The discussion was a long time ago. I'll try to find it.

Yes video memory is part of fsx vas. Video cards with a lot of ram have caused more ooms for some Running in dx10 changes this a bit. It controls video memory differently and retains more of it on the video card

The reference I found for now is via the simforums and NickN...  I guess after Win Vista the video memory size is much less a factor though

 

http://www.simforums.com/forums/fsx-and-4gb-limit_topic39269.html

 

I'm pretty sure the other one was a huge thread in the PMDG forums (or maybe the hardware forum) about OOM's.

Funnily enough I bought the PMDG 777 today and had an OOM error before leaving the airport. I ran process explorer and watched the virtual address column as I loaded the plane and as soon as it reached 3.2 GB I got the dreaded OOM message.

 

My system is Win 7 64 bit. 2500K at 4.6. 8GB Ram and a GTX770 Nvidia. I have been trying to find out why I am unable to access the full 4GB rather than 3.2

 

I am still looking if anyone has any ideas.

 

Thanks

 

 

H.

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk 4

I addition to Process Explorer you might want to use VMmap from Sysinternals ... it takes a detailed look for you.

There's an excellent dissertation about VAS and Windows/FSX limits in the PMDG 777 Introduction Manual.  One of the best explanations I have seen.

 

Best regards,

Jim

Here is what I have with the 777....Is that bad? I do get OOM on approach.

 

 

I like PMDG but I find it a little disapointing that they've closed down this thread. I am also having OOM on the first gen i7, 8gigs of RAM, GF470. Only in this bird - The T7 performs a lot better for me than the NGX overall and I love it, but as of yet, I wasn't able to complete a single flight in it, gate to gate.

 

The airplane doesn't just start magically using hugely more VAS than we say it does. It doesn't work like that.

 

Seriously - the reason I'm being terse about this subject is because we spent an inordinate amount of time testing this, making sure that the VAS usage for the plane was as tight as it could be given the airplane's capabilities etc. I have personally never seen an OOM with it and neither did anyone during the whole testing process, which was 40+ people. The rush to blame us any time you get one of these is not warranted - we've done far more than any other developer has with this product to try to explain in a scientific way where the issue comes from and how to mitigate it.

 

I can't explain why you'd be seeing the error at only 2.7GB virtual size. That doesn't make any sense at all to me. I didn't make up the analysis that's in the manual - a large part of it was paraphrasing Mark Russinovich from Microsoft, who literally is one of the designers of this system on the Windows kernel team. If we can't trust his explanation of how VAS works, then there is absolutely no one that we can trust. In every case of this that I've dealt with with customers, the number was getting very close to or over 4GB.

 

I hope this thread remains civil and people refrain from jumping to conclusions about this being "PMDG's fault" or whatever. The 777 is based heavily on the NGX's code and there is very very little difference between the two in terms of VAS in any of my testing here.

Seriously - the reason I'm being terse about this subject is because we spent an inordinate amount of time testing this, making sure that the VAS usage for the plane was as tight as it could be given the airplane's capabilities etc. I have personally never seen an OOM with it and neither did anyone during the whole testing process, which was 40+ people. The rush to blame us any time you get one of these is not warranted - we've done far more than any other developer has with this product to try to explain in a scientific way where the issue comes from and how to mitigate it.

 

 

Hi Ryan,

 

By any means I wasn't implying anything in regards to PMDG, please don't get me wrong. I just find it weird that in a very well configured machine, the only OOM I've ever had was on the approach to LAX in the NGX a while back when I over did it with the autogen, when I left the setting on extremely dense after one of the GA flights. I am not blaming anything or anyone, I am still tweaking my FSX so I can at least complete the flight and I'm not giving up.

 

I guess you could expect the blame game from the customers who like me are struggling right now to complete the flight, I will not do it. I only expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that the thread got closed as I hoped we could all get to the bottom of it.

 

Thank you.

The airplane doesn't just start magically using hugely more VAS than we say it does. It doesn't work like that.

 

Seriously - the reason I'm being terse about this subject is because we spent an inordinate amount of time testing this, making sure that the VAS usage for the plane was as tight as it could be given the airplane's capabilities etc. I have personally never seen an OOM with it and neither did anyone during the whole testing process, which was 40+ people. The rush to blame us any time you get one of these is not warranted - we've done far more than any other developer has with this product to try to explain in a scientific way where the issue comes from and how to mitigate it.

 

I can't explain why you'd be seeing the error at only 2.7GB virtual size. That doesn't make any sense at all to me. I didn't make up the analysis that's in the manual - a large part of it was paraphrasing Mark Russinovich from Microsoft, who literally is one of the designers of this system on the Windows kernel team. If we can't trust his explanation of how VAS works, then there is absolutely no one that we can trust. In every case of this that I've dealt with with customers, the number was getting very close to or over 4GB.

 

I hope this thread remains civil and people refrain from jumping to conclusions about this being "PMDG's fault" or whatever. The 777 is based heavily on the NGX's code and there is very very little difference between the two in terms of VAS in any of my testing here.

 

I suggest keeping it heavily moderated.  The last thread that you locked had a lot of good, helpful information contained in it.  I was sorry to see it get locked (and not just moderated), as that helpful information will most likely fall into oblivion for future readers.  However, there was also an abundance of misinformation and bashing.  I suggest keeping posts limited to the user settings and issues people are experiencing, and of course methods people are utilizing in an attempt to control and reduce their VAS usage.

Do you have microsoft patch applied too? http://support.microsoft.com/kb/947246

If that happens arround 3GB, you need this to increase limit to maximum of exactly 4GB

 

Also leave paging at default settings, it's very important in windows 7 / 64bit.

 

Hi, 

 

Thanks for your reply!

 

I thought I had that patch applied but will re-apply it to make sure. I have left all paging details to Win7 - as suggested in the PMDG manual.

 

I would be interested in knowing the faulting module if one showed up in your crash report.  I had the ntdll.dll faulting module for every crash I had. 

 

 

Hi Jim,

 

Thanks a lot for sharing that. Very interesting indeed!

 

I had a look at the Windows Event Viewer and only found a single error related to FSX since I installed the 777 and that was due to the terrain.dll. Very strange that the other 2 crashes have left no trace in the event log! 

 

For what its worth, you can definitely get well above 3GB VAS in FSX.  I just completed KJFK-CYVR (both with FDST sceneries) in the PMDG 777 and with process monitor running I landed with just over 3.7GB VAS used.  Not a lot of room left but no problems.

 

Thanks for confirming this Mark, it confirms that something is amiss on my machine.

 

Funnily enough I bought the PMDG 777 today and had an OOM error before leaving the airport. I ran process explorer and watched the virtual address column as I loaded the plane and as soon as it reached 3.2 GB I got the dreaded OOM message.

 

My system is Win 7 64 bit. 2500K at 4.6. 8GB Ram and a GTX770 Nvidia. I have been trying to find out why I am unable to access the full 4GB rather than 3.2

 

Same as my issue - interesting. Do you gave OOM issues with other aircraft?

 

There's an excellent dissertation about VAS and Windows/FSX limits in the PMDG 777 Introduction Manual.  One of the best explanations I have seen.

 

Best regards,

Jim

 

Indeed a good write up, and I have read it as mentioned above.

 

Here is what I have with the 777....Is that bad? I do get OOM on approach.

 

Capture.JPG

 

I can't read the most important digit: the one in front of the "Private Memory" figure.

 

The rush to blame us any time you get one of these is not warranted - we've done far more than any other developer has with this product to try to explain in a scientific way where the issue comes from and how to mitigate it.

 

I hope this thread remains civil and people refrain from jumping to conclusions about this being "PMDG's fault" or whatever. The 777 is based heavily on the NGX's code and there is very very little difference between the two in terms of VAS in any of my testing here.

 

Hi,

 

Thanks for replying!

 

I understand you are terse, and the reasons for it and please understand that I am not blaming anyone. All I am trying to do here is fix my problem by sharing the facts surrounding the issue in the hope that someone can help me fix it. So far we have seen some very good responses (for which I am very grateful btw.) and the tone of the exchange seems very polite to me.

 

 

I just find it weird that in a very well configured machine, the only OOM I've ever had

 

Perhaps you are assuming there, could it be that you might have other issues and its simply a matter of the 777's demands finaly showing it up?

 

Have you tried as Jim suggested and looked to see if your dll.XML file for any corruption?

For me I re checked my system properties and noticed that I had a page file set of 3024MB for my C drive and no page file for my D Drive where FSX is located..  I changed them to 'system managed' as per the PMDG manual. Bingo I checked and am no longer getting an OOM at 3.2GB.

 

This might be the culprit. Thanks PMDG and on a side note the 777 is beyond amazing.

 

 

Hamish

I got the warning on approach to OMDB. No sweat--knocked down the Autogen a smidge and all is right in the world. Smooth as glass last night and I tested it by letting it sit there for an hour.

 

 

I suggest keeping it heavily moderated.

 

Well stated.  You can rest assured this topic will be "heavily" moderated.  I will not hesitate to lock or hide this topic if this becomes a PMDG bashing.  There are a lot of people who own the 777 and have not had any problems whatsoever so, if you are having problems, look at your system configuration and fsx installation.  I want to make it perfectly clear that my comments about my crash were not directed at the 777 or PMDG.  I just wanted to pass on how I fixed my ntdll.dll CTD and that entailed cleaning up my dll.xml (the fix is still working).  FSX/Acceleration works great right out of the box.  Then you start adding addons and eye-candy and soon things start getting corrupted or you simply employed too many or bad tweaks. A tweak that works on one system will definitely not reliably work on every computer system. This is one reason why many people fix crashes/OOM's by simply renaming or deleting their Fsx.cfg and letting the config rebuild.  If you go up into the CTD Forum and read the hundreds of posts there, you will see that there are a lot of people receiving OOM's during long flights and this happened long before the 777 was released.  Bad memory configurations cause even more OOM's and CTD's.  So one should make sure they have proof a specific commercial addon caused the crash before making any accusations.   

 

Jim Young

AVSIM Moderator