I realize the frustration, but you can't have "it all". You may want it, it may frustrate you, but you can't. At some point, if you keep the sliders turned up and keep adding detailed add-ons, (especially in the same area), then add in some bad wx with detailed clouds and you're eventually going to bump into the limit. And it is a hard limit.

 

Recognize the problems and the areas in which you have them, decide which piece you can live without (and by without, I don't necessarily mean you have to remove things or not use them, but rather choose what piece you can live with dialing down. And then move on.

 

Think of it as gravity. You can't change it, and losing sleep over that fact doesn't buy you much except insomnia.

 

Or you can move on to something else, but there are still tradeoffs that will be involved if you do. Personally, I'm watching 64bit XP very closely, but there are still things missing that I find essential, so my tradeoff is still to stay in FSX cut a few things back, and hope that XP continues to evolve in directions critical to me.

 

Scott

I think a visit to a real airliner flight simulator might help you get over your frustration and tune your expectations. I've been flying in F-16, Dash 8, Boeing 737 and King Air simulators and the graphics are on the level of FS2002. What we can achieve with FSX on a PC is simply stunning. I regularly have airliner pilots come over for a brewsky, and they are always amazed by the FSX graphics. Yet we all complain...

In the FWIW department - not trying to start a war - but I hear of far fewer OOM issues using P3D. There are some, but doesn't appear to be as prevalent. And the default LOD Radius in P3D is 6.5.

 

Vic

Bimmer more memory on the graphics card will not make one iota of difference as far as OOM's are concerned, if anything it will make things worse. It is running out of non fragmented virtual memory address space that causes OOM's and increasing the amount of graphics card memory isn't going to help in that regard at all, like I said it can actually make things worse.

 

While I mostly agree with what you're saying here (it probably won't help), I certainly can think of a scenario where it MIGHT help. IF (and that's a big if, since the OP is running a single monitor) you're running out of VRAM, you will use critical VAS to meet those additional video memory needs. If you monitor and see that VRAM useage is hitting 100%, then you might get some benefit. But again, that's a big if. DX9 does not mirror all VRAM in 64bit Windows 7 (near as I can tell this stopped with a patch to account for legacy DX versions which has been in Windows since Vista SP1) so you're not going to be hurt by going this route at least. Now obviously going to more VRAM is a horrible idea for a 32bit OS, but that's not the case for the OP.

 

Scott

Just wondering if you were running in full screen or windowed mode?

I have pretty much exactly the same addons (OrbX, UTX, 4096 clouds and AS2012)but with UT2 at 70% traffic and LOD 6.5. Running in windowed mode I have never ran out of memory so far and I also mainly fly between UK2000 EGLL and EGKK to Aerosoft, FSDT and Fly Tampa airports.

 

There are a lot of suggestions for FSX memory leak problems in full screen from past years and I am wondering if these could be contributing to the problems. I use windowed mode as I have a second screen running Aivlasoft EFB at the same time, but the more I see people having these problems the more it makes me wonder what is so different between their systems and mine.

I hear you bro and no offense, but I think the 1.5GB vram on your videocard is holding you back. If you want to run with all the addons you mentioned, you need a 4GB card or whether you want to or not,

 

Jim, he IS running Windows 7 x64

 

My former card was a GTX580 with 1280mb , connected to a TH2Go with 3. 27" monitors.

FSX ran good.

 

Now with a GTX680 2 gb it is running very good too.

 

Imho 1.5 gb is enough.

 

My former card was a GTX580 with 1280mb , connected to a TH2Go with 3. 27" monitors.

FSX ran good.

 

Now with a GTX680 2 gb it is running very good too.

 

Imho 1.5 gb is enough.

 

Crank up texture sizes to at least 2048, set AA @ 8S with 4xSGSS @ 5120x1200x32, start adding many high detail addons, fly into an overcast and let me know if 1.5GB will cut it.

 

"FSX ran good" is so subjective. For some people, "FSX ran good" could mean 15FPS while for others it could mean 60FPS.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Yikes the Universe 'awarded' me with one of my rare ctd's after my comment.. Never gonna participcate in this kind of threads again

<br />Crank up texture sizes to at least 2048, set AA @ 8S with 4xSGSS @ 5120x1200x32, start adding many high detail addons, fly into an overcast and let me know if 1.5GB will cut it.<br />

 

So true, but videocard memory has nothing to do with OOM's and hitting the 4gb VAS limit.

 

So true, but videocard memory has nothing to do with OOM's and hitting the 4gb VAS limit.

 

I know, I was just replying to the guy who said 1.5GB vram is more than enough.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Crank up texture sizes to at least 2048, set AA @ 8S with 4xSGSS @ 5120x1200x32, start adding many high detail addons, fly into an overcast and let me know if 1.5GB will cut it.

 

"FSX ran good" is so subjective. For some people, "FSX ran good" could mean 15FPS while for others it could mean 60FPS.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

You're not realistic.

My GTX580 never used more VRAM than 60% ( GTX580 is 1280 MB )

 

Btw : My setup was/is running at 5040x1050 at 32bit with 8S with 2xSGSS / LOD 5.5 / Texture size always set to 4096

 

The original poster has just one 27" screen so his GTX580 will never run out of memory.

 

You're not realistic.

My GTX580 never used more VRAM than 60% ( GTX580 is 1280 MB )

 

Btw : My setup was/is running at 5040x1050 at 32bit with 8S with 2xSGSS / LOD 5.5 / Texture size always set to 4096

 

The original poster has just one 27" screen so his GTX580 will never run out of memory.

 

Unless you are actually using 4096 textures, that setting in the cfg file will do squat. But like I said, this is so subjective that it's not even worth debating over. Some people like to max out their settings, while others don't. If one is in the eye candy camp, 1.5gb will not cut it.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

 

 

 

So true, but videocard memory has nothing to do with OOM's and hitting the 4gb VAS limit.

 

 

So true, but videocard memory has nothing to do with OOM's and hitting the 4gb VAS limit.

 

Under dx9 it has plenty to do with it as the video ram that is needed (not all of it) gets mapped into the FSX.exe vas space.

 

Under dx10 it does not

Seems that extending FSX has reached its physical limits. If only its devs had known it was to be the end of the MSFS line. What is needed is for the FSX community to hack a 64 bit FSX release, sort of in vein to what has transpired with the mods of the combat flight sim IL-2 (though the legality of paid 3PD 64 bit add ons gets really messy). At least the IL-2 devs have accepted this fate and its community thrives because of it.

I'm also plagued with OOMs on higher settings, but I found turning my AI off altogether has freed me from them, although I really miss the AI.

I've made several flights with the AXE lasting around three hours, with no problems.

I'm using ProATC/X, so with all of the realistic ATC chatter, it seems like there is a lot of AI around anyway. That helps.

Someone needs to develop an AI program that doesn't use FSX's VAS, and runs on a program completely separate, kind of like ProATC or Opus. That way AI could be turned all the way up without effecting FSX.