Just my opinion on the OOM /3gb fix

[psolk 3,037]

Well this is just my opinion and please let me begin by thanking Phil and the team for finally giving us the definitive answer we need which is that neither FS9 or FSX can KEEP themselves under the 2g limit. Phil's presence in the forums adds an air of credibility to our hypothesis and some of us have been saying for quite some time it is not an A/C or a scenery but just that we have exceeded the limits of the app. It does not bode well for add-ons in FSX that people are exceeding the 2g limit with default fsx though. It took us years and hundreds of add-ons to get to this pint in FS9. We are getting it vanilla with FSX. In fact if either sim wants more than the O/S can give they will ask for it and we will get an OOM and our simming experience is over. Some of us have been fighting this issue for YEARS!!! We thought it was our setup, navdata, LC files, terrain.cfg files, if you name it someone tried it to fix the OOM errors. Now we come to find after all these years that it really is the same issue that effects MS Exchange and requires the /3gb switch on an exchange server. The only difference is that Exchange servers are not running high end video cards that are not compatible with the /3g switch in the first place.So, yes, MS wrote two sims that just like their Exchange Server can not even stay within the limitations of the O/S they run on. Phil has also said they will not modify either version of FS to stay within the limits of the O/S. In fact what we are being told is to apply the /3GB switch to XP Pro and Vista to eliminate the issue. Well anyone running high memory video cards can not do this. It does not leave enough memory for the O/S and the card and you start losing things like AA/AF. Maybe this is the DX bug Phil is speaking about but I doubt it.So I was just wondering what your thoughts were now that years of fighting the OOM comes down to an app written to be able to exceed the memory allocated to it by its own O/S and that MS is not going to fix but instead recommend a tweak that is not even viable for most...I know I am more than a little disturbed and disappointed but wanted to get others opinions.-PaulPrimary RigLiquid CooledIntel C2D E6600 @3.2 gigsAsus P5N32SLI-Plus2 gigs Corsair XMS PC6400 4 4 4 12 @810Dual OC'd XFX 8800GTX @ 2 gigs24 inch Widescreen LCD 16XAA/16XAFDual 19 inch LCD'sRaid-0+1PCPower and Cooling 1k Quad SLIhttp://home.comcast.net/~psolk/3monitorsa.htmlBackup RigAMD 4000 San Diego @ 2.72 Gigs Kingston Corsair XMS CL2XFX 7900 GTX Raid-0

[Guest Bob Z]

PaulHere is my current thinking on this issue. You might call it sympathy for the devil.My FSX install is still stock and the have no cfg tweaks currently installed. Increaseuserva is set to 2560.I volunteered to try this for Markus and haven't had an OOM problem since. As for the blurries, this is very subjective but I'm quite pleased with my results so far.This is Vista 32bit 4Mb running on X6800 Xtreme/X1950 Crossfire. The procspeed in the cfg is 9821 and this is very high compared to some procspeeds I have seen posted here. And this is the crux of it. I have two choices, drop the sliders and run stock Vista/FSX or keep the sliders fairly high and up the application memory. Fairly high sliders are no problem for this procspeed, so memory it is.What it amounts to is that my processor/GPU speeds can handle higher slider settings than the memory capacity of 2Gb FSX is capable of. I should probably have 64bit Vista and more memory and do plan on this in the future. The reason I originally didn't is because of the poor reports I read about PC games/driver incompatibility or unavailability with 64bit.It is true that this issue does not bode well for addons with FSX at 2Gb. However, MS is probably correct in their apparent attitude towards this. 64 bit OS is the future.Modifying FSX to operate within 2GB without it experiencing catastrophic abends should certainly be possible but with high slider settings and addons which will be possible with future hardware it would result in more paging that in itself would contribute to poor performance.Actually, no program should result in catastrophic abends such as many PC games encounter, but that's another issue.These thoughts are certainly not set in stone as this is still being hashed out, but they are my current attitude.

[psolk 3,037]

Hey Bob,Not sympathy for the devil at all ;). It was a well thought and and well written post.My only issue is the same as yours. How many of us are going to have to switch to 64 bit OS's to support a sim when the support for 64 bit OS's in general is nowhere near the support for 32 bit OS's?Wouldn't it make more sense for a 32 bit app to abide by the 32 bit memory standards set forth in the O/S? It seems this was overlooked in FS9 and has since carried over in a much more pronounced manner into FSX.I think the owners of this issue should be MS and not the user who now has to tweak settings that quite frankly were never intended to be tweaked on anything but servers. I would like to see this fixed in FS9 as well as FSX by modifying the apps to follow 32 bit application standards but that is just me ;)Thanks Bob,-PaulPrimary RigLiquid CooledIntel C2D E6600 @3.2 gigsAsus P5N32SLI-Plus2 gigs Corsair XMS PC6400 4 4 4 12 @810Dual OC'd XFX 8800GTX @ 2 gigs24 inch Widescreen LCD 16XAA/16XAFDual 19 inch LCD'sRaid-0+1PCPower and Cooling 1k Quad SLIhttp://home.comcast.net/~psolk/3monitorsa.htmlBackup RigAMD 4000 San Diego @ 2.72 Gigs Kingston Corsair XMS CL2XFX 7900 GTX Raid-0

[PhilTaylor 45]

Lets be clear - I still didnt recommend this in my blog post. And where did I say anything about FS9? Please dont either misquote me, or use me out of context. With that said, I am sorry you are disturbed. However, what we are experiencing is the fact that we are at the upper limit of what is possible on the 32-bit platform. The lost features with 2 768m video cards ( with or without the /3G switch ) is a platform issue. We, the entire gaming + graphics industry, are stretching the 32 bit platform like a rubber band.There is a config specific part to this, else 100% of everyone on Vista would hit this. So its not just the app and platform alone. We are all in this together :-). One solution is to not push settings to the max, and you wont hit this issue. Another would have been to be less aggressive in how much detail we present from the start. Another would have been to use SP1 to reduce detail - which we repeatedly heard we should not do. The choices are not easy or simple.The issue with the /3G switch squeezing the OS is well known. How and why that manifests itself as driver/hw features not working - I dont understand the kernel interaction with all components well enough to authoritatively state what the fallbacks are. So I just cant talk to that.The DX bug I reference is in D3DX and how it handles variables in effects files. Previous versions dont respect the /3G switch and what that means about the format of the addresses, eg D3DX plays games with the high order bit. We hear the June SDK addresses that, hence my blog entry.I present information to try to help the community, its unfortunate that it gets twisted like this. Should I stop?

[psolk 3,037]

Hey Phil,Ii really apologize, I tried to represent my gratitude for your posts and for clarifying things for us. The last thing anyone wants you to do is to stop. I wasn't trying to misquote you or misrepresent you. Based on this comment "We wont be able to affect any behavior changes in the app once we investigate this, we would simply mark the app as being able to do this. And if the app was then run on an OS with this tweak, the app would take advantage of it.What happens between the driver/card and the OS, thats well out of our control."I thought this is what the team is suggesting as the workaround for the OOM error in general. Truth is for those of us limited by huge amounts of graphics memory/Kernel/OS limitations it doesn't work and we are just SOL.As for FS9, it is plagued by the same exact issue which is what I was trying to say. Many of us fought this for years with FS9 and were hoping FSX would be the fix. It goes to reason if it isn't going to be changed in FSX it isn't going to be changed in FS9 either. I apologize for the assumption though.AS for pushing the limits, trust me I understand, I eliminate every single add-on I am not using for a particular flight prior to flying. It is just par for the course. If this was the case though then why not develop FS for the 64 bit platform to begin with?Apologies again, it is just frustrating b/c FS is the only app I ever get this with. In fact the only other apps I know affected by this are Exchange server and Adobe...Thanks for your contributions, I will stop now,-PPrimary RigLiquid CooledIntel C2D E6600 @3.2 gigsAsus P5N32SLI-Plus2 gigs Corsair XMS PC6400 4 4 4 12 @810Dual OC'd XFX 8800GTX @ 2 gigs24 inch Widescreen LCD 16XAA/16XAFDual 19 inch LCD'sRaid-0+1PCPower and Cooling 1k Quad SLIhttp://home.comcast.net/~psolk/3monitorsa.htmlBackup RigAMD 4000 San Diego @ 2.72 Gigs Kingston Corsair XMS CL2XFX 7900 GTX Raid-0

[n4gix 4,947]

>If this was>the case though then why not develop FS for the 64 bit>platform to begin with?The answer to that question should be self-evident; there simply is no economically viable way they'd do so at this juncture. How would it be a "good thing" to exclude the largest percentage of the FS market?IMHO, that question and the implied answer is - unintentional or not - portrays an extremely elitist position...

[Ted Striker 338]

For the benefit of us buying new video cards, what is the maximum amount of memory that should be obtained on a video card to avoid this problem?Thanks,Ted

[Guest SkyDrift]

<...there simply is no economically viable way they'd do so at this juncture. How would it be a "good thing" to exclude the largest percentage of the FS market?...>Agreed - and I don't think it likely that we'll see a 64-bit version of the next version of FS either. However, I hope that MS is at least investigating converting the platform to 64-bit for FS12 (remember that the platform also now hosts the new Trainsim, which will complicate their development scheduling).At some point MS, like all game vendors, will have to bite the bullet and make the switch. The key is to set expectations - both to the user community & 3rd-party developer community - a long time in advance. Giving notice of the change (inc. NO backwards compatibility) 1 version ahead of time would do that IMO, & the change would give MS the opportunity to remove all of the old "legacy" pre-FSX code/design that is now outdated & sometimes obsolete and that is just adding unnecessary complexity to their 32-bit development efforts.- skydrift

[PhilTaylor 45]

This depends on SLI vs no SLI, and /3G or no /3G, and Vista vs XP.Certainly I hear more reports of OOM on Vista. Doesnt mean it cant happen on XP, just that it seems more prevalent on Vista. So lets run with that angle.Certainly having 2 cards vs 1 has an impact.I dont understand where the AA/AF filtering feature reductions happening to understand where the line is.But thinking out load, the equation that describes this is something likeOS+App+GPU=4GorVista+(USERVA=x)+(GPUMem*y)=4GIt would be interesting, for someone who has the GPU reduced behavior to try this and tell us where it looks like Vista is failing.Trying this in reverse, for the 2GPUx768 case, it looks like4G-1.5G=Vista+USERVAthat leaves 2.5G for Vista+FSX.Does the failure start without the /3G switch? That means the App is living within 2G and the OS doesnt fit within 512m, and I find that highly believable. What likely happens then is, the driver tries to allocate memory on behalf of the GPU to perform AA operations ( 16x is oversampled ) and the alloc fails. Its an open question whether with GPU=2x640 sees this feature issue or not. That would leave 768m for the OS.

[psolk 3,037]

Hey Phil, Apologies again for earlier. A few hours on the beach can always clear ones mind and I should have been much less emotional when I posted. Apologies again. To answer your question though the AA/AF failure occurs with the /3gb switch when the app is made /3gb aware. I have not tried it with a single video card.I was not asking the 64 bit question to be elitist; it is a justified question. If an application can require more the the 2gb 32 bit limitation and there is an O/S out there that can give the app the memory it needs then why not develop for that O/S? A lot of hardcore simmers build their PC's specifically around simming with other PC's for everything else. I know most of us would jump to a 64 bit OS in a heartbeat if the driver support was there and FS could fly flawlessly on it.It looks like if FS is to continue to grow a 32 bit platform just isn't going to cut it. As I mentioned earlier a lot of us saw this with FS9 on XP so seeing it with FX on Vista is just not surprising.Phils point of the gaming community exceeding the 32 bit limitations are very valid. I just don't see it with anything else but nothing else is doing the calculations of FS....Sorry again, hope we can keep this on track because it is a very big concern for a very small group.PaulPrimary RigLiquid CooledIntel C2D E6600 @3.2 gigsAsus P5N32SLI-Plus2 gigs Corsair XMS PC6400 4 4 4 12 @810Dual OC'd XFX 8800GTX @ 2 gigs24 inch Widescreen LCD 16XAA/16XAFDual 19 inch LCD'sRaid-0+1PCPower and Cooling 1k Quad SLIhttp://home.comcast.net/~psolk/3monitorsa.htmlBackup RigAMD 4000 San Diego @ 2.72 Gigs Kingston Corsair XMS CL2XFX 7900 GTX Raid-0

[vgbaron 3,486]

My experience with the 3GB switch with XP Pro was not good.System is P4,3.4/2GDDR/INtel915GAVMoBo/NVidia 7600GS/512/XP pro SP2/FSX Sp1Made the changes to boot.ini. Made the edit to the FSX header. Installed the June 2007 DirectX update.Reboot and run FSX as usual (ASX, TrackIR,SpeedFan,Memstatus) shutting down all non essential programs and processes.Select default flight - first time I ran it, the FPS counter lines were not displaying and would not display. Trying to pan using the hat or keyboard would cause the system to hang for seconds before switching views. Was worse than a slide show. Exited FSX and shut down system. Restart and try again with same results except this time the red FPS info displayed - was between 0.5 and 2. Same problem trying to pan or change views. Exited FSX.Restored boot.ini and FSX.EXE to original state and tried again - FPS was about 15 ( normal for my default ) - no problems panning or switching views.Shutdown and repeated the 3GB cycle with the same dismal results.Back to original settings and all is well again.Have NO idea why it didn't work, just commenting that it did NOT work on MY system which is very clean as far as hokey programs and spyware, etc. and in fact made it worse. Good thing is that it did no harm to try.Since I haven't had an OOM error in the first place, it was an interesting experiment.Aside to Phil - please DO keep providing insights into the workings of things - they are really helpful in understanding how different things work together.VicVisit the Virtual Pilot's Centerwww.flightadventures.comhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/

[PhilTaylor 45]

There are really 2 points here:1)costs and benefits of an open-ended system2)platform migration1)FS is essentially an open-ended system because of settings and add-ons. We dont impose a limit, and instead rely on the user and the vendor. We can discuss whether thats an appropriate design choice, but that is how the app is architected today. If we run over, you the user need to cut back. Its that simple.Even if we change the architecture; resource management can be a hard problem to get right. The task is complicated by the fact that certain things are hidden from any app; like what is the overhead of the D3D runtime and the driver. If your aim is to guard against that, you end up making very conservative decisions and you dont get close to the edge at all; which is the 180-degree end of the spectrum as compared to todays architecture. Each approach has its own cost and benefit. Nothing in life is free or perfect.The task is also complicated by the fact we are on a PC, and it is a configuration nightmare. We just dont have a good way of understanding what local configurations are. We take a best guess, we build out labs internally with representative samples of hw and add-ons, we try to stock the beta with a further representative sample. So that adds another factor of conservatism if the other design center is used for the application.The other thing you have to take into account is, with each version we stretch ourselves to develop new "stuff"; it is all a learning experience. No one today "knows" the best way to use DX10 hw, we are all learning on the fly. Next year, or the year after; once enough developers have been thru the drill at least once - then how to use DX10 to best advantage will be understood. I dont think you are allowing for this factor; eg we are all human. 2)As far as platform migration, that brings economics into play. We watch the platform numbers and when it makes business sense we will get there.

[Peter Clark 21]

(dup - can be deleted)

[Peter Clark 21]

Ya know, I just got Vista, and opted for the 32 bit version because Microsoft doesn't have a migration system to move from 32 bit (OS) to 64 bit (os) as an upgrade, and reformatting and reinstalling (with the repeated reactivations and calls to the vendors to get another activation permitted because I've changed my OS again) is really quite the pain in the but.I still don't quite understand why the 64 bit Vista upgrade engine can't import the user space from a 32 bit OS and overwrite the underlying hardware and OS. It would make the upgrade much more seamless and attractive for users to opt for when making their choices.

[psolk 3,037]

Hey Vic,Sounds like you are seeing funky behavior with the video cards which is what I get from FS with the /3GB switch. That is why I said this not going to be viable for quite a few.Would be interested to hear from those running a 64 bit O/S...-PaulEdit, thanks for the explanation on why no 64 bit version Phil, greatly appreciated but it does bring out the question of is everything going to have to eventually move to 64 bit architecture? We are going to see the limitations of 32 bit O/S over the next few years unless gaming moves off a 32 bit platform. Same way we saw the end of basic TV and the adoption of the new standards next year here in the states... MSExchange couldn't play nicely with the OS and the Kernel and was moved to 64 bit, are other apps following?-PaulPrimary RigLiquid CooledIntel C2D E6600 @3.2 gigsAsus P5N32SLI-Plus2 gigs Corsair XMS PC6400 4 4 4 12 @810Dual OC'd XFX 8800GTX @ 2 gigs24 inch Widescreen LCD 16XAA/16XAFDual 19 inch LCD'sRaid-0+1PCPower and Cooling 1k Quad SLIhttp://home.comcast.net/~psolk/3monitorsa.htmlBackup RigAMD 4000 San Diego @ 2.72 Gigs Kingston Corsair XMS CL2XFX 7900 GTX Raid-0