Cannot locate .ini file to manually increase memory

Question

I have a student using a Mac (OS Big Sur 11.6.6) who has installed openLCA 1.10.3. She goes to increase her memory and runs into the error message "failed to write openLCA.ini file." To manually adjust the memory, we right clicked the app and clicked "show package contents" to locate the .ini file. We see a "jre" directory, and a file called "Content."

I believe the .ini file should be in "Content" - but it is not displaying as a directory you can click into; it's a file we can't open. The .ini file is not in the "jre" directory. We have tried uninstalling and reinstalling multiple times to no avail. Any guidance would be appreciated. This is for a course where we've use openLCA for years, and I have labs developed for it that use version 1.10.3. I hope we can get this version installed for her.

Answer 1

In case there is no particular reason for it, I would use the latest openLCA1 version 1.11.0 or maybe even the development version of openLCA2. In the latest versions for openLCA1 and openLCA2 the RAM allocation (increasing RAM) on MacOS is possible by simply using the File/Settings menu inside the application.

In case you want to manually change it in the openLCA.ini, I can tell you that MacOS sometimes hides a package "folder" as a "file" inside its application files. Just right-click on Contents (which you found as a "file" inside the openLCA.app folders) and select again "show package contents".

Step-by-step: right-click openLCA.app "show package contents", right-click Contents "show package contents", change the openLCA.ini.

In newer openLCA versions, you will find the RAM allocation in the folders Contents/Eclipse/eclipse.ini but for newer versions you can change it anyway much faster/easier in the app settings menu.

Best wishes, Conrad

Comments

Thanks, Conrad. That didn't fix it, and neither did an install of the new version. We are running into the error now that the software package is damaged, which I see is a common issue for MacOS now, per a GitHub thread. Really disappointing.