Sign in to follow this  
Guest Pilot533

Almost had IT!!!!!

Recommended Posts

Ive been trying to complete AAL2434 from dfw to mia for the last two and a half weeks now. Had a ram/mobo failure, now that thats fixed Ive got more problems. I had fsx running smooth as silk with everything turned all the way up except for some traffic settings, water, and lightbloom. I was 20 nm away from runway 8R, SO CLOSE!! Fsx has run out of memory please turn down your settings. The page file was at 1.9gb. (Geeze fsx really uses 4gb of ram??) My friend told me to get vista 64bit because once a 32 bit os reaches over 2gb or ram usage the app crashes. How could I have not heard of this before? Is this really true? And will vista hurt my performance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Thanks Ill try that. But does it work on a system with only 2gb of ram? And would going to 64 bit vista help at all, because fsx isnt a 64 bit app? And are there any problems with running fsx in 64 bit vista?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hear about your almost completed trip, it's always a bummer when that happen.Regarding Vista 64bit, I'm running FSX and FS9 on a Vista 64Bit rig with 4 Gig RAM, and have no problems at all. About the performance issue I can't give you any answer, but I'm satisfied with the performance on my rig.And my Vista 64bit is also very stable, I don't think I have had an OS that have been that stable without any SP's, maybe XP 64 bit.As you can see I have been turned over to the 64bit side of computing :DRegards Audun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will it work with 2Gb of RAM ? Yes, the OOM error is a problem of addressable space - notthe amount of physical space you have. 2G is just fine.and 64 bit Vista ? There is a "work-around" with all 32 bit compiled programs (likeFS9 and FSX) that allows them to run on 64 bit OS. Ie theyrun (mostly) but...1) You only get 4 Gb for the application not the theoretical 1.8e19bytes of space that a 64 bit address allows.2) Lots of drivers don't work on 64 bit XP/vista, so make sure yourjoy-stick and other hardware really do have drivers for 64bit Vista before you go his route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats for the help, just tried fsx with that new boot.ini file, nothing, the same thing happened. It gave me the error and closed. Then the fsx error dialog popped up, it said tcas2v7 was the failing module. Is a 64 bit os a guaranteed way of fixing these oom issues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like you are running into the 'Out of Memory' problem. Help is on the way from MS. Here's the latest from an earlier post in the hardware section:***********************Anandtech has followed up on this issue:http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=3060To review, 32 bit operating systems have a maximum of 4GB of Virtual Memory space available. The lower 2 GB of Virtual Memory are for the programs. The upper 2 GBs of Virtual Memory reserved for the operating system. --- This has nothing to do with the amount of physical memory that is installed in the computer. This strictly a software issue. --- Vista is currently using much more of the lower 2 GB of virtual memory space than XP for game play. This has made Vista prone to chronic OOM game crashes. XP is a lot Less vulnerable to the dreaded Out Of Memory (OOM) crash than Vista. Some Vista users have set a "3 Gig Switch" to force the system to use 3GB for the programs and leave only 1 GB for the system.If a player is currently using that 3GB switch, it might be worthwhile to research this a bit further. That 3GB switch is taking from Peter to give to Paul. At some point, Peter is gonna want his back. This might be a good opportunity to unhook that switch, because . . .Microsoft has created a HOT FIX to address this issue. Right now, it's only available directly from MS. In 2 weeks, we will be able to download it from here:http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940105For everyone else, it will be part of Vista's SP1.The issue appears to be this:With the introduction of Vista, DX9 software now (more aggressively?) creates a duplicate memory map of the video card's physical memory into the lower 2 GBs of virtual memory space. This is not a copy of the "book," just a copy of its "table of contents." This was set up to prevent crashes. This duplicate map could be quickly accessed to allow a quick recovery from a video ram error.Vista generally works fine, as long as there is plenty of room in the virtual space below 2GB. But now that programs need more of this 2GB space (and giant Vcard memory requirements want their share too, for backup), there isn't enough room for both video backup and program allocations to "play nice." When the 2 GB of Virtual ( - - - NOT real, Physical Ram) usage hits the 2GB stop, FSX crashes with the dreaded "OOM" message.(The best I could derive . . . talk about a Tower of Babble) DX10 has a better method of dealing with video backup and will be less prone to OOM problems. But in the meantime, it seems MS is taking Vista back to a more XP like Virtual memory configuration with this Hot Fix. Video memory backup will be handled without chewing up so much of the lower 2GB's space. This will leave more room for FSX . . . and hopefully fewer OOM crashes . . . without having to play with that scary 3GB switch.We'll see. But this is still, only an interim measure. This is going to be a painful transition period. We need to get to that 64 bit operation system. It will have 8TB (yes 8,000GB) of Virtual memory "playground" the kids to romp in. That ought to keep 'em safe and happy . . . for a while, anyway.Sam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, im not using vista, where does this leave me? And would getting a 64 bit os fix everything, even though fsx isnt 64 bit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then this is something else. Newer games and Vcard drivers will overuse their maximum 2 gig virtual memory allocation. When this happens, the program will just crash and you will get a out of memory message (OOM). This does not mean that you have run out of physical memory. Nor does it mean that you have run out of page file memory. Sadly, page file is also (incorrectly) called Virtual Memory. Virtual Memory is something entirely different. This causes a lot of confusion. Contrary to pop advise, 2 gig is NoT enough to allow programs all the ram they want. For serious gamers, 3 gigs should be considered the minimum for 32 bit op systems. 4 gigs are better. However: 1) FSX should throttle physical ram usage to deal with any system's physical ram installation. (Maybe it will get even better at it in SP2!)2) Increased physical ram will NoT resolve Virtual Memory OOM crashes. VM-OOM crashes occur entirely independently of a system's physical or pagefile ram loads. It appears your situation is not related to either physical ram or Virtual OOM issues. That leave only a couple of things. 1) Go back into your pagefile settings and make sure it is set to 'system controlled" (or words to that effect). 2) Then make sure you have at least 20-30 gigs of HD space free.Who knows though. Just a couple of ideas. The 64 bit op system will solve some problems. However at this point in its development, it might create just as many more. We're still in that painful transition period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this a problem with memory addressing, where a 32 bit os wont allow an app to use a certain amount of memory because of its own limitations, virtual or not? Thats why I though a 64 bit os would fix the problem because it allows 1tb of addressing space as apposed to 3gb divided amongst the system threads and fsx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I havent been paying much attention to vista 64, what are the issues people have been experiencing with vista 64 and fsx? I have heard good and bad with vista.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Thats for the help, just tried fsx with that new boot.ini>file, nothing, the same thing happened. It gave me the error>and closed. Then the fsx error dialog popped up, it said>tcas2v7 was the failing module. Is a 64 bit os a guaranteed>way of fixing these oom issues?Hi,Yes, 2GB should be enough with the recommendations. You mentioned that you edited the boot.ini file, but did you tag the fsx.exe file to use more 2GB of virtual-ram? Follow the advise to edit this file here:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...topic_id=399256

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep did that, used your post as a reference. Just got a crash from living water.dll out of the blue also jsut now. So are there any issues with fsx using vista 64?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry man, but plenty of us have/are running FSXsp1, ASX, Ult-TerrainX, and LDS767sp1 with only 2GB of RAM in WinXPsp2(32bit). In fact, having run WinXP(64-bit) for years with FS9, I chose this time to go with 2GB or RAM and WinXP(32-bit). I later added 2GB more (now total of 4GB) even though 32-bit OS's will only recognize the first 3GB (matching RAM was on sale). I chose matched pairs that when/if I decide to go 64-bit again (probably Vista, well after SP1), I'm ready with a full 4GB. If I were you, I'd consider another GB or two of RAM before a 64-bit OS at this point.Also, here is another point mentioned specifically by Phil Taylor. Not only is the amount of virtual-address space at issue, but also that a continious block of this space is required. You are stopping all your uncessary background processes and services before launching FSX, right? This is necessary for tools such as FSAutostart to then defrag a continuous block/chunk of virtual-address space. In fact, I would try this first if you haven't already. Use FSAutostart to minimize the number of services and processes, defrag the RAM and then launch FSX with a known OOM scenario, see if it makes a difference.I still think there maybe something wrong/different with your rig and I bet my bottom dollar, switching to 64bit is not the miracle cure you're looking for. PSU spikes, Vdroop, OS install, bad-sectors, virus/malware; something is choking somewhere. I assume you've also run Orthos for stability tests and Memtest for RAM test as well? Run both of these for 12 hours each, at least. I see you're overclocking as well; I assume you're aware, the FS is one of the most demanding applications known. Even if Orthos and Memtest check out, you could still have overclocking affecting FSX. Maybe clock it down and loosen the RAM timings to test. I personally would reduce the clock until the problem is solved then crank it back up.Have you used ProcMon (Sysinternals) to see if you're getting a bunch of bad texture-calls looking for files that don't exist in expected locations? That plagued the FS9/PMDG/Ult-Terr. guys for the past two years. That scenario is what lead to the discovery of the root cause of OOM crashes (especially landing on final) and the fact that it took 6 months of tedious work to realize it wasn't directly related to the amount of physical RAM or SWAP settings.At this point, if you feel your box and OS are solid, I personnaly would reinstall FSX, and a heavy (feature rich) aircart such as the LDS767 and crank up the FSX settings checking for stability with only these two pieces. Then start adding back add-ons to see if any particular one is your culprit.FWIW, in the past year, I have run FS9 and FSX on WinXP-64, Vista-U-32, and WinXPsp2-32 and between OS stability, driver and product features, and FS compatibility with all add-ons running simultaniously, I have dropped back to, and continue to use WinXPsp2-32 bit for the moment along with 3GB of RAM.Just my simple advise, hope something here helps....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright Ill try fs autostart, I didint use it because it never made a difference for me with fs9, maybe fsx will be different. Ive tested my psu wioth a multimeter, the psu is fine. No viruses. Memtest for 10 hours, occt for 12, no problems. Ill try procmon and autostart and see if it works. I have a copy of vista 64 around though, so its not a money problem, would u say its a bad idea to switch over to it? Since the problem is with virtual address space wouldnt the 64 bit os's capability to have 8tb of space be worth the upgrade to 64 bit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Since the problem is with virtual address space wouldnt the 64>bit os's capability to have 8tb of space be worth the upgrade>to 64 bit?No, the WinXP64-bit OS gave me plenty of OOM errors in FS9 as well. The 2GB virtual-address (user-space) limit is still a wall as far as applications such as FSX are concerned because FSX is a 32-bit app that runs in the WoW subsystem of WinXP64. This issue will not be circumvented until ACES releases a "True" 64-bit version of FS. Phil Taylor has indicated that they monitor the business aspects of developing such a version routinely but to date, the market does not support such an effort.Many here theorize that FS11 or FS12 may have such an advance, but not FSX sp-something. Now Phil is looking at modifying the FSX.exe for us to by default, fix the 3GB limit in the executable so we don't have to do it our selves. Speculation is that this will be in FSX-SP2. Now to be fare, the D3D fix which arrived in the June'07 DirectX update was not available back when I was running FS9 on WinXP_64. So, although we had tried these recommendations back then, it wouldn't have worked in sort, becuase of D3D.The only thing WinXP64 did noticeabley for me was improve drive-performance and access times becuase the drivers for the hardware were true 64-bit wide pipes. But, at the same time, the video drivers were always behind their 32-bit counterpart as far as stability and performance were concerned. Give and take, that is what Flightsiming is all about; a balanced aproach to your goals, just like overclocking. Get the 32-bit OOM problems fixed first. Then worry about the slightest tweaks, including the better OS for peak performance Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all of your help, sorry if I asked this question before, but would adding an extra 2gb of ram help here, since this is a virtual memory issue, if the system had more physical ram to work with it would need less virtual memory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding more physical ram won't help the V-memory issue, but you will notice higher ram loads during gameplay. You will consistently see loads over 2 gigs, even in every day use. It seems that FSX's appetite for ram is not fully satisfied with a 2 gig system. You will notice FSX will use significantly more ram with 3-4 gigs installed. Once again though, this will not help the V-memory issue. Consider the V-memory function to be like the op system's forecast of how much ram it thinks it will need in the future. The program and the op system are in constant communication and deciding future requirements. The current physical ram load is occurring entirely separate from this forecasting. The Vcard's driver uses this 2 gig of V-memory space too. It keeps an image of its current ram load here in case of Vram corruption. In the case of Vista, it seems these two are oblivious that they are sharing a finite 2 determinate. These bozos just keep addin' in numbers till the total exceeds 2 gigs. Then bammm. The program shuts down with an OOM message. How could this be? Our forefathers considered it ridiculous that anything would ever even approach this 2 gig limit. This is what the MS patch is addressing. We will say the same thing about the 64bit systems 8TB limit. Again, this is not 'using' ram or harddrive space . . . or anything. V-memory is just "adding-up" a row of numbers. How much hardware resource would this take? Maybe a couple of bits of physical ram? Not much. Physical memory and V-memory are entirely separate issues. Those Anandtech articles are pretty good, worth a read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, i understand that physical ram and vm are different, but I just thought that with extra ram installed the system would have to use less of a paging file and then maybe less oom's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also consider that Page file and Virtual Memory are different functions too. The system is misusing its VM function and this VM abuse is causing the OOM crashes. VM has nothing to do with the system's use of Page file. If setup correctly, the Page file function is working just fine. Page file will not cause this type of OOM fault. This is a VM problem. Make sure your page file is setup correctly: Go into your page file setup area and make sure it is set to "System controlled" or words to that effect. If the system is allowed to control the page file size, it will automatically increase the size as required. All you have to do as make sure you always have enough HD space for it to use.So to answer your question: Yes. Additional physical ram will reduce the page file size. However, if you have set the page file up as described, the page file will not cause OOM faults.This VM situation is about a hard limitation of any 32 bit operating system. The "3gig-switch" tweak is one workaround, but so is the MS patch. I'd say, "Go with the MS patch!" Run CHKDSK (Computer > C: > Properties > Tools > Error Checking). Almost sounds like a corrupted file or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I thought vm was the page file. No wonder I was confused. The ms patch isnt released yet though right? And would 64 bit help if I were to enable the fsx.exe to use more vm like in jordinal's post using cff explorer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mike,I use Vista x64. As far as I am concerned it runs fine. A few small FS related issues... you cannot run 16 bit apps on x64, so if you use the Reality XP garmin units, as supplied with the DF Baron amongst others then you won't be able to use them.Also hardware drivers. In reality I haven't come across any problems with this, as most manufacturers have x64 drivers now. A good example is the Saitek x52 pro that i just got, I had to go to the website and download drivers and beta drivers for it, but it works. If you own older hardware or stuff from obscure manufacturers then this could be an issue.Every 5 years or so I do an OS upgrade and decided on x64 because I wanted to stay "future proof" for longer... Whatever issues people were having, these are being ironed out and once vista SP1 comes along then I am sure it will be even better.I imagine in 2 or 3 years the minimum spec will be 8 core cpus with 4gb, and we will all be there with our smooth as silk FSX complaining that FS11 runs terribly... and so the world goes round!!!Cheers,Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha yep thats pretty much how I figure things will turn out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this