FSX-MS FSX never using more than 2GB RAM

[hefewe1zen 0]

I'm mostly aware of memory restrictions of FSX and that it cannot utilize more than 2GB of RAM (usage 70% overall). However, it's only using 1900MB of memory according to task manager and never going above that. CPU is an old and cheap AMD, cores are continually operating around 100%. Could it be that CPU is a bottleneck which results in limited RAM use?

[hefewe1zen 0]

*it cannot utilize more than 4GB of RAM (usage 70% overall)

[airernie 263]

How much RAM do you have total?  While FSX can use up to 4GB, it has to share RAM with other applications that are also running.  

 

[Jim Young 2,356]

1 hour ago, hefewe1zen said:

I'm mostly aware of memory restrictions of FSX and that it cannot utilize more than 2GB of RAM (usage 70% overall). However, it's only using 1900MB of memory according to task manager and never going above that. CPU is an old and cheap AMD, cores are continually operating around 100%. Could it be that CPU is a bottleneck which results in limited RAM use?

FSX can use an unlimited amount of RAM but usually will not use more than 8GB's.  To be safe, it is recommended you have at least 16GB's of RAM for any computer system.  It appears you might be confusing virtual address space (VAS) with RAM.  FSX, on a 64 bit operating system, can use up to 4GB's of VAS as it is a 32 bit application.  If you have a 32 bit operating system, then FSX can only use up to 3GB's of RAM and that is with a /3GB switch. 

If you have a 64 bit application like P3DV4 or XP11, you have an unlimited amount of VAS (well up to approx 8 terabytes).

More information can be found on page 36, AVSIM CTD Guide or in the Intro Guide in the PMDG Documentation around page 21.

Best regards,

Jim

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

Just now, hefewe1zen said:

I'm mostly aware of memory restrictions of FSX and that it cannot utilize more than 2GB of RAM (usage 70% overall). However, it's only using 1900MB of memory according to task manager and never going above that. CPU is an old and cheap AMD, cores are continually operating around 100%. Could it be that CPU is a bottleneck which results in limited RAM use?

This is normal.. A faster CPU will not use more RAM..

[vortex681 806]

On 22 December 2018 at 3:57 PM, Jim Young said:

FSX can use an unlimited amount of RAM but usually will not use more than 8GB's. 

That's not true. FSX is a 32 bit program and, therefore, can only ever use a maximum of 4GB of memory. That’s due to the 32bit address space: 2^32 = 4,294,967,296 bytes. If you run it in a 64 bit OS and have more than 4GB of RAM then all of the 4GB will be allocated to it, but no more. Any other 32 bit applications running concurrently will also be allocated up to 4 GB depending on the maximum amount of RAM available. 

Edited December 26, 2018 by vortex681

[Reader 2,009]

If it will not use more than 2GB perhaps your OS is 32 bit

and no one has added the 3 GB switch.

Edited December 26, 2018 by nolonger

[Jim Young 2,356]

2 hours ago, vortex681 said:

can only ever use a maximum of 4GB of memory

This is true but you are talking about virtual address space which is not memory.  Microsoft allocates up to 4GB's of VAS on a 64 bit system and up to 3GB on a 32 bit system that has the /3GB switch.  I was talking about RAM, those memory modules that sit on your MB.  More details are on page 36, AVSIM CTD Guide or around page 21, PMDG Intro Guides.

[Reader 2,009]

There is no difference in this context.

Virtual Address Space allocates RAM to a program so that program sees nothing of any other programs that may be running

and they see nothing of it.

4GB of VAS means that up to 4GB of memory as required has been reserved for that program and is therefore directly related to 4GB of RAM.

FSX cannot use more than 4GB of RAM because the operating system cannot allocate it any more than 4GB of Virtual Address Space.

The most likely answer to this question

" However, it's only using 1900MB of memory according to task manager and never going above that."

is that the operating system is 32 bit.

The distinction is relevant where the question, as asked many thousands of times, is

"I have the most powerful computer with 32 GB of installed RAM and yet FSX runs out of memory. How can this be?"

This is not the question asked here.

 

Edited December 26, 2018 by nolonger

[Jim Young 2,356]

37 minutes ago, nolonger said:

Virtual Address Space allocates RAM to a program so that program sees nothing of any other programs that may be running

and they see nothing of it.

I think you need to do a lot of research before you post.  This is clearly out of your league.

 

38 minutes ago, nolonger said:

The distinction is relevant where the question, as asked many thousands of times, is

"I have the most powerful computer with 32 GB of installed RAM and yet FSX runs out of memory. How can this be?"

The error message is correct.  When you run out of memory, you are actually running out of VAS.  Tabs from PMDG explains it the best in the PMDG Intro guides.  I think he states something like Microsoft should have never have called this error as an out of memory error as it is not memory.  It is virtual address space or space for applications to run.  When the application uses up all of the VAS, it will crash.  It should have been entitled, ran out of virtual address space.

[Reader 2,009]

 

Why is the OP's PC not using more than "1900MB of memory"?

 

 

Edited December 26, 2018 by nolonger

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

18 minutes ago, nolonger said:

 

Why is the OP's PC not using more than "1900MB of memory"?

 

 

I am not sure there is a problem here.. why try to find something wrong when all sounds normal?

[Reader 2,009]

Thanks.

Why is the OP's PC not using more than "1900MB of memory"?

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

13 minutes ago, nolonger said:

Thanks.

Why is the OP's PC not using more than "1900MB of memory"?

Yes, you asked this before... what would you expect FSX memory usage to be?

[Reader 2,009]

I am only wondering what the answer might be to the original question, given the presence in this topic

of such expertise. So far, no one seems to have addressed it.