PMDG 777 memory usage test

[toast30 0]

Could a handful of people please load up the T7 at a default airport and indicate how much ram FSX.exe is consuming? I know that everyone has different addons that will contribute to more or less ram usage but this is just for me to get an idea of how much ram is being used.

Much appreciated!

[downscc 1,327]

14 hours ago, toast30 said:

I know that everyone has different addons that will contribute to more or less ram usage but this is just for me to get an idea of how much ram is being used.

You are underestimating the impact of addons on memory usage.  Also, are you asking about commit memory, virtual memory, or other?  Not sure how you intend to use the information, but I suspect you should be asking a different question.

[toast30 0]

Yes I understand that addons will impact the memory usage and so I won't get good numbers to work with but really why I want to know is because I'd like to use the 777 with Windows XP 32-bit. I know that PMDG have stated that an older OS like Windows XP may work but compatibility is not certain but I'm willing to try before getting Windows 7 64-bit. On Windows XP I'm idling around 350MB of ram and in FS9 with PMDG 747, UK2000 Heathrow (free) and World of AI at 100% the ram usage as reported for FS9 in the task manager is ~900MB.

I'd be running quite low settings in FSX without any addons except a few airport sceneries and AI traffic 100% and I'm wondering what the ram usage for FSX as shown in the task manager would be? If at UK2000 Heathrow (free) and AI traffic at 100% in the 777 the ram doesn't go above 1.6-1.8GB for the system overall then I can use Windows XP 32-bit.

[downscc 1,327]

A different question is how much does the 777 require?  Answer, about 800 MB.  The huge downside to a 32b OS is that the application, all addons, all running processes and the OS must fit within 4 GB.  I wouldn't even try it.

[toast30 0]

Thanks yes asking about how much ram the 777 needs is best! So 800MB for just the 777 means that coupled with FSX using ram for scenery and AI traffic I'd be getting pretty close to the 2GB limit for applications in a 32-bit OS.

Looks like Windows 7 64 is probably the best way to go.

Thanks again!

[downscc 1,327]

47 minutes ago, toast30 said:

Thanks yes asking about how much ram the 777 needs is best! So 800MB for just the 777 means that coupled with FSX using ram for scenery and AI traffic I'd be getting pretty close to the 2GB limit for applications in a 32-bit OS.

Looks like Windows 7 64 is probably the best way to go.

Thanks again!

The limit for applications is 4 GB, but also the limit for 32b is 4 GB so your XP is going to take most of 1GB and that leaves 3GB for everything else.

I'd not recommend Windows 7.. I still have a Windows 7 machine but if I were going to spend money on a new computer I would definitely go with Windows 10.  Also, if your machine is currently running XP, just how old is it?  Do you have a computer that meets or exceeds the minimum system requirements that PMDG publishes for the PMDG 777 ( http://www.precisionmanuals.com/pages/product/FSX/777LRF.html )

[toast30 0]

In Windows XP 32-bit I'm idling at ~350MB ram and If that goes up to 2GB I get CTD's so I really only have ~1.65GB for FSX but that seems like not enough so I'll probably get 64-bit.

My rig is an E8500 3.16GHz, HD 5770, 4GB ram.

I'm planning a Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge build as that's what I'm feeling is good price/performance and would prefer Windows 7 as the OS rather than Windows 10. This rig would be purely for FSX which I'd run at medium to low settings with only airport sceneries and AI traffic. Graphics card settings with multi-sampling and lots of 2x settings.

[Ephedrin 418]

Sandy bridge is a 2nd generation i prozessor, ivy is 3rd... WHY the hell are you talking about all that old, outdated, antiquated sh... stuff??? Believe me, you will not get happy with it. Whatever you will want to try to run in the future will require another upgrade... win 7, ivy bridge wasn‘t that good at all for FSX... I‘d wonder if you find a that old system at all... 

[toast30 0]

19 hours ago, Ephedrin said:

Sandy bridge is a 2nd generation i prozessor, ivy is 3rd... WHY the hell are you talking about all that old, outdated, antiquated sh... stuff??? Believe me, you will not get happy with it. Whatever you will want to try to run in the future will require another upgrade... win 7, ivy bridge wasn‘t that good at all for FSX... I‘d wonder if you find a that old system at all... 

I can only afford to get a Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge system.

[30K 72]

12 minutes ago, toast30 said:

I can only afford to get a Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge system.

That's sad but if that's the case then you'll be better off buying something else than that.

No hard feelings but that is the sad truth. Simulators are very demanding on system resources as they simulate the real world I mean wow.

If you search the web for a 3 year old hardware, which would be TIMES better than a sandy bridge (thinking about a haswell or maxwell here) , well most stores will throw it after you for an apple and an egg (german saying = for nearly nothing) ;)) because only a very few people are buying this stuff and rule no. 1 in warehouse management:

Get it empty.

 

What i'm trying to say is that 1.65 GB RAM will not be enough for you to run FSX with any addon for more that a minute. The vanilla FSX takes up that much space if I remember correctly.

Edited March 31, 2018 by 30K

[toast30 0]

A Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge i5 + cpu heatsink + mobo + ram combo on eBay is as much as a Haswell i5 cpu!

I'm going to be using medium to low settings in FSX and my graphics card settings are multi-sampling and I have sliders set to 2x for AA and anisotropic. I enjoy the graphics so much with these settings but many people won't like what I'm seeing. Also I don't use addons except for free airport sceneries and then AI traffic (world of ai) maxed out at 100%. I'm sure I can get at least 20fps in the 777 wherever I fly.

Also I'm going with 64-bit Windows and 8GB ram.

[toast30 0]

Just got done testing out the 777 for the first time! There are compatibility issues in Windows XP 32-bit but that's not a problem for me as I'll be upgrading to Windows 7 64-bit.

Currently running on an E8500 at stock speeds with an HD 5770 and 4GB ram. FSX scenery settings maxed out except mesh resolution at 76m and texture resolution at 2m. Water effects none, scenery complexity and autogen density sparse. Airline traffic and GA at 100% everything else at 0% but it's only default traffic. Frames locked at 30fps.

Graphics card settings are 2x AA and 2x anisotropic and AA mode is multi-sampling.

Loaded up at OKBK at ~8am fair weather and the 777 had it's gear up (floating) and instruments in the cockpit were all off. Frames were at ~30fps all the time cycling views and everything.

Maybe the performance was good because the 777 wasn't loaded up all the way with the compatibility issues but I'm still happy how it ran on my hardware!

Task manager was reporting FSX.exe using ~500MB in the cessna (OKBK test) and in the 777 it went to 1GB but that's really good! Again maybe less than it would have been if the 777 had loaded up all the way.

Really happy with it and now to get my new build underway with Windows 7 64-bit!

[Captain Kevin 586]

4 minutes ago, toast30 said:

Really happy with it

You were fine with flying a 777 with no instruments or landing gear?

[toast30 0]

No I was just happy with with the performance I got with it on my old hardware although it might be because the aircrafts systems weren't loaded up all the way. Obviously I wouldn't want to fly it in it's current state but when I get my new build with Windows 7 64-bit it should work perfectly and then I'll be super happy!