Are OOM's a thing of the past now?

[him225 51]

Now they are a thing of the future!

[GCBraun 2,392]

Well, the sim may still crash due to physical memory shortage. That happened with me a couple times with XP10, when I only had 16Gb RAM. Never had this problem, after upgrading to 32Gb.

[Gordon Hutchison 76]

Time to fire another 16Gb of DDR4 in my system methinks! :D

[Jiri Kocman 20]

I will stay with 24GB as I have only DDR3 system and waiting for future CoffeLake Intel architecture, so maybe I cant push it hard too much :)

[TechguyMaxC 516]

5 hours ago, him225 said:

Now they are a thing of the future!

Touche!

[TechguyMaxC 516]

Others have explained already but in an effort to summarize and even expand upon those explanations I offer the following:

OOM errors are still possible, depending on your configuration of the sim, the add-ons you use, how much RAM you have, the Operating System you use, and the size/use of a page file.  

For example, if you run Windows 10 Home edition you are limited to a maximum of 128GB RAM.  Other variants allow up to 2TB, still below the theoretical limit of "64-bit" CPUs (which allow 64-bit instructions to be executed but do not address more than 48-bits worth of address space thanks to PAE - Physical Address Extentions).  

We've been burdened by legacy code for decades now, but the latest simulators (XP11, FSW, P3D v4) have opened up a whole new and exciting world of potential!  Imagine, if you will, detailed scenery all the way to the horizon, with no visible loading or stutters as a result.  Before we get there, though, we're all going to need to buy into this concept and give the developers the hardware install base necessary to support such a vision, by purchasing a large amount of RAM (and video cards with enough VRAM to support this vision as well).  However, the cold hard reality is that now the software has surpassed the hardware and that is a rare thing in consumer flight simulation indeed!  I don't know exactly how much RAM or VRAM would be necessary to fulfill this vision as I lack the data necessary to perform the calculation, but I would not be surprised to learn that the requisite memory technology with sufficient density does not yet exist/is not available to consumers, particularly on the VRAM side of the equation.  With server motherboards scaling to allow > 1TB memory I wouldn't be surprised to learn that would be sufficient to meet the challenge, however professional graphics cards only scale to 16-32GB VRAM currently and that is likely insufficient.  AMD's upcoming Radeon Pro SSG lineup featuring an onboard SSD upto 1TB in capacity could help, though memory access from this slower cache may not be fast enough.  If they were to create a future iteration which utilizes RAM rather than NAND flash I think we would finally have all the hardware we need.

Oh, that Radeon Pro SSG card costs $10 grand.  And a server with 1TB of RAM should start around $50 grand.  

Who wants to pony up?