"Virtual memory too low" error. Argh.

[ibanez737 2]

Hi all,Lately I've been getting a CTD error where FSX closes and an error pops up stating that FSX has run out of available memory and will now exit, and I should try lower graphics settings. The thing is, when this error pops up I'm usually not even experiencing low framerates, stutters, tree spikes, etc to indicate that my system is being taxed. I have 4GB of RAM and running Windows7 32 bit. Any fixes for this?Thanks,Scott

[JSkorna 137]

Hi,It is virtual memory you are running out of, not physical memory as the message states. Check your page file settings in Windows. A 64bit OS may help too.

[Bert Pieke 7,585]

Hi all,Lately I've been getting a CTD error where FSX closes and an error pops up stating that FSX has run out of available memory and will now exit, and I should try lower graphics settings. The thing is, when this error pops up I'm usually not even experiencing low framerates, stutters, tree spikes, etc to indicate that my system is being taxed. I have 4GB of RAM and running Windows7 32 bit. Any fixes for this?Thanks,Scott

On a 32 bit OS, you can increase the virtual memory allocation for the application..Look here:http://forum.avsim.net/topic/323256-sistem-run-out-of-memory/Quoting from another post:"Your problem is a 32 bit OS and something called the Virtual Address Space which FSX loads into when you start it. In a 32-bit OS you only get 2GB of VAS which FSX and the video card can share and use. This can be changed (FSX SP2) up to approaching 3GB with the /3GB /USERVA=xxxx switch set in the boot.ini file in XP(bcedit in Vista/ Win7) (Google that)."I've got USERVA set to 2560 .

[mjrhealth 820]

With the userva, 32 bit can really only use 3.2 gig out of the 4, i you have anything bigger then a 512 meg video card, you will have issues as it reduces the amount of available ram.Easiest fix is to go 64 bit, gives you access to all 4 gig.

[Bert Pieke 7,585]

With the userva, 32 bit can really only use 3.2 gig out of the 4, i you have anything bigger then a 512 meg video card, you will have issues as it reduces the amount of available ram.Easiest fix is to go 64 bit, gives you access to all 4 gig.

Sorry, even though 64 bit is better than 32 bit, this statement displays a total misunderstanding of RAM and VAS..For the nth time, a 32 bit OS can only address about 3.2 GB of RAM. OK.The issue of running out of Virtual Memory has nothing to do with this.It is related to the way that the Virtual Address Space (VAS) is divided up between application and OS.The USERVA parameter allows you to allocate additional address space to the application, at the expense of the OS.

[ibanez737 2]

Hey thanks fellas, after applying this fix I was able to go on a nice little flight in Orbx PNW with the Carenado 185, with no errors or hickups of any sort! This should definitely tide me over until I can build a new rig with Win7 64.Cheers,Scott

[mjrhealth 820]

Missed it didnt you Bert, when you install a larger video card, you need more vram ,and so you hit the same issue all over again, A clash between what the os needs and the operating system. I havnt contradicted you at all

[n4gix 4,947]

...and once again folks are tossing terms about with great abandon, without regard to their actual meaning...For the 2^2593204 time, Virtual Address Space Table has absolutely NOTHING to do with physical memory (RAM), or virtual memory (VRAM HD space), aside from the fact that these VAS Tables do occupy a tiny portion of RAM themselves.Functionally, when the operating system has to swap a running application (such as FSX) to virtual memory (VRAM) it has to keep track of the addresses used so that when swapping it back to RAM every bit will be precisely where it was before. That is the entire purpose of the application's VAS Table. Every running application has its own VAS Table.When running, if FSX can't find a 1MB contiguous block of VAS available, you get an OOM error.Another way the problem occurs when attempting to swap an application back from VRAM to RAM, since it must have sufficient 1MB contiguous blocks of VAS available. If there aren't enough 1MB contiguous blocks of VAS available, then you again will get the infamous "Out of Available Memory" error.

[Paul J 349]

Bill - if I might make a suggestion - what might clear up a lot of confusion would be for you to clarify these terms more precisely: RAM is: .........VRAM is .........Swap Space is....Tablespace is....Graphics ram and it's impact on system ram ....

[mgh 89]

Bill - if I might make a suggestion - what might clear up a lot of confusion would be for you to clarify these terms more precisely: RAM is: .........VRAM is .........Swap Space is....Tablespace is....Graphics ram and it's impact on system ram ....

Microsoft explains the principles here http://msdn.microsof...v=vs.85%29.aspxAs Bill says, this has been discussed ad nauseam in these fourms. A search here will reveal the relevent threads.EDITMicrosoft discusses Virtual Address Space in relation to game development and Vista here http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940105

[Paul J 349]

That's all true, but it doesn't help a newcomer faced with the problem for the first time. I've been a unix sysadmin for fifteen years and still see documentation which is ambiguous and written by someone who obviously assumes the client is as familiar as he/she is with tech terms. Vram=swap_space=tablespace=os_space=physical_ram=Blank_Wall to most non geeks.That's why it's "ad nauseum".

[n4gix 4,947]

Bill - if I might make a suggestion - what might clear up a lot of confusion would be for you to clarify these terms more precisely: RAM is: ......... Random Access MemoryVRAM is ......... Virtual Random Access MemorySwap Space is.... same as VRAMTablespace is.... index of memory addressesGraphics ram and it's impact on system ram ....

I thought I did when I wrote:physical memory (RAM), or virtual memory (VRAM HD space)

[Paul J 349]

I thought I did when I wrote:physical memory (RAM), or virtual memory (VRAM HD space)

No - thanks, but Mark's explanation here, is more inline with what I'm getting at, Bill.

[mgh 89]

Or try this:http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2009/06/08/out-of-memory-does-not-refer-to-physical-memory.aspx

[n4gix 4,947]

No - thanks, but Mark's explanation here, is more inline with what I'm getting at, Bill.

What would be the point of reinventing the wheel? Since such technical resources are easily found, providing a link is more useful in a forum post.Frankly, getting folks to even read a few short paragraphs of techno-speak without their eyes glazing over after the first sentence is tough enough......which is precisly why I choose to use an economy of words, and short, cogent sentences. :(