Jump to content

Having Out Of Memory Errors (Oom)? Try This


Ramón Cutanda

Recommended Posts

Hi,

Did anybody here give a try to the api.dll patcher proposed on this topic from avsim forum?

I want to give it a try but if someone already did this, I'd like to know what to expect.

All that patch does is bypass the FSX OOM message. It doesn't actually stop FSX running out of memory at 4GB VAS. Rather than a message, you'll now get a less elegant crash.

Link to post
  • Replies 178
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Morten Steen

    18

  • Bryn

    16

  • Kyprianos Biris

    15

  • Lefteris Kalamaras

    15

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hi Ramon, I had a read of your updated post but wasn't sure what had been changed. Maybe changing the text to red might help?

I have not just added some more extra info but making a full review of the text instead. The main concepts are basically the same, but I have tried to be more organized and precise. Everyt

Just wanted to add some other helpful tips that "might" help save some VAS: 1) I read in another forum to put all unused default and 3rd party

Posted Images

Lefteris Kalamaras

Bryn,

if you compares apples to oranges, you're about to come to the wrong conclusion - any other aircraft addon does not come even close to the amount of panels that the Concorde has, plus the VC functionality required. As such, it's only logical that there will be somewhat increased memory consumption (not even close to 2GB VAS of course, as you so exaggeratedly put it, but increased nonetheless). I am curious, however, as to why you'd want to still keep all your sceneries active while flying at 60,000 ft - while they're but mere 2x2 pixels on the ground, most of them produce quite an impact on memory consumption unless you are careful to disable them... simply keep those of your departure and destination and the rest you really do not need.

Also - please try to keep a less pronounced style of writing - your readings come out very accusatory in nature, which I am certain is not your intention.

Link to post
Kyprianos Biris

I am curious, however, as to why you'd want to still keep all your sceneries active while flying at 60,000 ft - while they're but mere 2x2 pixels on the ground, most of them produce quite an impact on memory consumption unless you are careful to disable them... simply keep those of your departure and destination and the rest you really do not need.

This is also documented here http://kostasfsworld.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/vas-reminder-turning-off-airports/

I would not do it for EVERY flight in FSX but for FSL CONC which is proven to consume assigned space (VAS) to the limit I would do it to save myself from an OOM crash.

Then what remains as "problem" is DEP & DEST airports being really heavy.

In these cases I disable goodies of these airports where possible, like high res. textures, static objects (especially ones with many polygons) and so on.

Link to post

Lefteris, there are not many sceneries that get loaded on a KJFK-EGLL flight. Nevertheless, I have tried it with just FSDT KJFK and UK2000 EGLL in my scenery.cfg (along with all the default basics) and I still get an OOM.

I am interested, though, that you do not get an increase in VAS usage of 2gb after loading your 2d panels. I was not exaggerating - that is the increase in load that I get. What increase do you get? What screen resolution do you run fsx at?

Cheers,

Bryn

PS. I'm not trying to be abrasive! :-) I just want to work it out.

Link to post
Herby Gore

I am curious, however, as to why you'd want to still keep all your sceneries active while flying at 60,000 ft

Let me give my 2 cts on this question: I agree with you, from a 60.000ft point of view, no need to have any sceneries activated on the ground. But for me, I find it's already a pain (in the undercarriage :D ) to need to change the grapic settings and then all the settings in fsx.cfg that are modified as soon as you change the preferences in FSX each time I use the concorde. And revert back all this after any flight.

I have about 40 addons airports installed mainly in Europe. So I cannot imagine having to find and desactivate all the airports on some routes.

In the end, I'm OK to change a few settings to avoid this OOM problem but only to some extent.

Link to post
Lefteris Kalamaras

I understand your point of view. But if you go ahead and install another 80 high-detail airports in between which end up eating another gigabyte of RAM, who are you going to blame? At the end, it's a matter of preferences...

also- you knew you could save/load FSX graphics settings on demand, didn't you (effectively choosing a different fsx.cfg each time)?

Link to post
Herby Gore

I understand your point of view. But if you go ahead and install another 80 high-detail airports in between which end up eating another gigabyte of RAM, who are you going to blame? At the end, it's a matter of preferences...

I'd say it's more a matter of compromise between what one would like to see and what the platform can reasonably handle. And I'm sure this compromise may leads to terrible headache for the developers like you.

you knew you could save/load FSX graphics settings on demand, didn't you (effectively choosing a different fsx.cfg each time)?

I know that, but I don't always apply the same settings for Concorde. If I fly between 2 heavy airports, I would completely disable AI traffic and set the autogen to low. For a flight with only default sceneries, I could set autogen to dense and leave a bit of AI traffic. But you're right, I could make my life easier if I just create a fsx.cfg for Concorde that would work in any situation; just a matter of preferences, as you say.

I know you plan to release a new SP for Concorde after the development of the Airbus. Sorry if this has already been said somewhere but do you know if there is room for reducing the VAS needed for the Concorde and if you will include this enhancement in the next SP?

Link to post
John Barnes

On testing of ConcordeX, i used a 32bit system running only 2Gb of RAM. As long as i was aware that my performance was limited, i managed to steer away from major issues. It makes me wonder (not wishing to be confrontational) if sometimes, people expect just a little too much from their systems. I take FS9 as an example. In the early days, many users struggled with performance. Right now, i am flying it with sliders maxed using all sorts of kack (weather/scenerys/addon ACs) off a bloody laptop.

Link to post
GavinPrice

The funny thing is that I have completed numerous crossings over the Atlantic before without issue. I have pretty much always had UK2000 EGLL and FSDT KJFK installed since before Concorde X. I also have kept very much the same settings within FSX. I have oviously bought and installed many more addons since I bought Concorde X and I suspect that now I just have way too much going on in FSX. I have ORBX England, Wales, pretty much all of Gary's UK2000 series and also GEX EU and UTX EU aswell as GSX. However I might just have to start going back to basics to fly the Concorde as pretty much all of it isn't really required but just adds immersion.

Link to post
Herby Gore
It makes me wonder (not wishing to be confrontational) if sometimes, people expect just a little too much from their systems.

Before having the rig described in my sig, I was using a laptop (MacBook Pro with bootcamp) to run FSX. Windowed mode with all the stuff (Vroute, charts, SB4, AS2012...) in the background. I already had tons of addons airport and sceneries installed and never had this OOM problem. Probably because all my sliders were on the lower side at that time.

Now that I had a hard time to build and tune an high end computer just for FS, you're probably right John, maybe I ask too much. Even if I can fly other planes like the PMDGs with the sliders almost at max, Lefteris explained earlier in this topic that Concorde's cockpit is far more complexe than any other addon aircraft ans, as a result, will eat more VAS. I'm pretty sure that most of the people who face this OOM problem have a very 'strong' computer allowing to be quite pushy on the graphic settings.

In the end, I'd say that even in FSX, Concorde is a really special bird ;)

Link to post

not even close to 2GB VAS of course, as you so exaggeratedly put it

So I've just done a test. My FSX starts at 1,175,163 VAS usage with the cessna in my default scenario (at a country airport in Australia). 'VAS' is the FSX Virtual Size in Sysinternals Process Explorer.

After loading the Concorde, my FSX VAS rises to 2,242,152.

Then, after loading and then closing each 2d panel (one by one), my FSX VAS rises to 3,385,616.

So that's 2,210,453K for the Concorde. No exaggeration.

I made a video of that experiment, which I'll upload somewhere (once I work out how to edit and compress it).

Link to post
Lefteris Kalamaras

Bryn,

good effort!

But wrong nonetheless.

The Concorde-X opens/closes its panels once before it finishes loading (you don't see this activity as it happens to initialize various gauges). This negates your test to begin with.

Also- the best scenario is to have a default saved state with the Concorde itself - then, simply load that at the beginning, instead of loading the Cessna first (which itself might eat a bit of memory). Even better, make FSX load the saved state without a preview - that way, you even save yourself the small mem the Trike takes.

Link to post

Lefteris, I don't understand why you think this negated the test. If you have programmed this so all of the VAS is established at the load of the aircraft, then doesn't my test suggest that something is going on that you did not expect?

I'm working on the video editing now.

PS. Normally, I would load the simulator directly to the flight with the aircraft title set in my default flt file, along with the location and so forth. I used the cessna default scenario to test how much the concorde adds to the VAS.

Link to post

Does my video help to explain the problem more clearly?

If the VAS numbers are too illegible, I'm happy to create another video on the weekend and try and make it clearer. I should also load the external model to show what that adds to VAS.

Link to post
Kyprianos Biris

Yeap this the same my case. It ends up roughly 3.3k before you start the flight and stabilizes at 3.1 ~ 3.2 k en route without any detailed scenery in range.

That leaves room for ~700Mb of scenery load which for many popular add on's is above the limit.

Until something new comes up I have ended up disabling good departure and/or arrival add on airports I have payed for just to make sure I don't get the dreaded OOM at the flight's worst part ... on final approach after few hours of flying :angry:

I admire the quality of in depth systems of this add on and this is the only reason I can still sustain this nasty "shortcut".

Link to post
Alex Ridge

May I make a suggestion [after just receiving an OOM]

There is a cabin model that is linked to the VC, seats, and the forward section. One would expect to see this in the external model.

Is is possible to remove it from the vc view? That alone should give some memory back into the sim??

Alex

Link to post
Kyprianos Biris

Until something new comes up I have ended up disabling good departure and/or arrival add on airports I have payed for just to make sure I don't get the dreaded OOM at the flight's worst part ... on final approach after few hours of flying :angry:

3.5 hours CYUL to EGKK, all CYUL and other London add on airports deactivated, en route a steady 3.5 Gb of VAS used and on ILS establish of EGKK ... OOM :(

OOMegkk_zpsd553a1bd.jpg

The flight: http://vataware.com/...cfm?id=11914474

Link to post
Konstantin

Not to denigrate the product, but the OOM problem is the #1 reason why I will stick with SSTSIM Concorde for FS9 for a while longer (or until the problem is solved). My Windows 7 is a 32-bit version, which makes Concorde-X to be out of my computer's league anyway (even though I have the 3 GB switch applied). However, even with 64-bit OS, you have to compromise heavily on scenery complexity, AI traffic density and other stuff - or you get OOMs, as shown in this thread. With FS9 and SSTSIM, I can use the most complex scenery, have all slider maxed out including 100% air traffic, having all panels open at once - and I am still never about 1.5GB of VAS. I know that some of you would contend that comparing Concorde-X with SSTSIM is like comparing apples with oranges due to complexity. However, the SSTSIM is still sufficiently complex. It may not have such a neat 2-D panel like Concorde-X, but I can't imagine that it's normal for Concorde-X to consume as much as 2.5GB of VAS just for herself (the bulk coming from opening 2-D subpanels). That leaves very little margin for other add-ons or FSX itself. This is also why in another thread, I suggested a Concorde-X-Lite version alongside with the actual version that would have reduced panel/system complexity (comparable with SSTSIM) in exchange for a much lower VAS usage.

Link to post
Severniae

Gents - I think there must be something environmental with your setups. I'm able to run Concorde X for a full EGLL-KJFK flight, with all scenery (including UK2000 + ORBX) and not have a single OOM....

In fact I've found the Concorde far less likely to OOM than other products. There are steps I've taken to alleviate the problem. One part was my page file needed fixing. The other was enabling auto saves via FSUIPC. I have no idea why, but for some reason the autosave feature reduces the VAS load.... odd!

Link to post
Severniae

Hi Bryn,

I've not ran the exact test - But I am able to load Concorde, into the VC, and fly a full flight (3hr+) and land again without any performance issues or OOMs. I've also done repeated 'practise flights' where I fly the aircraft around Heathrow (UK2000 EGLL) taking it from cold & dark, doing a hold and circuit, landing (ILS) and taxi back and shut down. One particular day I must have spent over 5 hours just doing this over and over within the same flight and not had a single error message.

I use all the 3D panels and my VAS for FSX (in total)rarely goes above 3GB! I noticed that your VAS sits at over 1GB when sat loaded with the default Cessna - as I said it sounds like something in your environment. I've never had FSX loaded with any default aircraft use anywhere near over 1GB.

Hope you track it down!

James

Link to post
Kyprianos Biris

James out of curiosity:

Are you running on one screen or two wide screens on extended desktop ?

Do you have UTX Europe (with updates) installed ?

Are you flying it exclusively from VC (by popping up individual 2Ds for changes and then closing them) or in 2D with 2D panels open ?

What machine are you running it on (hardware & software) ?

When I was initially setting up FSX and FSUIPC and did select the autosave but then saw that each save was generating an annoying instantaneous mini pause of the FS. I deactivated it due to this.

From the settings recommended here

https://kostasfsworld.wordpress.com/fsx-software-and-hardware-guide/

which ones are different in your FSX ?

I put some examples below

[JOBSCHEDULER]

AffinityMask=14

[DISPLAY]

TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=40

[GRAPHICS]

ForceWindowedVsync=1

[TERRAIN]

LOD_RADIUS=6.500000

[Main]

FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.15

Link to post
Severniae
Are you running on one screen or two wide screens on extended desktop ?

One screen - I use primary monitor for FSX and secondary monitor for EFB/Flight planners etc...

Do you have UTX Europe (with updates) installed ?

Indeed I do.

Are you flying it exclusively from VC (by popping up individual 2Ds for changes and then closing them) or in 2D with 2D panels open ?

I'm a VC flyer - so primarily I'm flying using the VC, I open up the 2D panels when they are required. Some stay up the whole flight (shifted to the second monitor) - but most are opened when needed then closed again.

What machine are you running it on (hardware & software) ?

i7 2700K / 16GB RAM / ATI Radeon HD 6790 / Windows 7 64-Bit / ORBX (UK & Australia) / GEX & UTX Europe / UK2000 volume 1, 2 &3, EGLL, EGNX, EGKK / Possibly other add-ons - Can't remember them all off hand.

From the settings recommended here

https://kostasfsworl...hardware-guide/

which ones are different in your FSX ?

To be honest I don't go into the guides at all. I used to but found that excessive tweaking at the settings in FSX.cfg caused more problems than they solved. People would go mad for those extra 2FPS at the expense of a sim that crashes every 45 minutes. The only couple of entries that I've added are 'UsePools=0' and 'Wideviewaspect=true' - of course have the highmemfix also. I do also run the shader 3.0. Everything else is vanilla. The thing is you can't just copy someone elses tweaks and expect to have their results. Every system is different and requires a different approach. It personally took me over a week, every night, testing and testing my settings until I found a sweet spot. I also make use of the display settings 'saves' that allow me to change my settings quickly mid flight. For instance, taking off from EGLL in a Concorde with high AI levels results in a slide show. So I keep a pre defined settings that are set specifically to EGLL to give me an acceptable level of visuals, and more importantly high and smooth FPS. Once I'm actually heading out I might turn those settings back up - however half the time I just leave them as they are and enjoy a locked 30FPS all the way from EGLL to KJFK with no issues whatsoever.

Keep at it and I'm sure you'll find a good balance.

Link to post
  • 3 weeks later...

Hi everyone, I've recently learned how to fly this beauty but cant set her down as I keep getting OOMs at KJFK and KIAD (by FSDT and Flightbeam respectively). I've reduced autogen to normal from the usual of extremely dense.. Any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated..

Link to post
Ramón Cutanda
I've reduced autogen to normal from the usual of extremely dense.. Any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated..

Sounds like you have no read the previous posts of this thread. They include an AMAZING and AWESOME amount of information about OOM. I can't really think of anything more helpful about OOM errors than what you can read in this thread. If you cannot solve your problems AFTER HAVING READ all the previous posts... Then I cannot think of anything else you may do.

Bests,

Link to post
GavinPrice

Just imagine if Microsoft announced that they were going to update FSX to 64bit. I've heard that Lockheed Martin are currently working on it. If they succeed I wonder how many will migrate to Prepar3d?

Link to post

Sounds like you have no read the previous posts of this thread. They include an AMAZING and AWESOME amount of information about OOM. I can't really think of anything more helpful about OOM errors than what you can read in this thread. If you cannot solve your problems AFTER HAVING READ all the previous posts... Then I cannot think of anything else you may do.

Bests,

Hi Ramon, reason I haven't mentioned the other config changes was because I had them already. The only config that was different from mine was the autogen which is now set to normal instead of extremely dense. I'm quite happy to try things as I'm very keen to carry out a full and uninterrupted flight.. Thanks.
Link to post
GavinPrice

I've experienced exactly the same. Used to be able to run Concorde X fine with absolutely no issues. I remember it was fine even after the HIGHMEMFIX came out.

Between then and now I've installed various addons and now when I try a flight at KJFK V2 with autogen on normal and all other settings the same as before when I used to be able to run Concorde X I still get an OOM soon after departure. I think I've even tried with autogen set at sparse. I've lowered my textures to 2048 where as they used to be 4096.

I understand that this is an intensive aircraft and carries huge resources to run it and I understand that. I would just like to know what has happened between when I used to be able to fly the Concorde happily with not even knowing what an OOM was, and now waiting for it to happen as soon as I start my flight.

Link to post
GavinPrice

Yes I know. But would be good to pin it down to the culprit. Maybe a fresh clean install of FSX is in order with only what I need on it.

However I will say that flying out of KJFK I can't really see what the cause of OOM would be as in that are all I have installed is UTX USA and Canada, GEX USA, and also FSDT KJFK V2. The only real difference than when I can remember not getting OOM is the new KJFK and also maybe updates to GEX and UTX.

Link to post
Lefteris Kalamaras

Gavin,

FSX is a 32 bit process. As such it has a hard limit of 4GB process space. It also doesn't clean up very properly after itself when moving away from scenery. The more addons you install, the less mem you allow the Concorde-X to have... it's natural.

After a bit, it becomes your call what to have installed and what not.

Link to post
Charan Kumar

I have flown the Concorde during the CTP events on VATSIM and have not had a single instance of OOM. The FPS would drop when high fidelity acft are displayed, but I make sure the AI traffic is never an add-on, but either WOAI or some other My Traffic acft only. And I run FSInn, albeit a separate machine. My weather engine, ASE runs from the same m/c that runs FSInn too. Only thing I avoid is flying into Asft EGLL during events as I know the FPS hit is extreme. But I flew out of Gatwick and during climbout over EGLL, granted much less textures, but worked perfectly well. IIRC, I would tone down the autogen a bit as I really don't care about fancy buildings when coming in at 180kts to land during a heavy traffic event, more stuff to look at in the skies :)

As Ramon has mentioned, you might've to tone down or setup something differently in different cases, 1 scenario wins all situations is never the case in FSX. And I have a host of add-ons installed, including REX textures and mostly fly into add-on airports.

Link to post

Hi Charan,

Your reply gives me a lot of hope. Have you flown into Flightbeam's KIAD or FSDT's KJFK in one go? If you have, then that could help us all..

Would you mind posting your FSX.cfg so we can take tips from it?

Thanks a ton mate..

Link to post
Charan Kumar

FSDT JFK yes, and I use it frequently with all my payware acft, dont have the other one. I am not sure how fsx.cfg from any one computer will help as each and every individual computer settings and setup are different. I spent some time adjusting it based on simforums' Nick's settings and recommendations from venetubo, I cudn't tell u which ones which now tho, been a real long while.

That said, I wont be accessing my comp for a while now, I will pm u the file if ur still interested when I get back into sim flying more, shud be a couple of months.

Link to post

FSDT JFK yes, and I use it frequently with all my payware acft, dont have the other one. I am not sure how fsx.cfg from any one computer will help as each and every individual computer settings and setup are different. I spent some time adjusting it based on simforums' Nick's settings and recommendations from venetubo, I cudn't tell u which ones which now tho, been a real long while.

That said, I wont be accessing my comp for a while now, I will pm u the file if ur still interested when I get back into sim flying more, shud be a couple of months.

Thanks Charan. Yes, please pm me whenever you can. Cheers..

Link to post
GavinPrice

Hi Lefteris.

In reply to one of your questions to another user earlier on in this thread about disabling UTX, I just done that and can confirm that it reduced my VAS by about 500VAS.

Just doing a lot of testing now in loads of situations. In most cases I can hit the end of 31L at FSDT KJFKV2 from an engines running startup and taxi down 31L at around 3000VAS and when I open the 2d panels it goes up to about 3500-3600VAS.

Amazingly with FSDT disabled in the scenery library I only noticed the VAS to be 100 lower at the end of the runway than with it enabled.

Will carry on testing.

Link to post
Charan Kumar

I know this sounds crazy what the user claims, and I am sure many of you have seen this vdo, but it does have a fsx.cfg with LOD_radius set at 32, if you want to try it, as obviously with those many add-ons, he is still getting an extremely decent fps without OOM.

*Use at own risk*

Link to post
Alex Ridge

I know this sounds crazy what the user claims, and I am sure many of you have seen this vdo, but it does have a fsx.cfg with LOD_radius set at 32, if you want to try it, as obviously with those many add-ons, he is still getting an extremely decent fps without OOM.

[media=]

[/media]

*Use at own risk*

Charam, I cannot say to you enough how ignorant your post is, especcially on this topic thread [preventing OOM's]

I am sure this was an experiment, and at the end of the day, this is a wingview, of an unrelated product to FSL.. I am not sure what the point of your post was, sorry.

Link to post

I know this sounds crazy what the user claims, and I am sure many of you have seen this vdo, but it does have a fsx.cfg with LOD_radius set at 32, if you want to try it, as obviously with those many add-ons, he is still getting an extremely decent fps without OOM.

[media=]

[/media]

*Use at own risk*

Nice!

Link to post
Charan Kumar

aceridgey, Sumit was requesting a copy of my FSX.CFG which I am currently unable to provide him. This one, is configured much better with more add-ons and doesn't seem to have any OOMs reported, granted, he doesn't have the FSL product. While I understand that this won't help with his qn, neither will my fsx.cfg help as each and every individual machine and setup is different. Since he wanted to try it anyways, I gave him the link so he can try and use that fsx.cfg.

When trying to resolve OOM, everyone has their opinions. My experience has never been the same every time I installed FSX, every time is different. For now it seems to be stable. I stopped fighting that war and it has actually come to settle down itself. I always agreed and came to terms with it for FSX, you gotta give to get something else.

I am not now, nor ever, a self professed guru or anything of that sort for FSX, but I always provide ppl with as many references that I came/come across so folks can make their own comparisons and ultimately pick what suits best for them. The above link falls in that respect, it's neither a guide nor a rule, just another reference point.

Link to post
  • Lefteris Kalamaras pinned this topic

×
×
  • Create New...