Lod 3.5, 4.5 and 5.5 give a on my setup a difference of 0.1 Gb between min and max.My bloom is from the enb series.Removing addons ?I fly over Germany West vfr ice Frankfurt and MT5.4 set to 30.Not using the 737ngx is not what I would like to do.System memory is more than enough and ASE runs on my laptop.The framerate is good..

Lod 3.5, 4.5 and 5.5 give a on my setup a difference of 0.1 Gb between min and max.My bloom is from the enb series.Removing addons ?I fly over Germany West vfr ice Frankfurt and MT5.4 set to 30.Not using the 737ngx is not what I would like to do.System memory is more than enough and ASE runs on my laptop.The framerate is good..

You basically wanna say that you checked everything, then I don't know how we're supposed to help you.I didn't say don't use NGX.I said test without addons, it's not a heavy task to do that.I installed FSX numerous times to really clarify some problems. There is no other way really...

The NGX is heavy on VAS usage I'm afraid - it just is... Not that it's PMDG's fault, just the way FSX reads textures etc etc.I get OOM's in Orbx with NGX and LOD 4.5 - it sucks, but it is what it is.

I'm sorry, but if certain addons crash FSX, I don't start blaming the sim. If a 2011 release would stress the 2006 sim too much it's MS' fault? No, Sir.I'm running a very detailed Maddog and a Concorde here and land them in Orbx scenery. Until now, the NGX (since SP1) also worked, so maybe there's more than the superficial look of yours offered so far .

I get OOM's in Orbx with NGX and LOD 4.5 - it sucks, but it is what it is.

Sounds like pure fun. The only thing 'that is' is that we are now able to combine a ton of modern addons (thanks to the open structure of FSX) which all want to please the eyes and, in the combination, may ruin the experience as it gets rendered unstable. No FSX fault, but one of certain expectations and a lot of advertising. Having to force 4096 textures for eye candy reasons only may be a good example.I think Word Not Allowed correctly reminded about the nature of the beast, leading to the need to maybe cut down on certain items or details to still fly stable. With Pete's nice FSUIPC fix, FSX received a little help, but we should always be aware that you fill the sim with tons addons these days and that 'over full' may then trigger errors. FSX error by design? Possible, but maybe just the cost of being open to all sorts of modifications.So I wouldn't really forget about looking at some addon devs, stretching things while knowing that good ol' FSX has limits and standards for a reason.What comes after 'fancy'? Too fancy, right?

I fly over Germany West vfr ice Frankfurt and MT5.4 set to 30.

GA Traffic over 10% with MT and one of the latest schedules is an extreme resource hog. I keep my airliner traffic around 30 in the states. (20) around the NE area otherwise you cant get a word in edgewise and around 50 or so througout Europe.

Finally got a setting that is working :- AI Traffic set to 25 i.o. 30- LOD set to 5.0 i.o. 5.5Then VAS is staying in low 3.9 and does not get to 4.0 and OOM.This will be my starting point.If I can reach LOD 5.5 icw AI traffic set to 25-27 I will be satisfied ( MT uses all MT Live real world flightplans when set to 30... )Everybody thanks for all suggestions, especially Word Not Allowed.

Word Not Allowed nailed it for you, Gerard. Look at the last 2 cores in the picture you posted (Cores 2 and 3). They are both maxed out at 100% processing. Unless you changed your computer settings to which cores do what with FSX, the main FSX executable runs on Core 0 (the first box)...the rest of the 3 cores (1, 2, and 3) handle the texture loading and other items. Your Cores 2 and 3 are maxed out loading most likely textures and can't keep up. That alone will cause stutters, blurries, and can lead to other problems including OOM's.As an experiment, run FSX in a MUCH SMALLER window...one that is only "one screen width wide" vs your 5040 x 1050, then look at your VAS and core usage. Lots less for FSX to load and display, and for your graphics card to have to route through FSX to GET displayed (a known issue with FSX...it doesn't use graphics cards very well and the texture loading has to utilize the CPU a lot). If you see a lower VAS usage in the lower resolution window, and/or cores that aren't being maxed out at 100%, you are going to have to make some concessions on your FSX settings when running at 5040 x 1050. That's why I have 10 different FSX.CFG files I can select from depending on the type of flying I will be doing, and where, and with different complexity aircraft in FSX when I'm running 5040 x 1050.