• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Ran out of virtual memory with Vista 64

I'm getting the exact same problem with Vista 32-bit Ultimate. 2gb RAM and a 4gb memory-stick, with plenty of HD space for V-RAM.

Unfortunately this forum ate my post, so I've been unable to seek help, but as it looks like you've had no answers that's probably moot.

I'm pretty sure this is an NVidia/Vista issue. When I start the game up the entire thing flickers and re-sizes until it settles down at the first interface screen. It never used to do that under XP. The NVidia/Vista fiasco has been going on for far too long now and if it hadn't of been for XP not supporting my Q6600 CPU properly I wouldn't have touched Vista with a pole. I can play CoD4 and ArmA now, but it's screwed my RO up totally.
 
Upvote 0
Just tried it with the memory-stick removed, made no difference. After the CTD the desktop memory-monitor shows only 140mb of system-RAM is left free, so it looks like the NVidia drivers and/or RO is failing to handle memory under Vista (I'm assuming there is zero RAM left free as the game crashes, and the 140mb I'm seeing is the amount Vista has managed to get back before I get back to the monitor).

Both the other games I play run fine, but wouldn't under XP (appeared to be a quad-core Intel CPU issue with that OS).
 
Upvote 0
Looks like MS were supposed to have fixed this issue with Vista SP1, but unsuprisingly they haven't.

"
Vista update should address gaming issue

Virtual memory hotfix available


Microsoft has announced that it plans to release the first major update to its Windows Vista operating system early next year.
Speaking to GamesIndustry.biz, a Microsoft spokesperson confirmed that the Vista update should address virtual memory issues with certain games.
Specifically, many games use more virtual memory address space under Windows Vista than under Windows XP, with high-end graphics cards making the problem even worse. When these games cause the 2GB virtual memory limit to be exceeded, they can crash the user's computer.
"As developers harness the new graphics capabilities in Windows Vista, some changes in how Windows Vista manages video memory have resulted in sporadic issues in graphically taxing games with high-end video cards," a Microsoft spokesperson told GamesIndustry.biz.
"Working closely with our hardware partners, we have developed a fix which is currently available online."
Microsoft published the fix on August 23 but classified it as a "hotfix," which means that it may still be undergoing testing and is not officially recommended unless a user is severely affected.
Although Microsoft is still evaluating which features will be included in Vista SP1, "the current plan is that it will include the update which addresses the potential virtual memory issues," said the spokesperson.
Microsoft plans to test Windows Vista SP1 among a smaller audience in a few weeks, with the aim of shipping the final product to computer manufacturers next year.
"We are currently targeting to deliver SP1 in Q1 2008, but we will collect customer feedback from our upcoming beta process before setting a final date. Quality is our most important factor when determining availability," the spokesperson said. "
 
Upvote 0
"This article discusses virtual address space usage in Windows game development. The article describes potential problems that may occur when you run applications in a modern operating system such as Windows Vista. The article contains information about an update that may resolve some of these problems. For more information about these problems, visit the following Microsoft Web site:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/display/WDDM_VA.mspx (http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/display/WDDM_VA.mspx)
On a modern operating system such as Windows Vista, applications run within their own private virtual address space. Typically, the size of the virtual address space is fixed at 2 gigabytes (GB) for 32-bit applications. How much virtual address space is available is not related to how much physical memory there is on the computer.

Every memory allocation, file mapping, or library that is loaded by an application consumes space in this virtual address space. When the application consumes all its virtual address space, any additional such operations fail. Although all applications should be coded to handle memory allocation failures, many applications do not recover correctly from such failures. Therefore, the programs may become unstable or stop responding after they recover from such failures.

Existing games and other graphics applications frequently allocate virtual memory for a copy of the video memory resources that the application uses. The application uses this copy to restore the display quickly if the contents of video memory are lost. For example, the application uses this copy if the user presses ALT+TAB or if the user puts the computer in standby. Typically, the DirectX run time manages the copy on behalf of the application when the application creates a managed resource. However, an application can also manage the copy itself. The virtual memory that the copy uses is directly proportional to the video memory resources that the application allocates.

A modern graphics processing unit (GPU) can have 512 MB or more of video memory. Applications that try to take advantage of such large amounts of video memory can use a large proportion of their virtual address space for an in-memory copy of their video resources. On 32-bit systems, such applications may consume all the available virtual address space.

With the introduction of DirectX 10 and Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) in Windows Vista, it is no longer necessary for an application to maintain a copy of its resources in system memory. Instead, the video memory manager makes sure that the content of every video memory allocation is maintained across display transitions. For compatibility reasons, Windows Vista emulates "device lost" for DirectX versions that are earlier than DirectX 10 to make sure that no application-visible API behavior changes.

To virtualize video memory, the video memory manager in Windows Vista assigns a virtual address range to every video memory resource. This range is conceptually similar to the copy that an application might create. However, the video memory manager manages the process more efficiently than the application might. The video memory manager uses the virtual address range to handle transitions or over-commitment of video memory. However, the virtual address range is typically unused on a system that has lots of video memory. As long as this virtual address range remains unused, no physical memory is allocated for it. In contrast, the system memory copy that is maintained in the older driver model is guaranteed to be fully populated with physical memory.

If an application creates its own in-memory copy of its video resources, or the application uses DirectX 9 or an earlier version, the virtual address space contains the WDDM video memory manager's virtualized range and the application's copy. Applications that use graphics APIs that are earlier than DirectX 10 and that target GPUs that have large amounts of video memory can easily exhaust their virtual address space.

To address this problem, Microsoft is changing the way that the video memory manager maintains the content of video memory resources. This change is being made so that a permanent virtual address range does not have to be used for each virtualized allocation. With the new approach, only allocations that are created as "lockable" consume space in the virtual address space of the application. Allocations that are not created as "lockable" do not consume space. This approach significantly reduces the virtual address space that is used. Therefore, the application can run on large video memory configurations without reaching the limits.

Although this approach reduces virtual address consumption, it does not eliminate the 2 GB virtual address space limit that many applications are quickly approaching on their own. Eventually, applications will reach the limit for other reasons. "
 
Upvote 0
Now getting this after setting the virtual memory manually to set aside 4gb on my secondary drive only:

" Build RedOrchestra_Build_[2005-11-27_10.48]
OS: Windows NT 6.0 (Build: 6001)
CPU: GenuineIntel PentiumPro-class processor @ 2402 MHz with 2046MB RAM
Video: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX (6925)
CreateTexture failed(8007000E).
History: FD3D9Texture::Cache <- FD3D9RenderInterface::CacheTexture <- FD3D9RenderInterface::HandleCombinedMaterial <- FD3D9RenderInterface::SetSimpleMaterial <- FD3D9RenderInterface::SetMaterial <- UGameEngine::Draw <- UWindowsViewport::Repaint <- UWindowsClient::Tick <- ClientTick <- UGameEngine::Tick <- Level Alte Ziegelei <- UpdateWorld <- MainLoop <- FMallocWindows::Free <- FMallocWindows::Realloc <- 0012FEE0 0 FArray <- FArray::Realloc <- 0*2 <- FMallocWindows::Free"

I was getting it last night too; validated the cache, came up fine, still got the crash, deleted the cache and re-downloaded the map and AB mod from the server, game then ran until the V-RAM issue CTD'd it.

I knew Vista was a steaming POS before I installed it, but I felt I had no choice if I wanted to get around the XP quad-CPU issue and be able to run more recent games without stuttering and jerking. I achieved that, but at the cost of losing RO.

Is nobody else having issues under Vista with SP1? Can you post your specs and anything you've done to fix it? TIA.
 
Upvote 0
I run Vista 32 Ultimate and RO just fine.

Intel Core2 Duo 6750 O/C to 2.93GHz
2.0 Gb Ram
nVidia 8800 GTS 320MB

Admittedly, Vista sucks with regard to gaming. Seems one has to "work around" or settle for files going certain places in every game. nVidia cards with over 320MB have been having trouble with a lot of games.

If the MS "fix" is supposed to work for this older UE engine, I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that perhaps your video settings within RO are not set correctly. It wouldn't hurt to check under configuration/display/ and the render device option. Be sure its set for DirectX 9.0. (I see reference to D9 in your error, so I doubt that is it...worth a check after a crash though).

Then, too, it could be a map problem. We have several people whose systems crash on that map at various places. One is picking up the sniper rifle at the tower.

Good luck.

Floyd
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I run Vista 32 Ultimate and RO just fine.

Intel Core2 Duo 6750 O/C to 2.93GHz
2.0 Gb Ram
nVidia 8800 GTS 320MB

Admittedly, Vista sucks with regard to gaming. Seems one has to "work around" or settle for files going certain places in every game. nVidia cards with over 320MB have been having trouble with a lot of games.

If the MS "fix" is supposed to work for this older UE engine, I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that perhaps your video settings within RO are not set correctly. It wouldn't hurt to check under configuration/display/ and the render device option. Be sure its set for DirectX 9.0. (I see reference to D9 in your error, so I doubt that is it...worth a check after a crash though).

Then, too, it could be a map problem. We have several people whose systems crash on that map at various places. One is picking up the sniper rifle at the tower.

Good luck.

Floyd

I have nothing set differently to how it was under XP, and the game ran pretty much flawlessly then.

The Vista problem with RAM seems to account for what's happening, though the usual mystery is why X happens with some games, but not Y, and why Y happens with other games but not X.

I'm not going to blame RO. If RO ran fine under XP it should run fine under Vista, and if it doesn't it's down to Vista (and probably the NVidia drivers for Vista in the mix too).

MS are at the root of 99.9% of PC problems, and when gaming on the PC is finally dead the blame can be laid squarely at their door.
 
Upvote 0
you can try messing around with this as a temp fix:
http://www.redorchestragame.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11052

Thanks Zets, but I think this is a different kind of memory problem. RO is putting stuff into RAM and Vista isn't taking it out, which ends up with the overflow going onto the pagefile on the HD, and when that is maxed-out the game crashes. Or something along those lines.

I did use the pre-caching tweak before, when my rig was so old and cranky I needed it to have half a chance of getting my hands on the scoped Kar.:D
 
Upvote 0
as i said as a temp fix it might possibly work because less stuff has to be stored in the cache so it might take longer before it clogges up .

I believe data is constantly written to the RAM, so no matter how little is started with the constant inflow soon fills it up and WHAMMO!

I'll have a play in the BIOS. I did have this rig OC'd, but Vista threw a tantrum at that too and I reverted to optimal settings just to see if it was indeed the OC screwing things up. I can't think of what setting might cause the current problem but it's worth a look (desperation mode).
 
Upvote 0
Nailed it (sort of). It's the FKR Debrecen server (AB modded) that's causing the problem. I played on a standard server and the game ran fine for the time I was on it (about 15 minutes). Went to the FKR server and the game CTD'd as soon as I spawned from the splash-screen (create texture error).

Either something got borked on their server between the time I last played on it with XP and trying it with Vista, or XP was able to handle the borkness where Vista can't.

Either way the FKR server is the only one running the mod, so that's the end of RO for me until/unless they fix it.:(
 
Upvote 0
Nailed it (sort of). It's the FKR Debrecen server (AB modded) that's causing the problem. I played on a standard server and the game ran fine for the time I was on it (about 15 minutes). Went to the FKR server and the game CTD'd as soon as I spawned from the splash-screen (create texture error).

Either something got borked on their server between the time I last played on it with XP and trying it with Vista, or XP was able to handle the borkness where Vista can't.

Either way the FKR server is the only one running the mod, so that's the end of RO for me until/unless they fix it.:(

You should try what i said especially if it only happends on some maps like: CC's Ardon, AlteZiegelei, Debrecen etc. Simply putting cachesizemegs to about 256 max (possibly lower even yes even on 4+ gb systems) and putting precaching to off will fix problems. That create texture failed issue happens on a lot of hardware on XP too. And what i simply posted works, might not be ideal but it works*. There might be bugs in the game or in the OS or what not, sure that needs to be sorted out, but your primary target should be to game :p.

Create texture failed, and Vertexbuffer blabla errors are all memory errors that happen on those big as maps. Maybe some bug causes the comp to send more data to the vidcard than it needs, or fails to clean out unused data fast enough. Or whatever anyone can think of with logical reasoning.

That doesn't stop that my suggestion does work though* ;)

Ran out of virtual memory often got the weird bug no matter how high you set it unless you put it to system control it can say that it ran out of virtual memory even though there was space left. Weird stuff. But occasionally it only happens to people on big maps then again usually what i suggested will fix it or at least make it so the problem occurs less often.

Ps. I'm not saying that what i say works but you should try it out putting your personal logical reasoning behind for a bit, it works for a lot that should be enough foundation to try it out. The process of solving problems usually got different stages of simply trying something out to rule out possibilities how trivial or disconnected to the issue they might seem, remember we try to help you solve your problem, so plz take the time to try out suggestions ;).

http://www.redorchestragame.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11052 so go ahead and follow this, its not the original fix description why i linked to this but the changes in the actual fix, the original problem for the creation of that post was somewhat fixed bit it still did more good things.

* = it did so in all cases where people reported back after trying it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0