How much does this suck?

[axiom13]

This morning I was on approach into LAX runway 24R, all set to land, I decided to do a full-autoland because the winds were calm, and I just flew 13.5 hours from Taipei, Taiwan in a China Airlines 747-400, "lets make it a nice smooth landing", I said. The GPWS said "500", and then, all of a sudden, the game freezes and the "fatal error occurred message" comes up... how much does that suck?

axiom

[FSXForever]

save it next time

[JamesChams]

axiom,

That sound's like a virtual memory error with FS and Windows.  Suggestion from MS' KB article to me (a long time ago) was to DEFRAG your HDD and increase the Virtual Memory to at least 1 GB more than you've currently got.  It worked for me! 

Good Luck!

[thepilot]

I can feel with you.
Not too long ago I was on approach into O'Hare after a pretty long flight from Portland. Guess what? Freeze.
sucks 

[Dimon]

Yep, both PMDG, MH Maddog and LDS allow to save MCP+FMC situation. Normally, I save within 200m distance, defrag memory (~10sec) and load the flight again. Smooth, nice and CTD-free solution.

That's why just released DA Fokker is useless for me now - it does not have "in-flight save option", even though that the bird iself is simply brilliant.

PS. Speaking about virtual memory - FSDT KORD is virtual memory hog #1 among many other sceneries' products. 1.6GB is normal on 22R ILS App from PMDG747 VC. Don't wanna think about what memory load future JFK might cause.

[virtuali]

PS. Speaking about virtual memory - FSDT KORD is virtual memory hog #1 among many other sceneries' products. 1.6GB is normal on 22R ILS App from PMDG747 VC. Don't wanna think about what memory load future JFK might cause.

Don't think so: I have 644 MB used in Vista, without any FS loaded.

In FSX: 1.17 GB with FSX + FSDT KORD loaded, and 1.11 GB at default KORD

In FS9: 1.03 GB with FSDT KORD, and 970 MB at default KORD

So, KORD takes about 50 MB in FSX and 60 MB in FS9. Yes, the FS9 version takes slightly more memory, because FSX terrain engine is more efficent with photoreal backgrounds.

If you simply try the same test with a C172, you'll see that it's not KORD that is hogging your RAM.

[Dimon]

Don't get me wrong - I'm not critizise or whatever. Im talking just about using product XYZ (PMDG or LDS) with specific scenery ABC.

Let's say that PMDG747 is constant with XXXX consumption of virtual memory and I know it's hard on both physical and virtual memory, but my system can handle it with no problem. So, if you're going to test PMDG747 with 4 latest "huge" things such as C9 EHAM, Aerosoft EGLL, GAP EDDF and FSDT KORD, the latter it the "winner".

And yes, I have UT, GE, FE, my own custom-made traffic, KMDW (turned off termorary from scenery.cfg). Still waiting for my first OOM. after reading avsim.com and aerosoft AES forum.

[virtuali]

Let's say that PMDG747 is constant with XXXX consumption of virtual memory and I know it's hard on both physical and virtual memory, but my system can handle it with no problem. So, if you're going to test PMDG747 with 4 latest "huge" things such as C9 EHAM, Aerosoft EGLL, GAP EDDF and FSDT KORD, the latter it the "winner".

Tried the same test with C9 EHAM, total RAM allocation is 925 MB with MS default EHAM and 980 MB with C9 EHAM. Aerosoft EDDF, takes 1.00 GB comparing to 934 MB at MS default EDDF.

So, C9 EHAM takes about 55 MB and EDDF takes 66 MB, not really different than KORD.

Since I do recall from some test I did a while ago in FS9, that PMDG 747 takes about 600 MB just for itself, the numbers fits quit nicely with your 1.6 GB total allocation figures, but certainly not because of the sceneries and certainly KORD doesn't look any different in RAM occupation, comparing to other two you cited.

If you have different results, I would be interested to know how you measured that KORD takes more RAM than, let's say EHAM or EDDF. Of course, there's only one way to test: all other things being equal, you first measure the total RAM allocation with only default scenery, then you do the same with the scenery active, and see the difference.

[thepilot]

panel save for the Fokker wouldn't make sense imo. Most Fokker flights will be (far) below 2 hrs.
I heard that the PMDG panel save is buggy.

[Dimon]

I heard that the PMDG panel save is buggy.

Totally wrong. Since summer 2005, I have completed 39 long hauls om PMDG747 in real time with zero problems. Two things their FMC cannot save - fixes and winds on fixes. Other than that - the best commercial complex airplane for FS2004 so far. I wish I had more time to start flying in Asia.

[_Dre_]

If you regularly fly long haul you will probably run into a few CTDs for whatever reason. I learned my lesson a long time ago and as such I save my long haul flights every 1-2,000 miles. Believe me there is nothing wose than what the original poster encountered, especially if you fly in real time (1X).

[Dimon]

If you regularly fly long haul you will probably run into a few CTDs for whatever reason. I learned my lesson a long time ago and as such I save my long haul flights every 1-2,000 miles. Believe me there is nothing wose than what the original poster encountered, especially if you fly in real time (1X).

Read my Reply #4. 1st sentence.