Is it needed to run the 4gb_patch utility on FSX on a 64-bit system?  I know it's recomended for FS9 but not sure after that.

 

Thanks.

No, not required

Interesting.

 

Now I'm wondering why.  So, how come?

Because a 64bit system will allow you to use 4GB. Simple as that. Google for more info

 

BTW FSX on a 32 bit windows requires the 4GB patch, not just FS9

Interesting.

 

Now I'm wondering why.  So, how come?

 

FSX SP2 and Acceleration don't need the patch because they already have the large address aware flag set. FSX RTM, SP1 and FS9 don't. Without this flag 32 bit applications will be limited to 2GB of address space, even on 64 bit Windows.

Hello:

 

A vigorous discussion of this topic can be found here:

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/363493-out-of-memory-ctd-due-to-1gb-video-card/

 

 

 

The current URL for the 4_GB Patch is here:

 

http://www.ntcore.com/4gb_patch.php

 

 

It would be interesting to know how things are working for you after testing this utility. :smile:

 

GaryGB

 

 

Not needed for the reasons goates stated. Large Address Aware FSX (SP2 or Acceleration) in a 64 bit OS can use up to 4GB

Because a 64bit system will allow you to use 4GB. Simple as that. Google for more info

 

BTW FSX on a 32 bit windows requires the 4GB patch, not just FS9

Why would it be needed on a 32-bit system?  It can't use 4GB anyway.

Why would it be needed on a 32-bit system?  It can't use 4GB anyway.

 

In a 32-bit OS, FSX can use more than 2GB if you tweak the OS to (again assuming FSX is large Address Aware so SP2 or Acceleration) 

So the patch is only needed if your FSX is RTM or SP1 regardless of OS

Can the 4GB patch be used on the NOCD edit of the FS9.exe?

*facepalm*

Is that an answer of some sort?

Can the 4GB patch be used on the NOCD edit of the FS9.exe?

The NOCD edit of the fs9.exe as you call it is a crack file.

Can the 4GB patch be used on the NOCD edit of the FS9.exe?

 

AFAIK, the above cited 4BG patch utility can be used on any 32-bit *.exe.

 

Whether any "4GB-patched" executable may work properly after setting the "LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE" attribute 'active' is sometimes a function of other file "dependencies" used for sub-functions 'called' by a patched executable.

 

For example, external *.DLL files which are 32-bit which are linked to the original 32-bit executable may (rarely) show incompatibilities with the 'patched' version of the original executable they are linked with ...depending, IIUC, on how those DLLs are written and compiled.

 

 

Personally, I have yet to find a 32-bit executable which shows perceptible problems after setting the "LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE" attribute 'active' using the "4GB patch" referenced above.

 

I just keep a backup of the original file (...before patching it !) in a ex: ZIP or RAR file so that its file extension, date, and size etc. are unchanged if I ever need to restore it by extracting from the archive and over-writing the "patched" version because of a confirmed problem.

 

I find many 32-bit program excutables run better in Windows 7 Professsional 64-bit after setting the "LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE" attribute 'active' using the "4GB patch.

 

FS9, FSX RTM and SP1, Sketchup, and numerous other 32-bit programs both show significant differences in functionality after the 4GB patch is applied to them with no percetible problems seem to date (READ: after years of use in their patched state on Windows 7 Professsional 64-bit)

 

 

If a patched executable has a problem after patched as described above, AFAIK, it may be due to incompatibility of a linked file dependency in a ex: DLL file; so just restore the original *.exe file and note that the particular program file may not be "patchable". :wink:

 

Just keep backups of your originals and experiment ! :smile:

 

GaryGB

The NOCD edit of the fs9.exe as you call it is a crack file.

Yes.  But that's what everyone uses.  is that a problem?