Hardware/software relationship - 64 bit

[Chalenge]

I am running a system with Vista 64 and 16 GB of RAM. My video card has 2 GB video RAM. If I am flying is it true the memory space used for the program is space-video ram = available program space? So if I have 4 GB (large memory aware) it takes away enough room for the video card and then the remainder is for the program? In other words if I use two (2) video cards with 2 GB video RAM each I wont have any room for the program? Or is there some other scheme in use?

Please explain.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

I am running a system with Vista 64 and 16 GB of RAM. My video card has 2 GB video RAM. If I am flying is it true the memory space used for the program is space-video ram = available program space? So if I have 4 GB (large memory aware) it takes away enough room for the video card and then the remainder is for the program? In other words if I use two (2) video cards with 2 GB video RAM each I wont have any room for the program? Or is there some other scheme in use?

Please explain.

The 64-bit subsystem shouldn't suffer from this. OTOH you could just settle to a lower configuration and save yourself the trouble.. 

I haven't yet found a game that wouldnt run on E8500 and a single 4870 on 3,5Gb / 32bits.

[Chalenge]

Im trying to push FSX as hard as it will go without running into the OOM problem but you didnt answer either of the three questions.

[RTHolmes]

video ram is different - its used for textures and the like, not running applications. so you have 16GB available for applications, and 2GB for textures.

btw why did you mention 4GB? I thought the limit of 4GB was for 32bit windows. not sure about 64bit windows but the limit for Mac X Leopard (64bit) is 4TB RAM.

[TilDeath]

Memory Limits Source MSDN
I have a question, what Video card are you running that has 2GB of mem on board?  Also is this an X58 chipset of the i7 they respond to video and system memory differently.  Please tell MB chipset

[Chalenge]

Granted I would have to change a few things to use two video cards (namely the MB)...

I am using the Asus P5Q with the Intel P45 chipset and the video card is the Diamond 4870 X2 Radeon HD (2 GB).

I have been told that Windows allows 4 GB max to any program and that the same amount of 'memory space' used by the video cards must be taken from that total. I have not yet hit the 'OOM' error that so many XP users mention and I would like to avoid wasting money on a 'fix' if it won't help.

The question really boils down to whether the total 4 GB video memory will stamp out the available memory for the application (in this case FSX). FSX is large memory aware with the 'Acceleration' add-on but so far thats the limit of my information and I dont know exactly how much memory it gets (4 GB or more?)...

[Chalenge]

I forgot to answer you Holmes... The limit on 32 bit applications is approximately 3 GB but it can be expanded (I wont explain how because you can wreck your OS toying with it) and the max available then would be approximately 4 GB. The problem on 32 bit Windows (Vista or XP) is that you only have 4 GB to play with and Windows has got to be in there somewhere. As I understand it the 64 bit Windows (Vista or XP) separates memory spaces so you can have the OS running in 4 GB and each application running in their own 4 GB (if you have the memory).

I get confused going along this path further and trying to figure out which memory is doing what... is the OS managing the apps video memory? Is video memory and app memory the same? or different space?

Warning: The further down this rabbit hole you go the more money you will spend...

With FSX you get a ton of stuff to help you tune the game to run smooth and without a 64 bit OS I dont know how well you could do but Im very sure it would be slower. And the myth about Vista being slow doesnt hold water because I tested it and (with FSX anyway) Vista runs memory so much better then XP that beyond the 3 GB limitation the two cant compare. It is true that if you follow defaults on everything XP will be faster but defeating the Vista 'security snares' before during and after installation Vista is faster. On any system you will have to tune FSX because defaults just are not good enough . Period.

So then you come to my question...

[TilDeath]

I forgot to answer you Holmes... The limit on 32 bit applications is approximately 3 GB but it can be expanded (I wont explain how because you can wreck your OS toying with it) and the max available then would be approximately 4 GB. The problem on 32 bit Windows (Vista or XP) is that you only have 4 GB to play with and Windows has got to be in there somewhere. As I understand it the 64 bit Windows (Vista or XP) separates memory spaces so you can have the OS running in 4 GB and each application running in their own 4 GB (if you have the memory).

I get confused going along this path further and trying to figure out which memory is doing what... is the OS managing the apps video memory? Is video memory and app memory the same? or different space?

Warning: The further down this rabbit hole you go the more money you will spend...

With FSX you get a ton of stuff to help you tune the game to run smooth and without a 64 bit OS I dont know how well you could do but Im very sure it would be slower. And the myth about Vista being slow doesnt hold water because I tested it and (with FSX anyway) Vista runs memory so much better then XP that beyond the 3 GB limitation the two cant compare. It is true that if you follow defaults on everything XP will be faster but defeating the Vista 'security snares' before during and after installation Vista is faster. On any system you will have to tune FSX because defaults just are not good enough . Period.

So then you come to my question...

Checking into this before I speak.  But I do know that I have personally not had success with 64 bit OS (Vista Ultimate) and AHII in relation to the "Textures" setting preload the graphics settings using the HiRes bundle.  Called Roy about this and he said some cards wont support it.  But the same card (280GTX) does support it running 32 bit OS, there for I was baffled and decided to stick with the 64 bit OS for performance for other things then AHII.  I will research and get back to ya and give my opinion and findings.

[Chalenge]

Well I will tell you what I found in 'tweaking' with FSX if you want. I do use some 'illegal' values for FSX LODs in testing but I found that much more precise since MS decided to limit the LOD slider to a value of 2.5 3.5 or 4.5 and on my system I found the values of 3.25 or 6.5 to give far better results and a maximum of 9.999999 obtainable. The test I used was FSXMark07 which really is a benchmarking tool for FSX anyway. Very important is the fact that I do not overclock during these tests and yet I can hit 60 fps under some circumstances but certainly not at London Heathrow or Frankfurt am Main or Atlanta Hartsfield etc etc. I would like to push 60 fps with Fraps running but I would settle for 30fps while recording an ILS to Frankfurt. Thats my goal anyway...

[715]

May I ask a question of you experts?  When FSX came out I didn't upgrade as it was described as needing massive computer power.  I now have an E8400 + 4GB + 512M Radeon 4850, & XP Pro SP3.  But you mentioned having a massive computer yet are shooting for 30 fps.  Would it be a mistake to try FSX on my system?  Is it worth it (vs the prior version of FS)?  (Also, does it have any form of invasive DRM, like SecuROM?)

[Chalenge]

I was talking about filming with FRAPS while I was near a major airport with (something I didnt reveal) 100% AI commercial traffic and GA traffic military traffic real time weather intervals at 3 minutes in IFR conditions etc etc all which tank frame rates. I can easily hit 60 fps at a municipal field in Utah and with your system I think you could too. I think its a big step up from FS9 its worth the change and I think anyone would like it and the 'missions.' No DRM or SecuROM but there is something called FSUIPC which you want so look into it. Developers will be using that into the future I think but you dont have to pay for it unless you want the advance features but you can still receive the benefits if you add stuff that needs it (like Airport Designer or FS Design Studio, etc.).

If you do get FSX do yourself a favor and go to AVSIM and have a load of fun getting free stuff like the Grand Canyon Chile the Alps and more free airplanes then I remember. Also you will want Cargo Pilot which I hope brings out developers to design packages just like it because it brings life to flight sim.

Here is the left MFD with radar up near Frankfurt and this is just the air in front!

[715]

Thanks, maybe I'll get it.  I hope I can find compatible early prop airliners- in prior versions I had a bunch of nice DC-3s, -4s, Connies etc. in real liveries.

(That radar looks a bit crowded for my tastes )

[TilDeath]

No luck Chalenge, at this time I cant get a reasonable answer for you.  I will keep checking with sources though

[Chalenge]

Thanks, maybe I'll get it.  I hope I can find compatible early prop airliners- in prior versions I had a bunch of nice DC-3s, -4s, Connies etc. in real liveries.

(That radar looks a bit crowded for my tastes )

FSX comes with a DC-3 but the panel isnt the best. I think Mid-Atlantic Air Museum has the best one but its payware.

http://www.maam.org/flightsim/PACKAGES/PACKAGES.htm

I have a freeware DC-4 and Connie both that I got online either from AVSIM or one of the pay sites (paid access). I dont recommend the pay sites unless there is something there you cant get anywhere else.

I think the best prop airliner is the A2A Simulations Boeing 377 Stratocruiser but you want the whole thing (accu-sim addon too).

http://a2asimulations.com/377.html

Thanks TilDeath. You probably hit the same wall I did with not much information to find.

[RTHolmes]

As I understand it the 64 bit Windows (Vista or XP) separates memory spaces so you can have the OS running in 4 GB and each application running in their own 4 GB (if you have the memory).

ah I see, so its not true 64bit addressing. wondered why it could only access 128GB (...only... )

I get confused going along this path further and trying to figure out which memory is doing what... is the OS managing the apps video memory? Is video memory and app memory the same? or different space?

simply the CPU only accesses its own mainboard RAM (16GB in your case). the GPU only accesses its own onboard RAM (2GB).

this is how I imagine it: the sim runs on the CPU in mainboard RAM, basically doing maths to work out what should be where in its 3d virtual world, essentially creating an unrendered wireframe of the sim, together with vector data for lighting etc. it then passes all this data to the GPU, which runs another app in its own RAM. this app adds textures, lighting effects etc to the bare model and sends the nice looking results out to your monitor.

is that what you meant?