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.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:


The demo had only a fraction of the landscape and if I remember correctly
only 2 aircraft.



Correct.

"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
____________________

"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.

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.

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.

"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

"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

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.

Stan,

or that was the
minimum for the final installed product.


That's it. 15 Gig. Unbelievable!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)