I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, its how they go about it.

 

My replies and info were ALL aimed at the original posters problem, and to demonstrate how windows "normally" handles memory usage in relation to that, thus giving him a better understanding of what caused it in the first place, and any other people who may read it.

 

Excluding any bugs/hiccups/windows bugs or problems unique to FSX...

 

If you disagree with somebody, then say so politely or keep it shut! <_<

 

I think several users were getting the two issues mixed up as FreeSpirit had mentioned several times above. The message was just not getting thru to some people as they seemed to be fixated on low HDD space....

 

I won't argue and pick apart what you were saying, but you did tell FSXMan that it would fix his OOM errors when lack of HDD space was not his issue. I tried to be as polite as a could to someone who was not listening and thought the knew it all.

 

You need to learn to relax a little.

 

I think several users were getting the two issues mixed up as FreeSpirit had mentioned several times above. The message was just not getting thru to some people as they seemed to be fixated on low HDD space....

 

I won't argue and pick apart what you were saying, but you did tell FSXMan that it would fix his OOM errors when lack of HDD space was not his issue. I tried to be as polite as a could to someone who was not listening and thought the knew it all.

 

You need to learn to relax a little.

 

Agreed, this is LARGE news as OOM errors have been the achilles heel of FSX for sure.

This is interesting going to look at my system when I get home. I've yet to get a OOM in FSX but might future proof.

I'm perfectly relaxed, but I did forget to say at the start, what I added later, about my current level of knowledge with FSX, as all my posts and advice were aimed at the original posters problem, excluding any bugs/issues/flaws with how windows handles memory in other ways.

OK, I can confirm that this MS fix did something. Usually I would OOM after: loading KSEA with ORBX PNW with PMDG 747, then switching to NGX with McPhat textures and paning around in and out of the cockpit. That would push me straight up above 4GB and OOM. But now, I was happily paning around at 4050,000K, even up to 4070,000K, and system didn't OOM. The I loaded the LDS with McPhat, still no OOM, but the skeleton textures didn't load. Then I ended the flight with ESC, and the memory message appeared. I guess I'll leave this fix on the system.

 

But... I did not hear any dingdingding.

Hi Word Not Allowed,

Is this now a recommended tweak? Are there any side effects?

Thanks

Dicko,

 

I don't think so. It is very early to say, but I ran the FSX/P3D quite well yesterday with that "fix". I have though intermittent stutters which I never had, but I do have some program updates, AV running... though even before with AV running I didn't have problems.

Gotta give it a little time to find if those are really stutters, and if yes, where they are coming from.

Dicko,

 

I don't think so. It is very early to say, but I ran the FSX/P3D quite well yesterday with that "fix". I have though intermittent stutters which I never had, but I do have some program updates, AV running... though even before with AV running I didn't have problems.

Gotta give it a little time to find if those are really stutters, and if yes, where they are coming from.

Thanks mate :wink:

I ran the small takeoff from my home airport, where I had couple of stutters yesterday, and they are not present now... so I guess a turn off - turn on has solved it. Or it was simply something running in the background. Either way, all seems good.

When I tested the fix yesterday I didn't experiene any negative effects in P3D or for system in overall. If there possibly appears to be some, it takes few seconds to return values back to default, so why not to test them? For me it is a keeper at least for now.

Just out of curiosity, which value are you changing? I have x64 and of course the second value is 20480.

 

 

 

SharedSection=1024,3072,512 ME: SharedSection=1024,20480,1024

 

Note By default, the second value for the SharedSection entry is 3072 in an x86-based version of Windows Vista. By default, this second value for this entry is 20480 in an x64-based version of Windows Vista.

 

We do not recommend that you set a value that is over 20480 KB for the second SharedSection value.

 

I seen this at the MS website, but I don't understand how this could fix a system that uses Windows 7 64x, when they are saying that 20480 is the default for that and they don't recommend to go over that on any system because it can cause instability.

when they are saying that 20480 is the default for that and they don't recommend to go over that on any system because it can cause instability.

 

True about the second parameter. The change is in the third parameter for win 7

True about the second parameter. The change is in the third parameter for win 7

 

 

SharedSection=1024,3072,512

 

So the third one is showing here as 512. For Windows7 64, what should this be changed to?

SharedSection=1024,3072,512

 

So the third one is showing here as 512. For Windows7 64, what should this be changed to?

 

1024

Thank you.

I have followed this post with great interest and wanted to mention another reason for the "Out of memory" error.

Over the last few months I've been testing some photoreal sceneries which were originally made for FS9, most

of them worked ok, showing good resolution, but others were not so good or unusable. But one specific photoreal

scenery was causing this memory error just as FSX was loading the scenery. After looking into it found that the agn

files were to blame, once removed the scenery worked fine.

 

I appreciate that this error can also occur for reasons explained in this post by many. Just thought I'd add this

information for those who like me, may be trying to use FS9 sceneries.

From the "whatever it's worth department..."

 

Prior to using the "MS Fix" cited above, Max9 has been struggling not to crap out on me with OOM errors. Since running the "fix file" though, I've actually had two instances of Max9 running simultaneously, along with Photoshop CS8, my email client, Windows Explorer, and IE8, plus whatever other services were loaded at boot time...

 

...without a single error occurring! :dirol: