My PC RAM is 6GB with Intel i7 64. Do I need to incerase RAM to 8 or 12 GB for 737-NGX?Thanks

No, you don't

My PC RAM is 6GB with Intel i7 64. Do I need to incerase RAM to 8 or 12 GB for 737-NGX?Thanks

As Dazz, says no, what we're talking about here is Virtual Address Space, That's the address (Remember Address space is different than physical memory) space the system allocates to run an application, for a 64bit application running on a 64bit OS like Win 7 that could be larger then 4GB, however for 32bit applications, of which FSX is, you are limited to the same 4GB limit, that 32bit O/s's are, regardless of how much physical memory you have installed. In that address space includes the application and as Ryan said the video memory address space. This is why you will probably have more of an issue the larger the size of your video cards memory. For example if your card is a 1GB card, that cuts you down to 3GB space available to FSX. If you have one of these newer cards with 1.5GB or 2GB cards or worse SLI, the situation is even worse. As you'll be limited to even less space for FSX, 2.5GB for a 1.5GB card, and 2GB for a 2GB card. I would bet people with those cards, are having the worst time trying to run the NGX, if at all.

Simple answer !! You ran out of available RAM.

No he ran out of address space, RAM and Address space are 2 different things.

This is why you will probably have more of an issue the larger the size of your video cards memory. For example if your card is a 1GB card, that cuts you down to 3GB space available to FSX. If you have one of these newer cards with 1.5GB or 2GB cards or worse SLI, the situation is even worse. As you'll be limited to even less space for FSX, 2.5GB for a 1.5GB card, and 2GB for a 2GB card. I would bet people with those cards, are having the worst time trying to run the NGX, if at all.

This is what I'm not so sure about Tom.I think the VRAM mapped into VAS is the VRAM in use, not the entire amount of VRAM the GPU has. In SLI I have exactly the same VAS usage in FSX compared to single GPU. It makes sense since you don't have twice the VRAM in SLI, it's mirrored in both cards. In my case for example, 2 x 1.5GB of VRAM cards are combined in the driver so the apps have a single device with 1.5GB of VRAM (not 3GB) It's very easy to lower the sliders in FSX and have your VAS well below your total VRAM. I just got less than 1GB of VAS with minimal settings And in the NGX: only 1.265GB of VAS:

This is what I'm not so sure about Tom.I think the VRAM mapped into VAS is the VRAM in use, not the entire amount of VRAM the GPU has. In SLI I have exactly the same VAS usage in FSX compared to single GPU. It makes sense since you don't have twice the VRAM in SLI, it's mirrored in both cards. In my case for example, 2 x 1.5GB of VRAM cards are combined in the driver so the apps have a single device with 1.5GB of VRAM (not 3GB) It's very easy to lower the sliders in FSX and have your VAS well below your total VRAM. I just got less than 1GB of VAS with minimal settings And in the NGX: only 1.265GB of VAS:

If you use the formula Ryan posted your working set is 951MB, add your VRAM which you say is 1.5GBx2 and you get 3.9GB VAS allocated. Although, I'm not sure if you have SLI off, does the second cards memory get allocated? If not your VAS would be 2.4GB.

It's very easy to lower the sliders in FSX and have your VAS well below your total VRAM. I just got less than 1GB of VAS with minimal settings And in the NGX: only 1.265GB of VAS:

I hope this is just an example.I don't want to decrease my settings so much, flying the NGX in FS98 environment.

Well - it's not just the 32 bit system that has the problem. We are several others with 64bit system that got the oom message. I my self have Win 7U 64bit, and I got 16gb RAM.My swapfile are 25gb, as recommended by Windows, and I'm getting the message to now. I didn't get it in the beginning with the NGX. Ole D.

If you use the formula Ryan posted your working set is 951MB, add your VRAM which you say is 1.5GBx2 and you get 3.9GB VAS allocated.

Tom, my VAS is right there in the screenshot. It's 1,327,108KB = 1.265GBExactly the same I get in SLI (you don't add both cards' VRAM anyway, because its "shared")I know there's nothing missing in Process Explorer because I always get my OOM's when PE's virtual size hits 4GB (when I force the OOM's, I don't have them if I don't really try to)

Tom, my VAS is right there in the screenshot. It's 1,327,108KB = 1.265GBExactly the same I get in SLI (you don't add both cards' VRAM anyway, because its "shared")I know there's nothing missing in Process Explorer because I always get my OOM's when PE's virtual size hits 4GB (when I force the OOM's, I don't have them if I don't really try to)

Allocation space and actual usage space are 2 different things. Even though you may only be using a portion of the VRAM, the system still has to allocate the full size, because that is the actual size of of the video memory available to the application. So as long as you can keep your working set lower than 2.6GB you would be ok. Edit: There is another issue related, that Ryan brought up in an earlier thread. That is the address space must be contiguous So it's possible to still get an OOM, even though you may appear to have enough VAS available. This would account for most problems occurring more towards the end of the session. Example you have 100MB VAS available, and the app needs 20MB, but the largest contiguous space is 15MB, result OOM! This makes it even more important to reduce FSX memory usage at the start of the session.

Allocation space and actual usage space are 2 different things

No, they're not two different things. Once allocated, it's VAS in use and PE will reflect that in the Virtual Size column.And again (try it yourself if you don't believe me) you get OOM's when and just when Virtual Size hits 4GB in Process Explorer. That's EXACTLY the FSX virtual memory usage in user mode

As Dazz, says no, what we're talking about here is Virtual Address Space, That's the address (Remember Address space is different than physical memory) space the system allocates to run an application, for a 64bit application running on a 64bit OS like Win 7 that could be larger then 4GB, however for 32bit applications, of which FSX is, you are limited to the same 4GB limit, that 32bit O/s's are, regardless of how much physical memory you have installed. In that address space includes the application and as Ryan said the video memory address space. This is why you will probably have more of an issue the larger the size of your video cards memory. For example if your card is a 1GB card, that cuts you down to 3GB space available to FSX. If you have one of these newer cards with 1.5GB or 2GB cards or worse SLI, the situation is even worse. As you'll be limited to even less space for FSX, 2.5GB for a 1.5GB card, and 2GB for a 2GB card. I would bet people with those cards, are having the worst time trying to run the NGX, if at all.

I will respectfully disagree to that. I am using one of "those" cards and the FSX runs very stable and smooth. Perfectly stable with J41 and other addon planes plus tons of scenery (including photo), traffic and weather. With NGX I am getting occasional freeze but not on every flight as other users are stating. I would rule out the high end video card and look into something else (such as loading large number of dll's, from addons long gone.

As Dazz, says no, what we're talking about here is Virtual Address Space, That's the address (Remember Address space is different than physical memory) space the system allocates to run an application, for a 64bit application running on a 64bit OS like Win 7 that could be larger then 4GB, however for 32bit applications, of which FSX is, you are limited to the same 4GB limit, that 32bit O/s's are, regardless of how much physical memory you have installed. In that address space includes the application and as Ryan said the video memory address space. This is why you will probably have more of an issue the larger the size of your video cards memory. For example if your card is a 1GB card, that cuts you down to 3GB space available to FSX. If you have one of these newer cards with 1.5GB or 2GB cards or worse SLI, the situation is even worse. As you'll be limited to even less space for FSX, 2.5GB for a 1.5GB card, and 2GB for a 2GB card. I would bet people with those cards, are having the worst time trying to run the NGX, if at all.

hmm i am seeing my OOM in England and Paris but not else where . What works is disable UT2 and bring Autogen to Normal. Sad because i have 30fps on EGLL app but reducing to Normal will bring me about 18 fps /Michael

Maybe try lowering UT2 density. Try 40% traffic and normal autogen. I don't think completely disabling traffic is require to prevent OOMs.

Maybe try lowering UT2 density. Try 40% traffic and normal autogen. I don't think completely disabling traffic is require to prevent OOMs.

That's what I did, prior to preventing unused DLL's from loading, now I'm running as before, with Scenery extremely dense, Autogen Dense, Water 2Xlow, Weather 90m. and 100% UT2 airline traffic. So far not one freeze or OOM, and that includes all the routes I had Freezes and OOM's before. Actually I can't take credit for this idea, it was suggested by Pam (Warchild) in an earlier thread. She suggested deleting the unused DLL's. I only had the idea of using the Manual load method instead! So far it is working!!

The dll.xml file is in the same folder your fsx.cfg file is in. Make a copy first, then edit the file On the entries of the DLL's you'll see a line <ManualLoad>False</ManualLoad> Just change it to True for each DLL you want FSX to give you an option to load on start of FSX <ManualLoad>True</ManualLoad> Note the PMDG DLL entries, do not have this entry, it is save to add it. Just place it under the line <Disabled>False</Disabled>

My FSX does not give any options during the start even though i did the above. The 3GB in boot.ini is that needed if i instead installed the 4gb patch ? ThanksMichael