Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Art_P

Out of Memory Error Fixed?

Recommended Posts

Have any Vista 32 bit users noticed an improvement regarding OOM errors in FSX after installing Windows Vista SP1? I read that a fix for this was included in the update, but I have had freeze-up problems following the SP1 installation (have not determined that SP1 caused them). Since restoring my computer, I havn't yet reinstalled SP1.ArtBiostar TF560-A2+, Athlon 64X2-6000+, 4GB RAM, Geforce 8800GTS-320MB, 500W PSU, 250GB HD, FSX (SP1-SP2), Vista Home Premium 32 bit, CH Yoke & Pedals, 22" WS LCD monitor

Share this post


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

SP1 does not fix it.SP2 does if you also do the BCDEDIT 3GB fix. However there is also a file (read Windows Update) that needs to be installed. This update does not happen automatically and requires a download from their site.Since I did all that I have never had a OOM error.John Veldthuishttp://www.virtualpilots.org/signatures/vpa475.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. FSX's SP2 enabled the program to use greater than the 2Gs of this virtual memory stuff that causes the OOMs. (Not physical memory). However you must now - separately - enable the op system to use greater than the 2Gs of this virtual memory stuff that causes the OOMs with that BCDEDIT 3G switch-fix ((Again, Not physical memory).Vista's SP1 did Not enable this BCDEDIT 3G switch-fix. Ya gotta do that yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has Vista SP2 been released?Please be specific or many people will be confused. I assume you meant FSX SP2? Does the user need a combination of Vista SP1 and FSX SP2 for the BCEdit 3GB fix?Is the BCEdit 3GB fix only necessary for XP SP2? I thought Vista was already 3-4 GB aware out of the box?Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Has Vista SP2 been released?>>Please be specific or many people will be confused. >>I assume you meant FSX SP2? Does the user need a combination>of Vista SP1 and FSX SP2 for the BCEdit 3GB fix?He meant FSX SP2. If you are running FSX SP2, FSX.exe is already large address aware. If you are not running FSX SP2 then you need to make the FSX executeable large address aware. If you are running on a 32bit install of Vista or of XP you will need to make the OS aware of greater than 2GB (the 3GB fix as you mention).>Is the BCEdit 3GB fix only necessary for XP SP2? I thought>Vista was already 3-4 GB aware out of the box?It is needed if your OS is 32bit. So if you are running XP32 or Vista32 you will need to use the "3GB" fix as well as ensure you are running FSX SP2 or if not you make your FSX.exe large address aware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I am now have this issue with 3rd party aircraft. Can someone walk me through the process of how to apply the switch? I am running Vista 32.Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>SP1 does not fix it.>>SP2 does if you also do the BCDEDIT 3GB fix. However there is>also a file (read Windows Update) that needs to be installed.>This update does not happen automatically and requires a>download from their site.My reference was to Vista SP1. There was an earlier thread on this forum, which I cannot find now, that gave a link to a Microsoft hotfix for this issue, but the hotfix said it was included in Vista SP1. Can you elaborate on the "download" mentioned?For he who asked, this is quoted from instructions by others:The 3GB RAM mode can be enabled by the command:bcdedit /set IncreaseUserVa 3072and disabled by the command:bcdedit /deletevalue IncreaseUserVaRun this command from a command window with Administrator priviledge - i.e. (in the Start menu) type CMD and press Ctrl+Shift+Enter, or select "Command Prompt" (Accessories), right-click on it and choose "Run as Administrator". Restart your PC after this change.ArtBiostar TF560-A2+, Athlon 64X2-6000+, 4GB RAM, Geforce 8800GTS-320MB, 500W PSU, 250GB HD, FSX (SP1-SP2), Vista Home Premium 32 bit, CH Yoke & Pedals, 22" WS LCD monitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found this to be a 99% good fix for my occasional OOM issues in Vista 32 (with 4GB of RAM).I've had just one OOM crash since - and to be fair I was sitting at Aerosoft's Heathrow, watching airport traffic from the pit of the PMDG 747, and if that combo isn't going to blow things up, not much is. And it's only happened once, though I've twinned EGLL & PMDG more than once. So I'm a happy camper with the fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a link to what apparently I saw earlier:http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940105This update, included in Vista SP1, appears to apply only to virtual address space used for support of graphics cards with 512MB of memory. I guess the 3GB switch is still needed for Vista 32 bit users to handle the 2GB virtual address space limit (if you have 4GB physical memory).ArtBiostar TF560-A2+, Athlon 64X2-6000+, 4GB RAM, Geforce 8800GTS-320MB, 500W PSU, 250GB HD, FSX (SP1-SP2), Vista Home Premium 32 bit, CH Yoke & Pedals, 22" WS LCD monitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That KB addresses a bug in Vista that can cause virtual address space to be used up faster than normal.Virtual address space has nothing to do with physical memory. Virtual address space has to do with how Windows manages memory and processes. This is true for both Vista and XP.By default, a 32-bit memory pointer can "reach" or address 4G; that is 2 to the 32nd power. That is the maximum "process address space" for a 32-bit process.Windows decides each 32-bit process in a 32-bit OS ( Vista or XP ) gets 2G of the 4G available as "space". The OS uses the other 2G. It is a democratic decision; you get half, I get half. The OS uses its half to map in the graphics card memory, the BIOS, any other device drivers, and the internal tables of the OS itself that it uses to track everything it does.FSX itself can get very close to 2G, depending on the slider settings. With complex add-ons, it can go over. This can be a problem with any open-ended application like FSX that can be modified by the end user.The /3G switch relaxes the virtual process address space mapping to allow the process to "reach" or address up to 3G of the 4G of virtual address space for the process. That tends to "squeeze" the OS out of room, so I have been suggesting 2560 as a max userva setting.The /3G switch requires both the application and the OS to be marked. The application to state that it is /3G aware, the OS to look for said /3G applications and grant their wish.FSX-SP2 and FSX-Acceleration are marked with the /3G switch for applications. To complete the job, the OS must be marked. Bill does a great job explaining how to use the /3G switch for the OS in his thread http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=438071&page=I would not recommend doing this for any previous version of FSX since there was an issue with a DirectX component that was only fixed in the FSX-SP2/Acceleration timeframe; that component can cause crashes if /3G is enabled when using it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess what? While you're here, look at this. The op system is Vista64 with 4Gs of physical memory installed. This was intentional and I really had to work at it (PMDG 744X + Aerosoft's EDDF), but here it is. A 64bit op system/32bit program OOM at the 4G VS limit. http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/191395.jpgAlso, it's interesting to note the op system Must have been being addressing Above 4G. It was running fine with FSX at 3.9G/VS. I expect .1G might be a bit tight for any modern op system. Also notice WS Private (physical memory) still had plenty of room with FSX at 'only' a 3.3G physical ram load.The point is, this is simply a preview of things to come. Aerosoft quality scenery will become more the norm. Detailed flight models are getting better and more demanded by the day. This is FS11's environment. This all argues that the next incarnation of FS need to be a 64 bit program. PMDG testing is fighting OOMs at every turn. A 32Bit op system (that does NoT have the switch enabled) coupled with 4Gs of physical ram installed will coax the program to try to use > 2Gs of physical ram. VS Always runs above physical ram usage. This sets up a chronic OOM situation where VS consistently predicts physical ram usage at > than 2Gs and OOMs. I always run Process Explorer on a 2nd monitor and I am Always above 2Gs of VS running the PMDG airplane. If you feed it, it will eat. This would OOM a 32bit system plus 4Gs physical but without the op system switch, chronically. We pretty much have it figured out, but who's gonna tell the rest of the world they've gotta tweak their kernal to get FS11 to run at all.http://www.anandtech.com/gadgets/showdoc.aspx?i=3034&p=4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The /3G switch relaxes the virtual process address space>mapping to allow the process to "reach" or address up to 3G of>the 4G of virtual address space for the process. That tends>to "squeeze" the OS out of room, so I have been suggesting>2560 as a max userva setting.Thanks for monitoring this Phil. I will abide.ArtBiostar TF560-A2+, Athlon 64X2-6000+, 4GB RAM, Geforce 8800GTS-320MB, 500W PSU, 250GB HD, FSX (SP1-SP2), Vista Home Premium 32 bit, CH Yoke & Pedals, 22" WS LCD monitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>This all argues that the next incarnation of FS need to be a>64 bit program.While we will all agree that a 64 bit OS running a 64 bit FS offers undeniable advantages, I'm not sure if there will enough users running a 64 bit OS in the next few years that would allow MS to make the next FS 64 bit. But if MS did decide to release FS11 as a 64 bit program, I would definitely make the necessary adjustments and join the 64 bit OS crowd. I'm just not sure how many others would be willing to do the same.By the way Sam, are you running a multi-monitor setup?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're on the edge as it is. Any significant improvement will need the additional functionality of increased memory loading capability. FSX is the end of the 32bit road . . . actually, it's beyond the end. Having to tweak the op systems kernal? Don't consider this normal for a moment. This is bazarre.Yea, I'm spoiled. I run 2 Vcards driving a 42 and 2, 19s. I've run the sim on the 19 and 42 interchangeably. There is no visual or FPS difference. I tried the The GTX260. No improvement for FS at all. Also my 2nd Vcard and Vista's sleep function wasn't supported. It went back. A plain ol 8800GT provides identical performance, plus I get sleep and my 3rd monitor back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the only issue is upgrading the OS, I'd do it in a second if the the new FS version required/proved worthy of it. Given recent events in the life of FS however, I doubt that an OS upgrade will be all that's necessary to make it run at its' best.Regards,Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites