Fsx Running out of memory

[RCITGuy 35]

One question though...If this is the case, then why doesn't my X-Plane 10 run out of memory also?

Are you saying that your other apps do run out of memory? Its a bit of an impossible question to answer in the format you have asked it..

No info on your system, other apps or even if other apps do run out of memory.. :huh:

[XPX64man 130]

Are you saying that your other apps do run out of memory? Its a bit of an impossible question to answer in the format you have asked it..

No info on your system, other apps or even if other apps do run out of memory.. :huh:

 

I apologize for not being clear. I get an OOM error in FSX if I fly with any heavy scenery or AI aircraft. I have to, pretty much, keep my traffic to zero.

I am running Windows 7 64x and an Intel i7 CPU with a 2TB harddrive and 12Gigs of RAM, but my harddrive is half full (shame on me).

I do not get any OOMs when running X-Plane. Only when I use FSX.

[RCITGuy 35]

Pop your task manager open when running FSX with all that stuff enabled and see what its doing... That's where I would start.

Then compare that to what X-Plane is doing, it sounds obvious that X-Plane isn't doing half the things your trying to push through FSX though...

 

Is your paging file set to "Let windows manage my page file" or is it set to a fixed limit"?

If its set to a fixed limit, then simply remove the limit and let windows manage it, reboot then give it a whirl..

 

Again, not much info to work with, like free space, page file size/setup..

[RWFeldman 159]

Ive been running FSX for yrs without one OOM. OS, FSX and P3D all on dedicated SSD's on a computer totally dedicated FSX computer. ORBS scenery, UTX, UT2, PMDG aircraft, REX textures, etc.. Lucky I reckon?

[honanhal 1,427]

As he says, his hard drive is down to 300/500mb free space, and any mechanical hard drive that goes below 50% free does start to incur a performance hit, with it getting worse, the closer you get to 100% full until you get this "Out of memory" error. Its to do with how windows handles your page file, and Win7 manages it automatically by default, thus if your out of space, or almost out of space, there is no room left to manage the page file.

 

Not to derail this thread, but wow, is that really true? Anything under 50% free and there is a performance hit? The rough figure I had seen bandied about before was more like a third of the disk free. Is there a mechanical reason for this performance hit?

 

Anecdotally I've never noticed a performance hit until I get really low in free space (10% or less). I'd be very interested to hear more about why you need to keep so much space free to avoid a penalty to performance (seems like a shame to only be able to use half the drive!). I may need to work on freeing up 100 GB or so...

 

Thanks,

James

[altstiff 71]

Having minimum HDD (such as the poster with only 500MB left) will cause issues for sure and is seperate from what others are posting about OOM errors. Some people here seem to be trying to help with good intentions I'm sure, but the information they are presenting is just wrong.

 

I have to add....

• You do not need 50% free HDD space (1/3 is plenty)
  

• Having your page/swap file at 1.5X your ram is insane and a waste of HDD space (when you have large amounts of ram installed, 12GB ram = 18GB swap file? Are you kidding me?)
  

• Getting a larger HDD or freeing up space will not "cure" your OOM issues, ), same goes for larger swap file...
  

I suggest people search and read up on these issues and educate yourself on how to deal with them. Most issues with OOM errors are due to people running 32bit O/S, if you're running addons in FSX (or FS9 for that matter) a 64bit O/S is a must. Even with a 64bit O/S you can run into OOM issues. Try flying the PMDG NG into FSDT KLAX with Mega Scenery Earth installed and lots of AI, see how quick you get an OOM error. As well FSUIPC has a built in VA space warning dong (when the VA space gets to 300MB it dongs, warning you that you are running low on adress space and are about to run OOM)

 

Might I suggest reading Nick's guide, it is a great place to start>>

 

http://www.simforums...topic29041.html

 

Once you're done with that look here on the hardware forum for Kostas tweak guide. It will help simmers have a less painful ride in the sim....

[RCITGuy 35]

Ive been running FSX for yrs without one OOM. OS, FSX and P3D all on dedicated SSD's on a computer totally dedicated FSX computer. ORBS scenery, UTX, UT2, PMDG aircraft, REX textures, etc.. Lucky I reckon?

Nope, just well thought out. SSD drives are fast, and obviously your other system settings are well managed.

 

Not to derail this thread, but wow, is that really true? Anything under 50% free and there is a performance hit? The rough figure I had seen bandied about before was more like a third of the disk free. Is there a mechanical reason for this performance hit?

 

Anecdotally I've never noticed a performance hit until I get really low in free space (10% or less). I'd be very interested to hear more about why you need to keep so much space free to avoid a penalty to performance (seems like a shame to only be able to use half the drive!). I may need to work on freeing up 100 GB or so...

 

Thanks,

James

 

Yes, its a mechanical, magnetic drive, the more that's on it, the longer it takes to find it and fetch it or seek am empty slot to write to it. The performance hit probably isn't noticeable for most "day-to-day users who consume 50% or more of their drive space, as most people are pre-occupied doing other things too, but users like us might notice after a while, and the performance hit gets worse as it goes from 50% to 75% where it really becomes noticeable to people like us.. From 50% to 75% its not dramatic, just subtle. Hence the amount of defrag apps available..

 

Having your page file set to 1.5 of your ram is insane and not needed.

 

While some people here seem to be trying to help with good intentions, some of the information they are presenting is just wrong.

Wrong? Hmmm, MS certified and I'm wrong?

 

Its perfectly normal for 32 bit operating systems to have their page file somewhere around 1.5x the physical RAM limit. Typically, it might not always reach that size, or be needed, but it depends on the specs of the system, what a user is doing with it, and used to VERY common on Windows XP systems, and years ago when RAM costs would have you reaching for your bank managers phone number, but these days, most people don't even know it because page files are hidden, and defaults are normally "Windows managed page file" with no physical hard limit set.

 

My system for example, 16GB physical RAM, and my page file is also 16GB.. Its when you get down to systems using 1GB or 2GB memory that page files are used more heavily, not so much with high RAM systems. Read up on it, the info is there on the web for the world to see...

 

It was mostly when drives were smaller and cost a bomb that you would physically restrict the page file from growing to mental sizes, as many a time I've seen an old system with 1GB memory and a 6GB+ page file.

 

Its not "Good intentions" at all, its fact, MS certification, and 20yrs experience to date, thank you very much.

 

You add more RAM, your page file gets bigger, its as simple as that. How much bigger depends on lots of other factors of how your PC has been set-up, even down to which brand it is, as they all do things slightly differently, Dell, HP, Packard bell etc.... Some cheapskate manufacturers like Pack Bell, only a few years ago were shipping brand new laptops with Vista on them, and only 512mb of ram, and a 4GB page file set-up... God known how many of those I fixed all that were either super slow, or the hard drives were knackered from the endless read/write going on the whole time it was on.

 

Less ram = higher ratio of disk to swap file. Mine for example is a 1:1 ratio, a 1GB system would be recommended to have no more than a 1:1.5 ratio

[altstiff 71]

Nope, just well thought out. SSD drives are fast, and obviously your other system settings are well managed.

 

 

 

Yes, its a mechanical, magnetic drive, the more thats on it, the longer it takes to find it and fetch it. The performance hit probably isnt noticable for most "day-to-day users who consume 50% or more of their drive space, as most people are pre-ocupied doing other things too, but most will sit their I TRIED TO USE A PROFANITY HERE - AREN'T I STUPID!ing about how slow things are after a while, and the performance hit gets worse as it goes from 50% to 75% where it really becomes noticable to people like us.. From 50% to 75% its not dramatic, just subtle.

 

 

Wrong? Hmmm, MS certified and I'm wrong?

 

Its perfectly normal for 32 bit operating systems to have their page file somewhere around 1.5x the physical RAM limit. Typically, it might not always reach that size, or be needed, but it depends on the specs of the system, what a user is doing with it, and used to VERY common on Windows XP systems, and years ago when RAM costs would have you reaching for your bank managers phone number, but these days, most people dont even know it because page files are hidden, and defaults are normally "Windows managed page file" with no physical hard limit set.

 

My system for example, 16GB physical RAM, and my page file is also 16GB.. Its when you get down to systems using 1GB or 2GB memory that page files are used more heavily, not so much with high RAM systems. Read up on it, the info is there on the web for the world to see...

 

It was mostly when drives were smaller and cost a bomb that you would phyically restrict the page file from grown to mental sizes, as many a time I've seen an old system with 1GB memory and a 6GB+ page file.

 

Its not "Good intentions" at all, its fact, MS certification, and 20yrs experience to date, thank you very much.

 

You add more RAM, your page file gets bigger, its as simple as that. How much bigger depends on lots of other factors of how your PC has been setup, even down to which brand it is, as they all do things slightly differently, Dell, HP, Packard bell etc.... Some cheapskate manufacturers like Pack Bell, only a few years ago were shipping brand new laptops with Vista on them, and only 512mb of ram, and a 4GB page file setup... God known how many of those I fixed all that were either super slow, or the hard drives were knackered from the endless read/write going on the whole time it was on.

 

No offence, certified or not getting a larger HDD will not "cure" OOM errors. I'm not one to argue but the facts speak for themselves as FSX is a whole other bird.....it's no mistake Pete Dowson added the low VA space warning dong to FSUIPC due to the fact so many users have issues with it.

 

I agree that the poster with minimal HDD space (under 500MB) certainly has issues with that, but a larger HDD space and swap files will not "cure" OOM errors in FSX.

[OmniAtlas 93]

There is a reg file created by Microsoft to cure the OOM error. I will post the link when I get home. After I ran the reg file I no longer had any OOM errors, especially in dense scenery like orbx.

[RCITGuy 35]

Please don't mis-quote me. I didn't say a larger swap file would cure it, I actually said it was due to windows wanting to write a larger swap file, that induces the OOM problem.

The low memory space is simply a way of telling a user exactly what I have been saying, so they are not left scratching their heads thinking "I need to buy more RAM"

 

Given the size of FSX and all its addons, chomping up disk space is a price you pay for this sort of software...

 

Doesn't matter what app you try to run, FSX or not, if your trying to chomp up more than your PC can read/write to, your going to get an OOM, so either the page file is too small AND the physical memory isn't enough, or the hard drive is full and the page file cant grow to to cope with what your doing due to low disk space. Its not rocket science, its actually extremely simple logic too.

 

Virtual runs out = Dump it on disk to free up virtual and come back for the stuff later when needed...

Disk runs out or page file limit reached = We're all out of memory (Regardless of how much free space is on the hard drive)

 

I'd be curios to know actual systems of those having the OOM errors and what their disk usage and page file is set to... Very curious....

[altstiff 71]

Please don't mis-quote me. I didn't say a larger swap file would cure it, I actually said it was due to windows wanting to write a larger swap file, that induces the OOM problem.

The low memory space is simply a way of telling a user exactly what I have been saying, so they are not left scratching their heads thinking "I need to buy more RAM"

 

Given the size of FSX and all its addons, chomping up disk space is a price you pay for this sort of software...

 

Doesn't matter what app you try to run, FSX or not, if your trying to chomp up more than your PC can read/write to, your going to get an OOM, so either the page file is too small AND the physical memory isn't enough, or the hard drive is full and the page file cant grow to to cope with what your doing due to low disk space. Its not rocket science, its actually extremely simple logic too.

 

Virtual runs out = Dump it on disk to free up virtual and come back for the stuff later when needed...

Disk runs out or page file limit reached = We're all out of memory (Regardless of how much free space is on the hard drive)

 

RCITGuy, the OOM errors in FSX have NOTHING to do with swap file or physcial ram as per FSX developer Phil Taylors post >>

 

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ptaylor/archive/2007/06/15/fsx-and-win32-process-address-space.aspx

 

They are two seperate things. The FSX OOM errors are due to running out of address space, not ram or swap file...

[OmniAtlas 93]

This solved all my OOM problems:

 

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/947246

[RCITGuy 35]

As Omni points out, there will always be hiccups and bugs along the way, no O/S is perfect and admittedly, I don't know enough about FSX itself to know if FSX has any faults/bugs that cause its own OOM errors, and excluding any bugs/unpatched operating systems, what I have said so far is 100% accurate, but my post was for the original thread starter, not for others to jump in here and start accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about, so thanks a lot guys...

 

Far less likely to bother in future. <_<

[altstiff 71]

As Omni points out, there will always be hiccups and bugs along the way, no O/S is perfect and admittedly, I don't know enough about FSX itself to know if FSX has any faults/bugs that cause its own OOM errors, and excluding any bugs/unpatched operating systems, what I have said so far is 100% accurate, but my post was for the original thread starter, not for others to jump in here and start accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about, so thanks a lot guys...

 

Far less likely to bother in future. <_<

 

RCITGuy please don't take it that way. This forum is for open discussion and input from it's members is valuable. open discussions like this is what makes AVSIM so great.

 

It is just that some of the info you gave was just not true. Yes I agree Husman Khan had his own seperate issues with limited HDD space. You started telling other users (FSXMan for example) that a larger HDD will fix their OOM errors when this is just not true.

 

As freespirit posted and posted in the link from developer Phil Taylors blog, Virtual Address Space OOM issues have nothing to do with ram/swap file. It's the 32bit hard coded 4GB VAS limit where people start to run into issues (and it's only 2GB on 32bit systems). In FSX it's easy to max that limit out when you add in complex airliners, lots of traffic and high detailed airports with lots of high res scenery and autogen (and user tweaking their CFG'S to have 7.5 LOD).

 

So please take no offence to other members disagreeing with you. It's great to have someone like you around.

[RCITGuy 35]

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, its how they go about it.

 

My replies and info were ALL aimed at the original posters problem, and to demonstrate how windows "normally" handles memory usage in relation to that, thus giving him a better understanding of what caused it in the first place, and any other people who may read it.

 

Excluding any bugs/hiccups/windows bugs or problems unique to FSX...

 

If you disagree with somebody, then say so politely or keep it shut! <_<