I was wondering if there is a setting in some INI file some place that will allow FS2004 to make better use of available RAM?Ever since I doubled my memory from 1 to 2 gigs - not only do I see no difference of any kind (though I'm not sure what to look for...) - it's actually worse. I now frequently get a bogus error message on FS2004 startup saying me my computer doesn't have enough memory and FS2004 will now shut down. It's like since FS2004 was installed with 1 gig of memory available, now that it has 2 gigs - it's completely baffled by this fact and not only doesn't take advantage of - it also gives me fake errors (I can start a quit an application or 2 and then FS2004 loads just fine).Do I need to re-install FS2004? Or are there perhaps some setting in an INI file some place that will allow me to tell FS2004 how much memory it should grab?Thank you,Michael

Increasing the physical memory from 1GB to 2GB ususlly doesn't make much, if any, noticeable difference with FS2004. But it also shouldn't make it worse. Is the memory you added an exact match to the original 1GB? If not, that could well be the problem. Also, I'd recommend running a full test of the RAM with memtest86 ( http://www.memtest86.com/ ) just to be sure there aren't other problems.Doug

You know, I don't see any specific differences, ie, improvements, in FS2004, frame-rates, etc., but as Doug points out, you shouldn't see any decrease in performance either. I can however run the GPS, an add-on TCAS gauge and 2 monitors and still get smooth performance in FS 2004, so perhaps it's helping with running multiple programs. I do see tremendously increased performance in other Windows applications, like photo processing, and web-surfing, especially while multi-tasking. I'm running an Intel 3.2 dual-core processor with an nVidia 256mb PCI Express 6800 GT or XT, I forget which, video card. Check to make sure the clock speeds or megahertz values are similar on all of your memory modules. The memory will only run as fast as the slowest card, even if the others have faster clock speeds. Also, the memory clock speed should be equal to or greater than the clock speed of your motherboard's front-side bus (FSB). In other words, if your FSB is 800MHz and your memory is running at 600MHz, this can bog down your observed performance. I would guess you inadvertantly installed slower memory - check that.http://www.graphics-free.com/animations/tr...ges/plane_6.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD

I recently went from 1gb to 2 gb RAM. Fs9 does not run any different initially, but I notice that at the end a 5 hour flight for example it is just as smooth as when I first run it. Previously with 1 gb RAM it would slow up over time. I also havn't had any unexplained CTD's or freezes since upgrading. I have a lot of addons and I think the computer is making less use (if any ) of the virtual memory now, which improves performance. FS9 shuts down now very quickly whearas previously it would take a minute or more to closePeter

Oops - I guess I should have provided a bit extra detail on the hardware side - to save ppl time speculating on what I might have done wrong with the memory itself ;-)I completely removed my

I had exactly the same problem last weekend after changing from 2x512 to 3x512 RAM, - in my case the new RAM was not matched to the other two sticks - although of the same speed etc. Windows recognised the new RAM and all programmes worked fine except for FS9. I put a post in the hardware forum but had no replies. However, I found the following:1. If I started FS9 via Ken's FS Autostart, it loaded ok and I flew a couple of 6 hour trips with PSS 777 with no problems.2. If I changed my theme to "Windows Classic", I could start FS9 directly from the FS9.exe file. Again no problems in flight.3. Finally, after searching the net for ideas on Windows and memory, I changed the paging file size a couple of times. This has seemed to solve the problem - I can now load windows using my original desktop straight from the exe file.I have no idea why the above should happen - to date I have loaded FS9 perhaps 40 times, playing with a problems with Dreamfleet's Baron - now resolved, with no failure.BTW I cannot see any significant improvement with the extra RAM.John R

Thst's an interesting find. It might be worthwhile for the original poster to either change to a fixed-length swapfile (I'd suggest no more than 2048MB) or eliminate it entirely (with 2GB, or even 1GB, FS2004 will still run fine) and see what happens. It certainly sounds like the memory installation is OK but I'd still run memtest86 as even new memory can sometimes be a bit off.Doug

Michael,I have 2 gigs of memory too and had the same bogus error message on FS9 startup saying my system does not have enough memory or "out of memory". It turned out my ATI video card was not properly installed. Uninstalled/reinstalled drivers and no further problems.Jim

same thing pops up once in a while with NVidia cards too. Hard to reproduce, sometimes I can run FS fine with a dozen heavy applications (like Photoshop) open, sometimes it won't run until I start and then stop something as insignificant as notepad...Started when going over 1GB RAM, as seems common.

Thanks for all the replies. I'm in a way relieved that it's a somewhat common problem - and not something particular to my FS2004 installation.Yes, I will run some memory tests. I don't suspect anything to be wrong with it - so far I haven't run a cross a defective product from Corsair - but can't hurt to make sure ;-)I took the suggestion and turned off windows page file completely. I'm pretty much the only person using this PC - so if I start getting low memory errors - I will know to reboot ;-) After I turned off page file - I have not yet gotten the not enough memory error. Will be interesting to watch if it returns...Finally - I take it there are no INI setting telling FS2004 how to go about memory allocation?Thanks again,MichaelPS Watch for another question or 2 about some other FS2004 config issues I'm trying to "finalize" ;-)

I recently built a system with 2x1gb Corsair XMS modules in it.It performs flawlessly in FS. So I cannot imagine why yours does not, other than to say there must be some other hardware or software issue at play here. If it were me, I would reinstall FS9 and start with a stock/clean configuration with it, and go from there. I always find it easier to troubleshoot a problem by starting at the baseline and then gradually adding one thing, retesting, adding another thing, and so forth.I do not know of any FS9.CFG setting that deals with "memory allocation" as you put it. However I am sure you know that settings like TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT= and so forth seem to have some effect on the way FS9 handles things, particularly as it relates to textures and memory.Rhett

it seems like your virtual memory page file got corrupted. there are steps to rebuild it on the microsoft flight sim help site.personally I saw a big difference with 2 gigs of ram, textures reloaded so much faster, less blurries, and smoother running.

>However I am sure you know that>settings like TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT= and so forth seem to>have some effect on the way FS9 handles things, particularly>as it relates to textures and memory.I do not acutally. Thank you. I will look into it.Thank you,Michael

Not sure how your mem is configured but often an increase of 2 X 512 to 4 x 512 will give the problems you indicated. Expecially if all timings of your memory modules are not matched and your motherboard is not capable of calmly dealing with the difference. This becomes even more pronounced if you are on a dual channel board and those timings are different. I highly recommend anyone upgrading memory from 1 to 2 gig to go with 2 x 1gig modules. If you already have 1 x 1 gig, try and match a new one with the old. If you have 2 x 512, then spend the extra if you can and replace the old modules.That said, extra memory can help with load. You will not likely see frame increase but it should help with spead of texture load or help when running multiple apps with FS. -dave

AlexMany thanks - I found the answer by trial and error. Nice to have it cinfirmed by an expert.John R