Jump to content

Having Out Of Memory Errors (Oom)? Try This


Ramón Cutanda

Recommended Posts

Severniae

As Lefteris said earlier. People need to remember that this is a dated, 32-bit application. There is only so much that it will take before failing.

Its good that the person with the above video can get a decent FPS with those settings. However looking closely - this is an over wing view, and still, its actually quite jumpy - also being recorded on a video camera will help making it appear smoother than it is. Quite frankly don't believe that this person can keep all those settings enabled permanently without suffering performance degredation or OOMs - I suspect a little massaging of the truth is going on!

To claim that FSX should be able to handle X, Y and Z addon with max settings is ludicrous. The best thing is to turn down your graphics settings, or enable only the scenery you need for the flights you are planning to do. FSX can be a smooth enjoyable experience, as long as you don't give it 2013 graphics expectations!

Link to post
  • Replies 178
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Morten Steen

    18

  • Bryn

    16

  • Lefteris Kalamaras

    15

  • Kyprianos Biris

    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

I would purchase Concorde X but I am afraid of OOM bug. I have 32-bit Windows OS and 4 GB RAM. Is there any chance Concorde-X after two service packs will run flawlessly on my rig with GEX+UTX+REX+ASE active? Or maybe without these add-ons it can be OK?

Link to post
Morten Steen

Hello Gentlemen, I installed Concorde-X today, did not change a thing from my usual NGX / MD-11X / J41 settings, wich have never OOM'ed, and as feared I OOM'ed before I could press my MWS reset at Heathrow :)

I have done my homework so I installed SceneryConfig editor, grouped all my scenery and disabled all but JFKv2, UK2000 Heathrow Xtreme, UTX EU + USA, FSGlobal Ultimate EU + USA and FTX Global. SCE is a very nice utility that lets you save and load preset scenery.cfg's.

My memory used by FSX right after start with Concorde loaded at std 420 on Heathrow Xtreme went down from 3,5 to 2,4, so I guess I have a bit more to play with now.

The Concorde is I would guess the most advanced aircraft made for FSX and I never expected to run it without tweaks, although it bugs me a bit that I never had an OOM on 11 hour flights with my MD-11X, even though I have never disabled any scenery before, and I run with high settings, LOD 6.5 but only 2048 textures.

One thing I have noticed, my harddrive is working much more and for a long time after starting FSLC, never does that with my other aircraft.

Except for a defrag, is there anything smart I should do with how my pagefile is admined in Windows?

Also, I bought and dl'ed the aircraft today, do I need any upgrades/patches?

Thanks guys, can't wait to do my first flight, I know I'll get this beast under control :)

Cheers,

Link to post

I think if these are your only addons and you have your FSX settings set up accordingly to accommodate for them then you should be good to go.

Yes, I do not use any "megascenery airports" and so on because I do not think they are so important. Besides it would be also nice to use RC4 ATC but I am not sure if Concorde-X can fly routes typical for FMS equipped airliners. Anyway maybe I give a try to this bird because its flight-times are really awesome in comparision to all my subsonic airliners (PMDG 737NGX, 747X, MD-11X, J41, Level 763, LSH Maddog-2010 Pro). Transatlantic flights are possible with Concorde X during one FSX session! However I wonder what...minimum range is reasonable to fly Concorde X because I fly mainly over Europe?

Link to post
Morten Steen

Well, I am afraid I am at my wits end here.

I wanted to find my OOM culprit so I used SceneryConfig Editor and removed all but the default scenery.

I read this thread from the start and followed every advice, installed the newest C++ redist as per the support article regarding Acceleration.

I pulled down my details, autogen lower than I ever had them. AI / vehicles / boats are (always) at 0. LOD is at 4.5, I have Ezdok and FSUIPC active on the main FSX PC.

I normally run WX, SB4, EFB and BAV's ACARS networked on a laptop but nothing was connected for this test today.

On the "Fly Now" page with the trike situation stable, memory for FSX is 650Mb, when I select the Concord it goes to 1215Mb, I load the situation file for the tutorial and let it stabilize, I end up at 2338Mb, I apply groundpower and load fuel and takeoff card, I am at 2762Mb, still following the tutorial, I am pushing back at 3028Mb and FSUIPC starts to chime. As I am taxiing to 27L some textures outside, and in the cockpit, goes black and I am at 3265Mb, and finally, on the takeoff roll I OOM'ed.

So, for now I am parked, I hope someone can point me to a place to start the troubleshooting:

Is my startup load abnormal? 650Mb when stable at Free flight page?

Are there typical fsx.cfg setting I could have acquired that would cause this with the Concorde, but not with NGX, MD-11, J41 or RealAir Duke (wich are the only addon aircraft I have ever installed).

Thanks guys,

Link to post

@mosteen: I am afraid I could end up similar to you running Concorde X on my rig. I suppose maybe Concorde is so complicated aircraft that it is too complicated to be fully modeled in FSX taking into account FSX is 32-bit application and 3-4 GB of RAM are not enough to run Concorde with all systems simulated as in a real thing regardless of Windows version and amount of RAM you have? I would suggest you to go back to FS2004 and try its less complicated predecessor - Concorde SSTSIM. In the current state there is not much we can do to solve OOM issue. You downloaded Concorde X installer patched to SP2. Some people can run Concorde X flawlessly but others cannot. Quite random situation...

Maybe if Prepare3D is rewritten as pure 64-bit application FSLabs will release Concorde-X for Prepare3D and everything will be OK? Anyway I wonder about A320X and FSX limitations...

PS. I think that FSUIPC registered version can cause OOM to you?

Link to post
Morten Steen

@Ultor: Well, I don't think that it is random. Very few things, if any, with computers are random, they just seem random because our brain does not have the capacity to take into consideration all the different combination of factors :)

Elimination is the name of the game, I know that after a good night sleep, I will continue digging, hopefully get some hints by some seasoned Concorde pilots that actually has been in the air ;)

My next step will propably be to backup my fsx.cfg, let it rebuild a fresh one and compare, then incrementally apply my current tweaks to see what happens.

Regarding FSUIPC I have never heard that it is a common cause for OOM's.

Cheers,

Link to post

Well, term "random" is an approximation of present PC hardware and software situation where people have many tens of thousands if not more unique specs and configurations. Some of them allow Concorde X to run well but others apparently not. On the contrary it is very uncommon to have similar issues on very standardized console market.

Anyway if FSX is still predominant flight simulator application for several years to come I have to wait until Broadwell microarchitecture CPU with "native" 4 GHz frequency comes to fully upgrade my rig for FSX.

AFAIR PMDG 737NGX also had some OOM issues ("skeleton plane" etc.) after its release two years ago but they were addressed in service packs.

Link to post
Kyprianos Biris

Mosteen are you on UK2000 EGLL ?

To improve a bit the situation I installed the alternative ground (low size) bitmaps available from UK2000 customer login download page.

This saved me some OOMs with FSLabs CONC as long as I am not departing in dusk or dawn and 2D panels (don't) get redrawn and redrawn constantly with environment lighting changes.

Link to post
Morten Steen

Thanks, but no, for my day 2 test I disabled everything, the described run was with default FSX scenery, no third party bgls, textures or mesh.

Link to post

Morten, It's strange you're getting OOM's with your memory usage. I'm using UK2000 EGLL plus UTX and FTXG. My memory usage never goes below 2800mb and my take off from EGLL is usually about 3300mb but I never get OOM's there. Maybe lower your autogen a little? Why on this forum can I not make a new paragraph? grrr. Richard BAW1094.

Link to post
Morten Steen

Thanks mate, I am allready on sparse, pure FSX default scenery, and way below middle on every slider. Something else has to be wrong... :ph34r:

Link to post

Hmm it's strange. I'm currently flying LGAV-HKJK. My LGAV scenery is Fly Tampa and quite dense but no issues with memory getting low and my autogen is set to dense too. I'm at a loss to suggest anything. One little tip with this bird is to always load your panelstate after you've loaded a saved flight or even beginning a new one. The results of not doing so can be amusing at best as although the parking brake appears to be on - it often isn't. A panel state reload usually sorts that.

Link to post
Morten Steen

Thanks Richard, yes definately weird, I am sure it is something with my FSX installation in combination with the Concorde that makes the VAS fill up, I'll try eliminating, first I will remove EZdok, then I think I will boot with a fresh cfg, taking note of every third party DLL that asks for permission, denying all others than FSL related. Applying the highmem and the wideview tweak, and see what happens.

I liked to believe my FSK installation was kept pretty neat, and never had any problems (CTD, OOM or anything). I have ran for a year with FSGlobal Ultimate all regions, GEX all regions, UTX all regions, UTX Alaska, (recently i changed GEX to FTXG), Ezdok and a veritable busload of FSDT/Megaairports/SG Canaries/Tropicalsims etc. I have never disabled any scenery before... The only aircraft I have ever installed are the MD-11X, NGX, J41 and Duke B60.

Because of my processor I never had a 60 fps machine but quite alright for my use. I enjoyed "Extremely Dense" out of EGKK when I got FTXG too, just a few days ago. Most importantly, I haver even had one "hang" on my 600-700 Vatsim hours during the last 13-14 months and my longest flights have been 9-11 hours.

Link to post

I wonder if EZdock is the issue? Otherwise your setup is similar to mine, apart from my pc spec being lower.

My machine is an E8500 O/C to 3,8 Ghz, 4Gb ram and a not so good GTX280 graphics card. She runs fine though. As you know it's not networked and the only recent issues i had were FTXG pushing me OOM when set to hybrid. It's ok on normal settings.

I'm currently flying over the Red Sea at FL550 Mach2. The machine is using a total of 2.8Gb and as smooth as butter. Admittedly the terrain here is sparse even with FTXG. UTX is loaded too and OPUS but all other sceneries are disabled apart from FlyTampa LGAV. HKJK is standard FSX scenery.

Keep bashing away at it and you'll find what's causing the issues. It's worth it in the end as Concorde X is an awesome aircraft.

Richard

I can create a new paragraph here with Google Chrome :-)

Link to post
Morten Steen

Thanks mate, yep, I'll look into Ezdok, it is easy to disable and I don't need it as much in the Concorde as I do in other aircraft. I got a bad blow when this happened, but I will never give up. In September I will log my first Concord pirep B)

Link to post
Lefteris Kalamaras

Alex,

we're posting when necessary, so stop trolling. It's known and said many times that the Concorde is a heavy on resources but it does not cause leaks. Leaks should be sought elsewhere (as posted many many times before). That said, we have not abandoned it (as - again - said in a different post - did you read it?). Repeating doesn't really help - does it?

Link to post
Alex Ridge

Alex,

we're posting when necessary, so stop trolling. It's known and said many times that the Concorde is a heavy on resources but it does not cause leaks. Leaks should be sought elsewhere (as posted many many times before). That said, we have not abandoned it (as - again - said in a different post - did you read it?). Repeating doesn't really help - does it?

Hi Lefteris, I am not trolling at all, ( i haven't seen any other post on the matter? ) I don't understand why you have accused me of such when people are asking questions with no official response.

My suggestion was removing the cabin from the VC view, is there any sense in that?

Alex

Link to post
Lefteris Kalamaras

Alex,

these are public forums. We respond and participate when necessary. It's then up to people to actually read our responses, rather than reposting the same question without bothering. We've also posted regarding the cabin, but here it goes again: it won't do much in terms of memory.

I've said it many times in my posts: One needs to find a balance for one's setup. For example, on my end, with several add-ons added, I don't usually exceed 3GB of VAS and during the run of the Concorde (until landing), mem stays steady, so I can't reproduce what people are saying (about memory steadily increasing). Then again, I am pretty particular on how I add things and what I let run.

I suggested in the past: Run a straight FSX installation, with no add-ons added, except for the Concorde-X. That will give you an idea of how much mem it uses. Then, start adding your favorites and see what you can / cannot do without.

Link to post
Morten Steen

Interesting quest this, I never knew I would get so much excitement for a few bucks, you're over-delivering Lefteris :D

Jokes aside, I am fully aware of the position I am in with a 1,5 year old FSX install, wich up to now had no issues, wich in turn does not prove anything, other than just that B) I am in it for the long haul and I know that I eventually will find the culprit. I just hope I will not have to reinstall everything. I actually don't like such an approach either, there is nothing random about computers and software, it is all happening for a reason. I'm going about this by elimination and by being consequent. I just got a good few tips here about DLL control, wich I will be looking into this evening.

The symptom for what ever is wrong in my system is a continuous VAS increase in the Concord, it does not stop (early enough). This does not happen with my four other addon aircraft. That is the only thing I know. I have made a point out of following the Tutorial every time, opening the same panels in the same order, the same amount of times etc. etc. By disabling all scenery, thus lowering my "takeoff weight", I came much longer yesterday.

Soon the working day is over and I can go home and play :D

Happy weekend guys,

Link to post
GavinPrice

Just wandering would it be possible to have the 2d popups run externally from FSX like another application? I have to say that I'm in Morsteen's boat as well. I think it's about time for a fresh FSX installation soon anyway.

Link to post

I think it's about time for a fresh FSX installation soon anyway.

Maybe you have a good point.

I did an FSX reinstall about 4 months ago and i don't have the problem with ever increasing memory usage that Morten (and others) are having with Concorde X. I also switch between 2d panels a lot.

I believe it's FSX; it's an old and flakey 32 bit program which was never really designed to do what us hard core flight simmers demand of it.

I wouldn't mind betting that Concorde X would work perfectly on any up to date system with a fresh FSX install - including scenery add ons.

Concorde X will always be resource heavy no matter what. It was created in such incredible and minute detail that it could hardly be anything else.

What an amazing add on aircraft to have in your hangar though.

Richard

Link to post
Morten Steen

I am sure that you Gavin and Richard are right. It is time for a new install. But, I will use the oppurtunity now to learn about FSX by trying to solve this. I must be sick. I cant even take off with the Concorde and I am perfectly happy :)

On the fresh install note, I am such a lucky smuck to have parts for a new rig practically on its way, only details left, it will be quite the opposite to the BF3-tuned / videoeditor / family-PC I run FSX on now.

My new rig will be a delidded 4770K / Titan / dual PCIe SSD / Asus Extreme, built only for FSX with absolutely no expenses spared. I am feeling the nerves creeping up thinking about sinking my razorblade into the Haswell already. If I can get 4.7-4.8 with 60c it will be awesome.

Link to post
Lefteris Kalamaras

Morten-

just stay away from dual graphics cards - they're a waste of time and money for FSX (unless you intend to run six monitors or some such).

Link to post
Morten Steen

Thank you Lefteris, I am looking at both 770/780 and the Titan, I might go with 3x U3011 at some point (I have one now) and actually the price diff up to Titan is not that insane.

Edit: Allthough, when you said that I started to think about a discussion I had with Srdan this winter, there was some things pointing to that running the 690, you lost perfomance in comparison to the 680 in FSX. The same here maybe?

Link to post
Lefteris Kalamaras

Take a look at the latest NickN post (if you look around, you'll find it, otherwise ping me back and I'll post a URL for you) - there's extensive talk about how latest graphics cards are overkill for FSX and a 680 is more than enough.

Link to post
Morten Steen

Hm, I missed that, no worries, I'll find it. Thanks ;)

I have a GTX680 in my i7 960 now, for some reason I thought 7xx series had an upside with Haswell. Well, I didn't push "Buy Now" yet so I am good.

Link to post
GavinPrice

Slightly off topic. But when I reinstall FSX I have that on its own drive. I have Acronis True Image. Will it be possible to store images of the drive at different stages of my FSX install and be able to revert to them?

Link to post
Morten Steen

Absolutely! I also have ATI 2013 and I make full images every night in periods when I do alot of changes. I have a 900 Gb partition now, not ideal, because I have all my life on that drive...

I (would) make only FULL backups, no INCREMENTAL ones. I have a USB3.0 3TB MyBook (they are cheap now) so I just add up images and delete as I go.

My plan for the FSX-only rig is like you say, first to follow NickNs guides from the beginning, save the Win7 SSD image as I go along, then when starting with the FSX SSD I do the same. It will not be much data and if you have "snapshots" along the way, imagine the flexibility :)

Link to post
Morten Steen

I was thinking... Not necessarily a good sign :)

What has resolution to do with VAS?

I suddenly realized that am running quite a hefty 2560x1600x32 on my GTX680 / U3011 30" combo? Would that resolution increase VAS use much more than a more sober resolution? I am guessing yes. I'll try to go down to a lower 16:9 resolution and see what happens.

Cheers,

Link to post
Lefteris Kalamaras

Morten,

I am thinking that resolution should play a role. Full screen or not, having to paint 2560x1600x(however many panels you keep open) pixels will require twice as many pixels as would be required for a 1920x1080 resolution. Where would those pixels be loaded? You guessed it: VAS.

Cheers,

Link to post
Morten Steen

Thanks Lefteris, it makes perfect sense, I could not understand why my (quite tidy and well performing) FSX installation should be so much worse than those of my BAV colleauges who are able to fly, as long as they use settings and scenery wisely.

By the way, The SceneryConfig Editor is a very quick and usefull utility when optimizing the environment for demanding aircraft.

I'll give it a try this evening and hopefully I will be able to make a boom :)

Link to post
Lefteris Kalamaras

<Soapbox climbing ON>

I was thinking this last night... FSX was released in 2007. Its infrastructure (SDK / gauges) is designed around 1024x768 resolution (I know higher res monitors existed back then, but it carries legacy code, don't forget). 1920x1080 is 1.5 times larger than that (2m pixels per, vs 768k). Considering its 32-bit nature, no wonder we're pushing everything to the limit... and it's not just us aircraft addon developers - it's also weather (cloud bitmaps) and scenery...

The real solution? a 64-bit app - be that P3D 2.0, or other possibles.

<Soapbox climbing OFF>

Link to post
Morten Steen

This has to be the cause for my troubles, 1024x768=786432, 1920x1080=2073600, 2560x1600=4096000. So, I am running 5,2 times higher than the legacy...

And, on top of that, just changing from 16 to 32 will perhaps double theese numbers..?

I will try reducing color first to 16 and see. Man I am stoked now ;)

Link to post
Morten Steen

Color depth, if it makes a similar memory footprint as the actual "1x1" resolution, I don't know, but I would guess it does.

Link to post
Morten Steen

[sOLVED]

I changed from 2560x1600x32 to 1920x1200x16 resolution in FSX, my VAS stabilized at 2,3 Gb with FSX default scenery.

And, importantly, the "memory leaking" stopped for the most part. I.e. I can open and close the 2D panels as much as I want, the VAS then does increase a little, and when I close the panel, memory load decrease.

With the higher resolution the total load from start was 0,3-0,4 Gb higher, but the biggest problem was that memoryload for some reason kept continuing to increase.

Thanks to all of you for your advice :)

Cheers,

Link to post
Charan Kumar

Morten, are you sure about the x16 resolution working without issues, in terms of display? I had noticed odd behavior when 16 bit color was used with a lot of scenery or in some cases scenery objects disappearing or discolored when using 16 bit. I am not looking for more fps, but if x16 makes such a huge difference, I am willing to try it.

Link to post
Morten Steen

Well, I actually have not tried with 32 bits color on the lower resolution, I did not see any graphics anomalies on the test I just did with 16 though.

I had one OOM at FL100 just now, but I was running all sliders to max, so now I will start the process of tweaking and dial in the sweetspot :)

Link to post
Konstantin

Hi Mosteen,

Could you (or anyone else) run an identical flying scenario that includes opening and closing various 2D-Panels under same slider settings but different resolutions, and monitor the VAS usage?

You have figured out that less VAS is consumed when a lower resolution is set. I would like to know what the average and peak VAS are for 1920x1200, 1280x1024 and 1024x768 (legacy format). I am using a 1280x1024 screen, so I wonder how much lower the VAS usage would be compared to 1920x1200 (that most people seem to use). The answer to this question would be crucial in my decision whether to buy or not to buy Concorde-X for my system in the future. Maybe FSX has a poor VAS management when running ultra-high resolutions compared to low resolutions?

I would be thankful if someone could run my proposed experiment.

Link to post
  • 1 month later...

well, it's almost impossible to play with the Concorde X without getting the OOMs. I have a high end system (i7 980 CPU, 6 Gb RAM, GTX480) and even when i load the concorde up in any FSX default airport in the middle of nowhere just to play in the cockpit without taking off, i will get the VAS warning bell.as soon as i start opening the FE's 2-D panels. I have switched from 3 monitors at resolution 3800x1200 (matrox) to another screen (24 inch at resolution 1024 x something, and in 16 bits instead of 32 bits color) but it won't help.when looking at this video on YoutTube [media=]

[/media] one can hear the OOM alarm in the background up until the abrupt edit in the movie at around 43 minutes, probably due to a restart of FSX although that is speculation but one wonders how else the alarm has stopped after that point.
Link to post
  • Lefteris Kalamaras pinned this topic

×
×
  • Create New...