FSLabs Concorde X - still OOM plane?

[mosteen 111]

Mosteen tried to run Concorde-X at 2560x1600x32 resolution while FSX was "natively" supposed to run at resolutions around 1024x768x32...

When I first tried to isolate my OOM problem I went down to 1920x1200x16, when that seemed to have solved the very high VAS load, I changed back to 32 and did not get very much of an impact from that, so 32 it is

[MachTwo 386]

Glad to hear that lowering the resolution helped you there Morten.

[mosteen 111]

Thanks MachTwo, yes, it was so obvious but still took me a couple of days until I got the clue Still having some issues though, I will have to lower my base memory footprint a bit, I hate flying with that FSUIPC chime from FL100 

 

I will do a dll-check too, see if my dll.xml pulls unnecessary modules that can be ommitted for my Concorde flights. I don't mind having a special setup for these flights.

[lodestar 186]

mosteen, something is wrong if you still get FSUIPC chime. I can do a long haul with concorde X just like i do with PMDG MD11, no problems at all, and i have my settings maxed out too. Have you changed anything about virtual memory and paging file size or something like that? I'm asking you becouse this is described in some old guides and is something very wrong with windows 7/64bit - this may lead to OOM

[mosteen 111]

Thanks mate, I did not know that, and like you say, I can also fly 12 hours with the MD-11 without any problems on almost maxed out settings. Can I ask you how your virtual memory / page file is set up in your Win7 so I can compare?

 

Cheers,

[lodestar 186]

Sure. That should be left to "system managed", like this:

 

 

 

C is the OS drive

[mosteen 111]

Fabulous Zeljko, appreciate it, I have indeed fallen into the fixed 3072-3072 trap by reading some guide, that I remember!

[lodestar 186]

Fingers crossed for your next flight! I hope that will fix it 

[Ultor 3]

Nope. MSFS can run "natively" in any resolution, and on any number of monitors. It's actually one of the most flexible programs around.

 

I mean this: http://forums.flightsimlabs.com/index.php?/topic/4552-having-out-of-memory-errors-oom-try-this/page__st__120#entry25561

[jose88 50]

No news about the A32X?

[MachTwo 386]

Not just yet José, though Lefteris did say the other week on our forum that some more previews/news is coming...

[some1 65]

I mean this: http://forums.flightsimlabs.com/index.php?/topic/4552-having-out-of-memory-errors-oom-try-this/page__st__120#entry25561

 

Well, we may have a different opinion on what's the source of the problem, but I don't want to start an argument here.

 

He has a point in that no one at Microsoft envisioned an addon airplane having dozens of 2D panels with massive background textures. I just hope the A32X will be a bit lighter in this aspect, I'm patiently waiting for that plane.

[Ultor 3]

AIFAK in A320X there will be no necessity to model dozens of "knobs-rich" 2D panels.

[CoolP 283]

Well, unless they model the flight engineer in the A320. ^_^

[severniae 78]

I've never understood why so many people appear to have OOM issues with the Concorde. I to this day have never had an OOM when flying Concorde X - I have, however OOMd when flying; 737NGX, Flight1 Mustang, RealAir Duke, Carenado Malibu etc.. However I've even managed to mostly eliminate all of those OOMs

 

As I seem to keep repeating. People seem to think that they can run a 32-bit application, with all add-ons activated, and scenery details left on high and expect NOT to OOM. I'm not sure if its a key understanding of the technology FSX runs on that is missing...