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.

Anyway I am struck looking for decent older airliner. Several CS products are buggy, Milviz 737 is at this point immature. No good choices...I think maybe Coolsky DC-9-30 has fully working autopilot and navigation equipment amongst FSX airliners from pre-FMS era?

I heard three years ago when this plane was released, there was an out of memory bug quite often present. However since that time two service packs were released so I wonder if Concorde-X's memory management within FSX improved now?

Another at first interesting product after sad CS saga with older AP still not fully-functional. That's sad... :unsure:

I think exactly as ailchim! I also have GEX+UTX covering Europe and I fly my airliners only over Europe so I don't need any global scenery upgrades. I would rather suggest if you look for places with immerse VFR flying impressions buy local ORBX sceneries (AU, NA, UK) and you will be much more satisfied flying slow-movers there than purchasing their expensive and worse global scenery add-ons.

My first impressions after "initial approach" to Maddog 2010 Pro: Great plane that gives me very deep and very advanced systems simulation! Besides I like cockpit organization and interaction with avionics, exactly as in MD-11. What a pity Douglas does not make airliners anymore... B)

Well, so far I have configured my Maddog to run properly with FSX and third party add-ons. Tomorrow I'll start to learn this plane...

LSH announced they may create Maddog for FSX in the future but this is not certain at the moment. If so, I think there would be some lower upgrade price for current Maddog owners, so my purchase may also be a very good investment. As for Majestic's plane I think it is unique with flight engine placed outside FSX. However this has some important drawbacks like lack of some aerodynamic effects during flight and bad compatibility with many third party add-ons. All in all I consider MS Dash-8 as not mature plane for that moment. I look at it second time when version 1.1 comes because its seems all important bugs will be sorted out and all promised features will be added then.

I fly only over Europe too and all my sceneries are European now but I think aircraft choice vs present reality is not so important. Otherwise flying most wonderful A2A products would be pointless. Yet there are a dozen or so MD-82 in SAS & Meridiana fleets and among East-European low-cost carriers, AFAIK. Besides transcontinental flights are not interesting to me because they are a bit boring. Therefore I also fly 747 and MD-11 over Europe because I like to start and finish flight during one FSX session.

Agree! "Graphical point of view" is now very common amongst FS enthusiasts. However I don't see it that way. I looked at my airliners fleet and Maddog 2010 Pro was the most valuable add-on to it. I have several advanced modern Boeing aircrafts and I think it's enough to me for now. Unfortunately similar advanced Airbus airliners as well as good older airliners still are not available because current Aerosoft and CS products are not top notch. So I went for Maddog Pro which offers me: - different design from Boeing planes and chronologically very complementary to next MDD product in my fleet, PMDG MD-11X/F - quite large cockpit avionics selection from full analog instrument panel to semi-EFIS one with different FMC systems - several systems simulation I cannot find in any other FSX plane - unique malfunction evens as engine damage due to overheating after quick second startup - multicrew capability Of course the downsides are its outdated 3D cockpit graphics and non-native FSX design but all above cost me only 34 EUR while for similar features found in Majestic Dash-8 Pro I will have to pay more than twofold of that. That's why my choice was clear! Yes, it's true MD-8x planes are now shrinking in numbers among large carriers but several hundreds of them still fly mainly in the US (161 in American Airlines, 117 in Delta together with 17 DC-9!).

While they are very different planes I don't think so.