>Why in the world would I want to cut back on memory???????>The nvidea is a card. Because 2 x 256 with 2x 1mb is NOT a good memory configuration.i'll tell you what, the first thing I would do, is pull out the two 256mb sticks.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Listen to this; My fsx---default== NO problems fps 20-30 no bluries smooth as silkAs soon as I install acceleration error messages lockups ctds etcUninstall acceleration Back to no problems and smooth againAnd you are telling me my problem is caused by too much memory!!!???:-hmmm :-hmmm

Not to mention the fact that Windows XP, as a 32-bit operating system ... cannot address more than 2Gb of RAM.

Don,What brand of DDR do you have?Was it from Gateway?I use 2GB of RAM and that's plenty.I also noticed 4+ GB of page file. Is that excessive?Scratch the last line- I have nearly 4GB myself.I wonder if the extra autogen batching in Accel. could be too much stress on that uneven RAM setup?Paul

Well you guys seem to be pretty determined that I have too much memory so maybe I should try it.

Acceleration enabled the /3GB switch, and I susptect this is the problem. Before the program would never try to acces that range of addresses, now it is able to do so.Just my opinion, Jan

If you havent tweaked the OS boot, then FSX-Accel/SP2 doesnt use the above 2G range. You also need at least the Aug 07 DX runtime, since it has a fix for D3DX.

with the right chipset and BIOS, XP can "see" more than 2G of RAM. without the right chipset, no hope as that is a physical hw limitation.the base size of the process address space is 2G in any 32-bit OS, but with the /3G switch in the OS boot and with the app marked LARGEADDRESSAWARE, the app can use process address space ( virtual memory ) above the 2G line. Accel/SP2 is marked witht the LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag, and with the OS boot tweak will use up to 2.5G of process address space. in this case, your page file size needs to be larger too. certainly a page file size >4G is good, and <4G might not be enough.the difference between physical ram and virtual memory ( process address space ) are important in these discussions.

I haven't tweaked anything. I don't know what you mean when you say Aug 07 runtime. Where do I get that?Now that I have your atttention Phil, do you think I would be better off downloading sp2 when it is available? and forget acceleration since I can't seem to get it to work. I hope you have read this thread from the beginning.

DirectX has regularly published runtime and SDK updates. My blog post and the readme for Accel indicate the August 07 DirectX runtime update is required. Entering "August 2007 DirectX runtime" into any search engine will get you hits, as will entering the same on microsoft.com.while there are some rendering bugs around transparency in old models, Acceleration is certainly working for many people. Given SP2 is a subset of Acceleration it is unclear to me what, if any, different effect it is going to have on the problematical configurations.

>>And you are telling me my problem is caused by too much>memory!!!???:-hmmm :-hmmm Uh, no, that's not what I said at all.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

-SNIP->while there are some rendering bugs around transparency in old>models, Acceleration is certainly working for many people.-SNIP-Hummm...THAT is an understatement if ever there was one....and "working" can be defined on many levels...One plus I do note is that my 50 mile contrails are now visablefrom below as I cruise along below 20K and watch my AI travelingthe busy routes above me. Paul ( seeing "acceleration induced" transparency issues on MOST of my 60 imported FS9 aircraft...mainly props but others are totally PORKED! )

In large part, this problem with legacy aircraft really serves to show many of them are barely warmed over FS9 aircraft, meaning the minimum port from FS8 to FS9. And why backwards compatibility is such a boat anchor. At some point, you just need to decide. Happy with old content, stay with FS9. Happy with new content ( or soon to be released new content ), go with FSX.If the community followed that rule, I think all would be flying and having fun a lot more. And isnt that the goal?

>In large part, this problem with legacy aircraft really>serves to show many of them are barely warmed over FS9>aircraft, meaning the minimum port from FS8 to FS9. >>And why backwards compatibility is such a boat anchor. >>At some point, you just need to decide. Happy with old>content, stay with FS9. Happy with new content ( or soon to be>released new content ), go with FSX.>>If the community followed that rule, I think all would be>flying and having fun a lot more. And isnt that the goal?Once there is ENOUGH "new content" then I'll happily followalong but until the day that there is as many FSX-compatibleaddons for FSX as I have FS9 imports, I'll maintain my dualFS9 installations and my FSX-Sp1 and FSX-SP2 installations,even though that means more than 80GB of drive space spread aroundon my system for those four installs and that's with the 2 FS9installs sharing scenery and addon scenery directories and FSXSP1 and SP2 sharing common addon scenery and AI Aircraft directories.Housekeeping can be a bit of a chore with this approach. Paul

I now have august 2007 dx installed. Do you think I should try acceleration again now?