If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
MSFS X impressions
"RomeoMike" wrote in message ... I don't know, but I downloaded the demo, and that alone was almost 1.5 GB. Stan Singer wrote: How much disk space does it require once installed. As I recollect when I saw it in the store it said 15GB, but I couldn't tell if that was just required for the install process, or that was the minimum for the final installed product. Stan The demo had only a fraction of the landscape and if I remember correctly only 2 aircraft. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
MSFS X impressions
Gig 601XL Builder wrote: The demo had only a fraction of the landscape and if I remember correctly only 2 aircraft. Correct. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
MSFS X impressions
"john smith" wrote in message
Q: Is there a memory limit as to how much RAM Windows XP will use? ie: The specs on my computer say "up to 2GB". It came with 2x256 (512mb) and I just purchased 2x1GB and installed them. The computer says that it has 2.49GB RAM, but will it actually access that additional 0.5GB and be able to use it? Generally, if the PC recognizes the RAM, it should be able to use it. Be aware, though, not all memory is compatible. If you have memory using different clock cycles, for example, you may experience instability. Also, if you get memory that is too slow or too fast for your system, instability may result. -- John T http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org ____________________ |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
MSFS X impressions
"Stan Singer" wrote in message ... On 1 Jan 2007 20:14:30 -0800, "Robert M. Gary" wrote: I finally got around to installing the copy of MSFS X that's been sitting on my shelf for about 2 months. I must say I've very underwhelmed. How much disk space does it require once installed. As I recollect when I saw it in the store it said 15GB, but I couldn't tell if that was just required for the install process, or that was the minimum for the final installed product. Stan .. My FSX program files folder is 13G. And there will be some more elsewhere. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
When I was at the Niagara Aerospace Museum, I finally got the change to try FSX, in a nifty "cockpit mockup"...I was impressed at the better quality of the landscape, and seeing the traffic moving along the roads. That was it. I'd already heard that the flight physics were pretty much unchanged from FS 2004, and an attempt at a spin pretty much verified that.
I wish Ubisoft would make a flight simulator using the engine from Sturmovik...that would kick some serious behind. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
MSFS X impressions
John T wrote:
Generally, if the PC recognizes the RAM, it should be able to use it. Well, yes an no. Windows XP in its standard incarnation is able to manage up to 4GB of RAM, however, it will assign a maximum of only 2GB to a single application. So, if you only run one memory-hungry app at a time, more than 2GB won't do much for you. Anno. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
MSFS X impressions
"Anno v. Heimburg" wrote in message
... Generally, if the PC recognizes the RAM, it should be able to use it. Well, yes an no. Windows XP in its standard incarnation is able to manage up to 4GB of RAM, however, it will assign a maximum of only 2GB to a single application. So, if you only run one memory-hungry app at a time, more than 2GB won't do much for you. That's not true, for a couple of reasons. First, there is a way to configure Windows to allow processes to use 3GB of virtual address space, rather than just 2GB. This is done with a switch in the boot.ini file (and may only be available on the server editions of Windows...I don't recall if they added it to XP). Secondly, the 2GB (or 3GB if enabled) per process limit is for the processes *virtual* address space. It has little to do with the physical RAM in the computer. It's true that any individual process still won't be able to access all 3GB or 4GB of RAM if that's what you have installed; they will be limited to 2GB. But a) in reality no process is ever going to be using a full 2GB of *physical* RAM even if they have completely allocated their 2GB quota of *virtual* memory, and b) the full amount of physical RAM is usable by all the processes combined. So you could have three different processes, all of which want 1GB of RAM, and they could all theoretically have all of their data resident in physical RAM if 3GB or more of RAM is installed. Of course, even there you run into the fact that lots of other processes need some of their data resident in physical RAM in order to work as well. The 1GB x 3 scenario is simply theoretical. But the fact is that having more physical RAM can always provide a benefit, assuming you've got enough processes to take advantage of it. You don't even need all of those processes to be memory hungry. You just need enough other processes competing with one memory hungry process (and Windows certainly has plenty of other processes)...lower-footprint processes can all share what's left over after the memory hungry process gets its chunk. It's sort of like having multiple CPUs (multi-core, multi-package, whatever) when you're playing a video game that has only one thread (which is nearly all the video games so far). Sure, the one process that the game is in doesn't get to directly take advantage of the extra CPUs, but because of the extra CPU all the other processes on the computer don't wind up competing with the game for one of the CPUs, and the game can still run somewhat faster. The bottom line: because of the fact that Windows has lots of processes that generally have nothing to do with whatever your one (or few) memory-hungry process is doing, having more than 2GB (or 3GB as appropriate) of physical RAM can still be very useful, as it allows that one memory-hungry process to not have to compete with all the other processes for the same physical RAM. Pete |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
MSFS X impressions
"John T" wrote in message
... Generally, if the PC recognizes the RAM, it should be able to use it. Be aware, though, not all memory is compatible. If you have memory using different clock cycles, for example, you may experience instability. Also, if you get memory that is too slow or too fast for your system, instability may result. I've never heard of memory that was rated *faster* causing incompatibility problems. I guess I can't rule it out, but it would certainly surprise me. I would guess that even when it *appears* that it's a case of the memory being too fast, it may turn out to be actually related to access timings for the memory being incompatible instead. Of course, you're right that "too slow" is definitely an issue...all sorts of bad things can happen if the RAM is rated slower than what the motherboard is using it at (noting, of course, that on some motherboards the memory controller can be underclocked to compensate for too-slow memory). Also, on most motherboards, matching memory sticks (DIMMs, SIMMS, whatever your computer is using) is mainly important when the sticks are on paired channels. For dual-channel memory controllers, these are the pairs of channels that run the sticks in parallel, and for other controllers, there are still usually just pairs of slots that are dependent on each other. The motherboard manual (or PC documentation, if it's a prebuilt system) will generally describe the matching requirements. You can often get away with unmatched memory, as long as the unmatched memory isn't paired up in mutually-dependent memory slots. Pete |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
MSFS X impressions
Secondly, the 2GB (or 3GB if enabled) per process limit is for the
processes *virtual* address space. It has little to do with the physical RAM in the computer. Yes. It's true that any individual process still won't be able to access all 3GB or 4GB of RAM if that's what you have installed; they will be limited to 2GB. Which is what I said. But a) in reality no process is ever going to be using a full 2GB of *physical* RAM even if they have completely allocated their 2GB quota of *virtual* memory, and b) the full amount of physical RAM is usable by all the processes combined. Naturally, that's my point. But the fact is that having more physical RAM can always provide a benefit, assuming you've got enough processes to take advantage of it. Right, assuming we have enough processes, but we are talking about a PC doing little else but running MSFSX. I think I made the mistake of writing as if I was talking about the general case, but really was talking about dedicated MSFSX-gaming. You don't even need all of those processes to be memory hungry. You just need enough other processes competing with one memory hungry process (and Windows certainly has plenty of other processes)...lower-footprint processes can all share what's left over after the memory hungry process gets its chunk. If all you're doing is running MSFSX, most of the windows-process-forest can be paged out. More than 2GB/3GB of RAM will then not give you a much faster MSFSX, it becomes a case of rapidly diminishing returns. Sure, the one process that the game is in doesn't get to directly take advantage of the extra CPUs, but because of the extra CPU all the other processes on the computer don't wind up competing with the game for one of the CPUs, and the game can still run somewhat faster. Again, if all you're doing is running the game, the extra core will gain you very little, because the rest isn't doing much. The second core will be pretty bored. As soon as you're doing something else on the side, yes, I agree wholheartedly, especially because the cache of the MSFSX-CPU stays hot, but we are talking about a dedicated MSFSX-machine here. Anno. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
MSFS X impressions
Stan,
or that was the minimum for the final installed product. That's it. 15 Gig. Unbelievable! -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Jeppesen's Internet Flight Planner - 1st Impressions | Marco Leon | Piloting | 1 | December 20th 05 12:34 PM |
MSFS 2004 Video frame rate very slow | Greg Brown | Simulators | 1 | November 11th 05 07:24 PM |
Moving aircraft initial starting points in MSFS | Gerald Sylvester | Simulators | 3 | March 16th 04 11:36 AM |
Visual bugs in MSFS 2004 | [email protected] | Simulators | 1 | October 4th 03 06:34 PM |
IFR flight in MSFS '98 questions | Sydney Hoeltzli | Simulators | 9 | July 31st 03 12:05 AM |