Enable Large Address Aware (for 64-bit systems with >3GBs of RAM)

[Darki]

Offtopic: Seems like a overclocked/dieing/overheating graphics card issue to me or memory errors usually not enough vram to display everything even on higher settings.

If its overclocked, set it back to default settings since overclocking can cause it to give random issues in the game also turn off added settings in the nvidia control panel if you have any on.

Also is the graphics card free of dust, if not, then you need to open up your computer and clean it out and clean out the dust in the fan (if it has one) or heatsink free of dust if you can.

You shouldn't be crashing that often unless like its really dieing out or its a power issue from the power supply Darki, also do you have the latest drivers if so, donno if this helps but do a clean install if you can, might help with the crashing but better than nothing at all.

My card is not overclocked, and I cleaned it almost like new on the third week I started playing the game in hopes to fix the errors, it wasn't THAT dirty to begin with. Also, I should have the latest drivers, unless they updated them last month, but I definitely had the newest aviable ones when the game got out.

Personally I'd suspect that the motherboard and the GPU are not living off their best days. The motherboard has some issues (it doesn't recognize some components anymore, although the computer still works reasonably well), and there are games that show graphical issues that were going fine a year ago, for example, Prototype 1.

My problem is that the game doesn't show too visible indications of a crash. When I play in graphic settings 5, for example, it goes perfectly, not even slowdowns in hard fights with lots of explosions and lights, it just goes shit suddenly while you're playing a perfectly normal run. In graphics settings 3, it does the same, but not that often. The spikes are bothersome but don't seem to be the cause of those crashes.

The power source... well, never though it'd give much problems. Is there a way I could test that?

[Gama]

if its nvidia, avoid the 301 driver get the latest beta driver.

[Gama]

slight performance increase.

Edit:

sorry for double post

[IzzyData]

Pso2 has never exceeded 1gb of memory usage for me. I don't know how you guys can possibly have the need for more than 2gb but this wouldn't change a single thing on my system. I'm using the highest textures and all settings on max.

I do have 8gb of ram though. Haven't had any memory issues anywhere.

[Mystil]

Anyone who runs Skyrim surely has more than 2GB.. but yeah I have 4 and never hit this ceiling(but very often in Skyrim..)

[Ana-Chan]

Since I want to avoid a long, confusing and boring post. I'll put it simply, this thread isn't about physical memory. This is a thread about a process' virtual address space and virtual memory which is a very distinct thing. So having 8GB of physical RAM wouldn't have made any difference because PSO2 is still a 32 bit executable.

Also IzzyData, never exceeded 1GB of memory usage, or never exceeded 1GB of working set? There is a major difference between the two.

[IzzyData]

pso2 takes up about 1GB total physical memory. Whatever portion of that is currently being used is obviously going to be smaller than 1GB.

[Ana-Chan]

pso2 takes up about 1GB total physical memory. Whatever portion of that is currently being used is obviously going to be smaller than 1GB.

But as said, this thread isn't about physical memory. So what does it matter how much physical RAM it uses up. For me, PSO2 uses up 1.2GB of its virtual address space at 1440 x 900. At lower resolutions it uses up less. So graphics settings have an impact on how much of the virtual address space is used. So please, could you check the virtual address space usage, not the physical RAM usage?

[IzzyData]

Virtual addresses are going to map to the same exact amount of physical addresses regardless so I don't see what difference it is going to make.

You had 2gb of virtual address space because it is a 32 bit program. Whatever amount of those virtual addresses you use up is going to be mapped onto your physical memory where it needs to be to fit. If the process is reading that it is only using 1gb worth of physical memory addresses than it is also only using 1gb worth of its virtual memory addresses.

And because 1gb is not anywhere close to a 32 bit programs 2gb quota, this fix allowing it to use 3gb's is literally going to give zero performance changes.

Also, the resolution of the game isn't going to affect how much ram it uses. That will only affect how much resources your graphics card is going to use. The amount of files needed to be loaded into memory is the same.

Have fun with this though. I'm sure the placebo effect is working great.

[Ana-Chan]

Virtual addresses are going to map to the same exact amount of physical addresses regardless so I don't see what difference it is going to make.

You had 2gb of virtual address space because it is a 32 bit program. Whatever amount of those virtual addresses you use up is going to be mapped onto your physical memory where it needs to be to fit. If the process is reading that it is only using 1gb worth of physical memory addresses than it is also only using 1gb worth of its virtual memory addresses.

And because 1gb is not anywhere close to a 32 bit programs 2gb quota, this fix allowing it to use 3gb's is literally going to give zero performance changes.

Also, the resolution of the game isn't going to affect how much ram it uses. That will only affect how much resources your graphics card is going to use. The amount of files needed to be loaded into memory is the same.

Have fun with this though. I'm sure the placebo effect is working great.

But that's the big thing, virtual addresses don't have to map to physical RAM as I have mentioned. They can be unallocated or backed by a file.

I would suggest you try reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_mode about what is happening. Seriously look at some of those dates, and realise that people were running into these address space issues on systems that had way less physical RAM than we do now. Also, look at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...(v=vs.85).aspx and all of the subsections which describes how the virtual address space works on Windows and also http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...(v=vs.85).aspx to see how files can also be part of the virtual address space. There is also http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940105 that describes how Direct3D9 uses process address space, and how it is well known that the larger the resolution, the more memory it needs.

Yes, I understand that the concept of virtual addresses and how they may not correspond with a physical address is tough. But just because you can't explain it, doesn't mean that it is wrong.