Address Space to it, and still on one of my flights that still wasn't enough. I've seen the task manage indicate it was using 1.7GB memory. This is the highest I've ever seen FSX use..
Try cutting back to 2.5 GB VAS. I run XP 32, and use 2.5, and do not see VM rise above 2.2 (with setting set very high)I tried the full 3.0, but that caused other issues, especially with textures.The SWEET SPOT might be a little lower than your 2.8 VAS. BTW: Since increase VM, I now NEVER, EVER get an OOM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites