Hi there all,I'm experimenting some weird behaviour when I fly from an agricultural area (or forest or whatever quite void) to an urban or big airport area : the sim shows up a dialog telling it can't load a file ... then I start loosing my textures and the sim starts running whimsically.I have a AMD +1700 with an Nvidia GeForce Fx5500 and according to the previous post I should have a quite enough good flight having my sliders almost all to the left ... in normal flight I've almost 15 fps and I can go directly to the big airports but not fly to them or go to them with the menu bar without that message.I checked for the memory and with my settings I never exceed the maximum limit (785 DRAM and 128 Mb video as shown in the picture). I've no tweaks installed except for the trees autogen.Just my to cents ...Cheers,laurent http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/158990.gif

Thanks for this thread, Bill. I did some tests of my own and found so far that I commonly use up to 75% of my system ram after the video ram is exceeded. I haven't seen the 2gigs of system ram get overfull yet, thou that may happen as I keep tweaking.Sure seems to me like the sim is less concerned about whether available memory is video or system as long as it doesn't exceed your system ram. While I was wishing I had 512 on my vid as I ran this test, I'm not sure it matters much with a good system ram available.Bob

>A while ago, Katy Pluta pointed out a free memory monitoring>utility (thanks, Katy!), and while I am certainly not the>first to use it, I do believe that my screenshots where what>led Bill to try it out. Since he makes no mention of my>results, that are radically different from his, I hope he will>not mind if I make them known to everybody else.>>>But, when people post on the need for Extreme dual 2 core, 2>GB RAM, GeForce 7950 512 MB, it can discourage the great>majority of people who do not have that, and cannot presently>move up.Luis, it was actually Katy's post and Burkhard's analysis and explanation that prompted my post... Your comments of course did contriubute some as well, so please don't feel left out... ;)None of your pictures showed up (since they were uploaded here at AVSIM they have a very, very short "Use By" expiration date!), so I didn't get to see them.However, the intent of my post was far from urging folks to "upgrade" to "Extreme dual 2 core, 2GB RAM, etc." but was rather to present an objective TOOL (MemStatus) that will illustrate graphically what the objective LOAD on their system is when comparing FS9 with FSX "stock."The Major Points are:1) FSX sends more than 10x as much raw data to the video card, even at it's lowest settings!2) Fully saturating your physical, on-board video RAM is a "bad thing!"3) Use the TOOL (MemStatus) to set up your configuration such that under extreme conditions you won't saturate (and therefore overflow) your video card's physical RAM.4) When configuring and testing your system, aiming to achieve the above will allow the framerates to take care of themselves... ;)

>Links don't work for me. It says "Problem loading page".>>What's this "DAP" that Victor mentions anyway?>>Rhett>>AMD 3700+ (@2.5 ghz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (94.47), ASUS A8N-E, PC>Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm>SATA2, CoolerMaster PraetorianDownload Accelerator Plus (Free Version)http://www.speedbit.com/en/?

>I'm experimenting some weird behaviour when I fly from an>agricultural area (or forest or whatever quite void) to an>urban or big airport area : the sim shows up a dialog telling>it can't load a file ... then I start loosing my textures and>the sim starts running whimsically.Somehow, one of the textures required was either left out of the French version's installation routine, or has gotten deleted.There is a utility program called FileMonitor which will tell you specifically WHICH texture file (or files?) is missing. http://www.softpedia.com/get/Programming/O...s/Filemon.shtml

Looks like a video driver issue to me. When's the last time you upgraded?

<>I do--no one. That's common with "Official Guides" as far as I know. And, no, SLI will not yield much benefit (at least with the shipping version--the DX10 update might change that).

I was just born under a bad sign, Bill. I probably posted justed about when the image cache was being flushed. I have done it before! And no, Tom has nothing against me. I hope!Anyway, here is Manhattan, the original Sin City, with 18 frames and no memory saturation:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159022.jpgThese are the settings for the flight:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159023.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159024.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159025.jpgI launched FS amd then just waited while system memory usage went from saturation to 138 MB!http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159026.jpgIn fact, from now on, I shall always launch FS and then wait 3 or 4 minutes before flying.As I said, 138 MB is less than the system memory that is used when FS is NOT running!http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159027.jpgHere I am in my favorite mission, picking up flour bombs while only using 380 MB of system memory and 96 MB of video:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159028.jpgAnd then up in the air, with trees in all their glory, clouds, and high-res ground textures, and still no memory exhaustion:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159029.jpgI love the Piper Cub, I love flying through barns, I love this mission!Pax vobiscum http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159030.gifBest regards.Luis

>I was just born under a bad sign, Bill. I probably posted>justed about when the image cache was being flushed. I have>done it before! And no, Tom has nothing against me. I hope!>>Anyway, here is Manhattan, the original Sin City, with 18>frames and no memory saturation:I have to admit Luis, you're getting just what you claim! Pictures don't lie, do they? ;)I do notice though that you have a nearly 600MB Page Cache, which tells me that there's a lot of bit-shuffling going on behind the scenes...Also, with only 512MB system RAM, there's not enough to "share" with the video card, so whatever won't 'fit' entirely into video ram is getting flushed down the bit bucket.

><on this book and the recommendations.>>>>I do--no one. That's common with "Official Guides" as far as I>know. And, no, SLI will not yield much benefit (at least with>the shipping version--the DX10 update might change that).Tdragger...what is somewhat important with SLI and Crossfire configurations is that the video cards are matched... (as is the case with dual-channel RAM).How close to certain would accomodation of SLI/Crossfire be in "the" DX10 update? Your language makes an update for DX10 seem certain.While there are several bugs in the product as it stands, I suppose we will not see those fixed until said DX10 update is released?I ask because, I could get another 1900XTX in crossfire config before they go completely out of stock.However, would you say that just using a DX-oriented card, say in an SLI/Crossfire configuration, is even better?Any hints please?

Hi Jerry, at 1024x, you can go pretty far on a 256MB card. With a 512MB adapter you'll be able to higher. Out of curiousity, how much system RAM does your display adapter ###### with 3GBs? Cheers and kind regards Jaap

not long ago... i have latest catalyst drivers from ATI... but, the problem is no longer... i didn't do anything, i just went away :)

I have done some more comparisons of FS9 and FSX and have added X-Plane to the equation.Day-Timehttp://www.ioxo.net/fsx_day.jpgFSX - 12fpshttp://www.ioxo.net/fs9_day.jpgFS9 - 34fpshttp://www.ioxo.net/x_day.jpgX-Plane 8.50 - 30fpsNight-Timehttp://www.ioxo.net/fsx_night.jpgFSX - 12fpshttp://www.ioxo.net/fs9_night.jpgFS9 - 34fpshttp://www.ioxo.net/x_night.jpgX-Plane 8.50 - 30fpsLoad Times (until inital startup menu)FS9: 67 sec; FSX: 106sec; X-Plane: 44secsLoad Times (until playable, at airport)FS9: 85sec; FSX: 99sec; X-Plane: 1secQuality Settings:FSX: Medium-Low, AI Traffic 50%, Autogen: NormalFS9: Almost all maxed, AI Traffic: 50%X-Plane: Very highAddons:FSX: MyTraffic XFS9: Too many to mention (GE Pro, FE, MyTraffic 2006, FS Genesis, etc.)X-Plane: NoneAll shots have 4xAA and 8xAF and where taken at San Bernadino Intl with the default startup position on rwy 6.This is on an Athlon X2 4800+, 2GB Corsair XMS RAM (DDR400), eVGA 7600 GT (256 MB).My favorite of the day-time shots is X-Plane (more realistic mountains/scenery/runway/autogen), followed by FSX (good scenery/average runway/average autogen), then FS9. For the night-time shots it is again X-Plane (lighting/runway/specular landing lights; however cockpit lighting is mediocre), followed by FS9 (impressive lighting and ambience) and last place is FSX.I flew around the airport in all 3 sims and X-Plane autogen, terrain looks very impressive with a lot of variety and easily beats FSX (duh, X-Plane ships on 7 DVDs). However FSX is a tad better with the mesh. Runways just look best in X-Plane (better textures and support for sloped runways). AI Traffic is best in FS9, followed by FSX and N/A in X-Plane (huge disappointment). Cockpit and aircraft look best in FSX and worst in X-Plane. Framerates are most stable in X-Plane and never drop below 25fps. I prefer the flight dynamics in FSX over X-Plane (too jerky, too responsive).Add the frame rates and the quality of the screenshots and I bet FS9 is going to be around for awhile (at least for me) until DX10 is released and we can hope for frames rates in the upper teens or twenties. At the present time, I don't even want to think about any PMDG-like add-on for FSX unless you really want to fly a slideshow.Pat

wow..hope so! Do you guys have any of the new DX10 cards yet ? (G80?)

NOOOOO..waitd "DX10 patch might help SLI". Wait until november when the NVidea's monster card hits the street. And it is a DX10 Card!