Ultor

As I understood your post you apparently were puzzled why OOM does not happen with one plane while happens with others. My point is that now every high-end graphic add-ons combination can cause OOM in FSX for reasons I mentioned above.

I suppose you cannot understand one simple fact, severniae: FSX as an older 32-bit application cannot handle all these graphically intense add-ons now developed for this sim. However people still want better and better graphics in FSX so developers have to satisfy their wishes. At the end we hit a catch 22 because all recent graphically rich UHD add-ons are simply outside FSX engine reach (it can effectively handle 1024 textures at most!) but no other flight-sim program exists as a viable alternative (excluding X-plane 10)...

AIFAK in A320X there will be no necessity to model dozens of "knobs-rich" 2D panels.

I mean this: http://forums.flightsimlabs.com/index.php?/topic/4552-having-out-of-memory-errors-oom-try-this/page__st__120#entry25561

Mosteen tried to run Concorde-X at 2560x1600x32 resolution while FSX was "natively" supposed to run at resolutions around 1024x768x32...

So Concorde-X must be flown in 16 bit color depth...for ages I did not have to enable 16-bit colors in my FSX. Maybe the reason is large number of 2D panels opened all the time constantly "eat" RAM at UHD resolutions with 32 bit color palette? It's too bad because I noticed FSX looks exceptionally good in 1080p at 60'' TV screen! I personally fly only off-line over Europe so AI traffic would be next problem for me with Concorde-X... Anyway Concorde-X seems to be too big for FSX! :lol:

Unfortunately I have also PMDG 744X and MD-11X installed. It can reach 0.6 Ma so not as slow as Cessna or Cube.

Here you are: http://forums.flightsimlabs.com/index.php?/topic/3351-bug-report-fsl-dlls-interfere-with-pmdg-random-failures/ That's a pity because Concorde-X would be very valuable add-on to my airliners collection due to old-school INS navigation system and supersonic speed. However this product was not polished for three years...

That's why I finally chose A2A B377 "Stratocruiser" as my next airliner. At least this one is very light on FPS. Besides I figured out that Concorde-X installation may corrupt PMDG planes' failure generation systems.

Unfortunately Aerosoft can grant you money back but only if purchased DVD box in unsealed which is pointless in this situation. Are "reduced textures" also VC cockpit and 2D panels textures? Because FSX is an old game with 20 years old heritage code. When this code was written nobody imagined UHDT textures, 8 cores CPUs, 6 GB VRAM graphic cards etc. Simply FSX code struck its end and maybe that is why Microsoft fired ACES studio because new FS would have to be coded from scratch making it very costly to develop.

Well, buying Concorde X is a bit risky move from "OOM standpoint"... :wacko:

OK, so assuming I fly in VC with help of virtual flight engineer there is no necessity to pop-up so many 2D panels which crash FSX memory management?

OK, but why dozens of 2D panels are needed in Concorde X? Is its VC cockpit so inaccurate or non-operational it is impossible to operate switches, gauges etc.directly in VC?

I am especially worried because I still use 32-bit Windows version for some other reasons with 4 GB of RAM. That's why I am not sure if Concorde X will run on my rig at all. Anyway thanks for your input. In the airliners area I consider three products to be able to fully diverse my flying experience: FSLabs Concorde X, A2A Boeing 377 and jet from pre-FMS era like Coolsky DC-9-30 or MilWiz Boeing 737-200.

Right! Actually you can try both products as they are sold by Flight1 on-line store. :lol: Yet I am now personally at crossroads in what direction upgrade/build my FSX add-ons (not only aircrafts) collection. After choosing right path I'll consider next purchases.