Out of Memory???????

[SgtMav316]

  I recently bought a new hard drive for my pc and I am running on Windows7 Ultimate. i reinstalled all of my FSDT sceneries (have em all) and my pc keeps crashing when I am on approach or trying to lift off from any of these sceneries. I run the default flight and I have no problems! What setting should I be decreasing in order to stop the crashes? I have already tried scenery detail and complexity decreases!

[Hnla]

As for any other thread about OOM, which has been discussed too many times, it's NEVER, EVER a problem of a single item, the problem is the sum of EVERYTHING you install, which can't surpass 4GB in total, read the explanation here, there's nothing really much to add:

http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=9017.msg72396#msg72396

It's about JFK but, since the problem is not any single scenery, it applies to any other configuration out there.

Before the PMDG 777 was released, the most memory-hungry airplane out there was the PMDG 737 NGX so, most users flying with that airplane struggled to have all their installed add-ons to fit into the absolute, not extendable, 4GB memory limit.

The 777 seems to take about 200MB MORE than then 737 NGX.

This means, if you are flying that one, and your configuration was carefully optimized to fly everywhere with the 737 NGX, if you go to the SAME airport with the 777, you WILL get an OOM if you were already close to the limit, and you'll be mislead thinking "it's the scenery", when of course it isn't, since the scenery surely hasn't changed.

As discussed in too many other thread, since those 4GB are not negotiable, not unless we'll have a sim written in 64 bit code, regardless how high your system specs are, there's no way you can use more than 4GB for FSX.

This means, you must either:

- Lower your settings.

- Use DX10.

- Use 2048 or 1024 texture size.

- Don't use so many add-ons at the same time.

Any of these is valid so, you have options.

[Frank Lindberg]

Amen... Hnla is absolute correct 

[Bruce Hamilton]

You can also invest in a higher end graphics card, and take some of the load off your CPU.  You'll still have that four gigabyte limitation of FSX being a 32 bit program, but you'll crash less often because your GPU is doing more of the work.

[SgtMav316]

i am in total agreeance with you on the aircraft demanding too much memory. I had my simulation running at 1360x768  , I noticed when I dropped it to 1280x768 the OOMs stopped. Right now I was test flying a Flythere EMB-135XR from Heathrow to London City. Taking off no OOM warning (there is a distinct warning chime that I hear just before the sim crashes). As I approach London City airport I start hearing the OOM chime going off (Usually 5 of those in rapid sessions=Sim Crash). Couldnt understand why it was occuring.

I read your responses and decided to look at the res setting on my pc and for some reason it went back up to 1360x768 where I was having the OOM message. I returned it back to 1280x768 again will see if it continues! When I dropped the resolution to 1280x768 on my last session I did notice faster frame rates and no OOM warnings. This kind of bites if you know what I mean. Why is it that developers are pushing the envelope with all of these new products.

Yes FSX can display the airports in high detail and aircrafts in high detail, but when they go beyond the 4gb limit that just makes users frustrated to keep getting the OOM messages and warnings when all we want to do is enjoy what we paid for! Most developers release airport sceneries with too much unnecessary surrounding houses and bldgs around the airport that eat up a lot of memory! So to resolve it they develop patches that allow you to edit out the surrounding products.

I wish I had the PMDG 777, I fly the Capt Sim 777 and it too has the same issue when used at certain airports with OOM killing the sim! Luckily 1280x768 still looks good on my pc and when displayed across my projector so I am not complaining about it! But as we move forward we still get products that exceed the FSX limitations soon we'll have to play FSX like the original FS Flight simulator looking at cubes! Wish developers would release the specs they are using on their PC when they develop their products that way we will know what we should be doing on our end to accommodate their product. Although one would think it should be the other way around.

[SgtMav316]

You can also invest in a higher end graphics card, and take some of the load off your CPU.  You'll still have that four gigabyte limitation of FSX being a 32 bit program, but you'll crash less often because your GPU is doing more of the work.

I am running a 64bit system on a 1gb graphics card, I dont think there are any higher end graphics cards that my mother board can support. I would have to inquire how to upgrade my pc to run a faster graphics card with the mother board and power pack I am using.

[SgtMav316]

As for any other thread about OOM, which has been discussed too many times, it's NEVER, EVER a problem of a single item, the problem is the sum of EVERYTHING you install, which can't surpass 4GB in total, read the explanation here, there's nothing really much to add:

http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=9017.msg72396#msg72396

It's about JFK but, since the problem is not any single scenery, it applies to any other configuration out there.

Before the PMDG 777 was released, the most memory-hungry airplane out there was the PMDG 737 NGX so, most users flying with that airplane struggled to have all their installed add-ons to fit into the absolute, not extendable, 4GB memory limit.

The 777 seems to take about 200MB MORE than then 737 NGX.

This means, if you are flying that one, and your configuration was carefully optimized to fly everywhere with the 737 NGX, if you go to the SAME airport with the 777, you WILL get an OOM if you were already close to the limit, and you'll be mislead thinking "it's the scenery", when of course it isn't, since the scenery surely hasn't changed.

As discussed in too many other thread, since those 4GB are not negotiable, not unless we'll have a sim written in 64 bit code, regardless how high your system specs are, there's no way you can use more than 4GB for FSX.

This means, you must either:

- Lower your settings.

- Use DX10.

- Use 2048 or 1024 texture size.

- Don't use so many add-ons at the same time.

Any of these is valid so, you have options.

I have REX Essentials environment textures, picked a combination of non-HD textures (no loss there still looks great)

I have set my resolution to 1280x768 from 1360x768 (first time I did this it did run smoother and no OOMs)

How can you not use a combination of add-ons? lol You want to fly what you paid for and land at what you paid for! Designers need to step back a bit on both ends aircraft and scenery designs. Addons looked great before they started using HD textures and special Shadow effects. But this is the age we are in now! I love ORBYX but I think they started this with their inovated high end airports! Now everyone wants to be like them! We didnt have all these OOMs problems before we started getting HD airports and HD aircrafts!

[virtuali]

How can you not use a combination of add-ons? lol You want to fly what you paid for and land at what you paid for!

You misunderstood that explanation: there are several CHOICES you have.

You can use many add-ons in combination, but you should then lower your settings a bit. If you don't want to lower your setting, than you might not be able to use too many add-ons in combination. Your choice, you can't have your cake and eat it too!

Designers need to step back a bit on both ends aircraft and scenery designs. Addons looked great before they started using HD textures and special Shadow effects. But this is the age we are in now!

And users should also accept that an huge airport can't be as sharp as a picture, or detailed like a small bush airfield.

Anyone can do a LARGE and SLOW airport. Also, anyone can do a SMALL and NICE airport. Not many can do a LARGE and FAST airport, instead...but making a LARGE, FAST airport with the SAME detail as a bush airfield, is not really possible, surely not under 32 bit.

[SgtMav316]

I have done the best that I can with lowering settings on my sim, But none seem to be effecting the OOMs. Oddly enough once I am up in the air and not looking at the scenery airport the sim runs fine and no OOMs warning bells. The minute I pan the view to look at the airport the OOMs warning bells start chiming again. What setting in FSX tones down the level of detail in addon scenery?

Because as Virtuali stated you can use combinations of addons with one another, but we need to tone down our settings. Every setting I have tried has toned down the default scenery. Takes no effect on the addon scenery. Then when I tone down every setting I get an airport with no vehicles, no jetways no detailed runway and water textures (mainly controlled by REX). So what should be toning down exactly.

My pc is as follows, not much but it should be running FSX pretty well. It just seems to me that all the new scenery files being developed are just too demanding on memory. The only way to tone it down at this point for me is to take off from HIGH END addon airport in a default low texture aircraft and once I get airborne switch to a Captsim B777! Then change back to low texture aircraft when I make a final into a High End addon airport. There seems to be no way to tone down the level of detail in any addon airport. I find that a lot of the memory loss comes from a large # of auto gen bldgs and objects that are not really needed in and around airports.

[RAY VLASEK]

Thinking about utilizing DX10, I have graphics which supports such, any suggestions for doing so... I plan to utilize the DX10 tweaks in order to make more compatible... any input would be appreciated...

[virtuali]

Thinking about utilizing DX10, I have graphics which supports such, any suggestions for doing so... I plan to utilize the DX10 tweaks in order to make more compatible... any input would be appreciated...

This.

And, from tests that have been made in the last days, it seems that FSX Steam Edition achieves a considerable saving in VAS memory usage, see here:

[RAY VLASEK]

Thanks looks very promising,  will DX10 work on steam edition....

[virtuali]

Thanks looks very promising,  will DX10 work on steam edition....

I think so. But looking at those numbers, the memory savings with the Steam edition, even under DX9, seems to be even higher than those obtained using DX10.

[RAY VLASEK]

Got it, thanks,