Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bonkster

FSX Performance Boost found on YouTube

Recommended Posts

I came across this FSX performance tweak that was posted on YouTube and many people have tried it and said that it works well!

Has anyone here tried this and, if so, how well does it work? And how is the visual quality?Thanks!Bonk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I came across this FSX performance tweak that was posted on YouTube and many people have tried it and said that it works well!
Has anyone here tried this and, if so, how well does it work? And how is the visual quality?Thanks!Bonk
Thats a very old hack going back to 2006Read here, about 3/4 of the way down into the post about texture hackshttp://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=29041=============================A note about texture and autogen 'hacks'Using texture reduction and autogen 'hacks' with decent hardware one of the worse things you can do to FSX. There are reasons for that and they are tied back to what the engine expects and does not see. Those 'hacks' may help hardware that would be mediocre or slow in FS9 but I would not use them otherwise. ============================Not to mention the tools in use destroying the alpha layer in many of the DDS DXt5 textures if the tools are not made right to convert them correctly. I can not say if the tools offered do the job corectly or not. I tried this back in 2006 and the result in the sim was not worth the damageYMMV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has anyone here tried this and, if so, how well does it work? And how is the visual quality?
Good find! Don't let the negatively of the previous poster put you off trying it. Backup your textures first, and give it a try, and see how you like it! I'd be interested in knowing what YOU think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't let the negatively of the previous poster put you off trying it.
Don't understand. :( Do you mean 'negativity'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't understand. :( Do you mean 'negativity'?
Yes "negativity".It would be good if he could actually post some evidence to support his claims that it doesn't work. According to the comments on Youtube it works great for a lot of users.His linked post says this about texture hacks:-"Using texture reduction and autogen 'hacks' with decent hardware one of the worse things you can do to FSX. There are reasons for that and they are tied back to what the engine expects and does not see. Those 'hacks' may help hardware that would be mediocre or slow in FS9 but I would not use them otherwise."Where's the evidence to support this claim? It makes sense to me that using a more efficient texture compression method would make things easier for the graphics card / cpu and thus give greater fps. This seems to be what the Youtube users are confirming.I might give it a try myself when I get some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes "negativity".
Well, that's an interesting word to use about Nick_N, who has without doubt made more positive contributions to our understanding of flight simulator tuning than anyone else.He doesn't set out his arguments as in a learned journal, and often his suggestions seem counter-intuitive (like 'dense' autogen being better than 'none' on the more powerful machines), but they work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know exactly to what "tweaks" the original comments refer, but if it is only reducing the size of the textures and changing from DDS to DXT, or DXT3 to DXT1, then this should not have any negative effects at all, either on the game or on the hardware. It is all just textures, and FS does not "expect" larger or smaller textures, and does not prefer DDS to DXT (and DDS is DXT anyway, just in a DDS wrapper.)And modifying the autogen definitions file to remove or reduce the type or quantity of objects will not harm the FS engine's performance in the least - how could it possibly do that? In fact, the official S.D.K. documents indicate precisely how to do this in case anybody wants to change that file.So, if that is the nature of those modifications, then all they can do is to either improve performance when it is having problems, or provide a little "headroom" for those who do not presently have performance problems so that they can then better run stressful add-ons or higher settings.Please note that users can get the same results and benefits by simply lowering slider settings.Best regards.Luis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know exactly to what "tweaks" the original comments refer, but if it is only reducing the size of the textures and changing from DDS to DXT, or DXT3 to DXT1, then this should not have any negative effects at all, either on the game or on the hardware. It is all just textures, and FS does not "expect" larger or smaller textures, and does not prefer DDS to DXT (and DDS is DXT anyway, just in a DDS wrapper.)And modifying the autogen definitions file to remove or reduce the type or quantity of objects will not harm the FS engine's performance in the least - how could it possibly do that? In fact, the official S.D.K. documents indicate precisely how to do this in case anybody wants to change that file.So, if that is the nature of those modifications, then all they can do is to either improve performance when it is having problems, or provide a little "headroom" for those who do not presently have performance problems so that they can then better run stressful add-ons or higher settings.
Thankyou! What you say makes a lot of sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend of mine is using 3 outside views and therefor even his high end pc needed al the help it could get.I resized the Enhanced autogen from Nick and Anthony from 1024x1024 to 512x512.Format still DDS.It gave him 10% extra framerates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LuisI never said editing the autogendescription files would cause a problem. I referred strictly to the use of automated tools for converting and downsizing textures in which a few of them I found damaged the alpha and was not converting correctly, and, even the ones that were making the conversion correctly, such reductions on a decent system reduced the visual clarity and impact of the texture, and, I found it more difficult to lock down with micro-stutters after applying those hacks. The sim ran worse when properly tuned.I also found that some of those tools floating around were UPsizing textures which were already a small scale by default and damaging bump files.In my opinion the hack presents nothing anyone on a decent system which purchased FSX for its higher quality would want. My reference to autogen 'hacks' also included the use of the FSX.cfg file autogen building and tree restriction lines.. perhaps I should clarify that part.With all due respect your knowledge of technical around the SDK is excellent however there are times when the suggestions I have seen made by you around performance and how something is 'not possible' or 'is possible' just do not follow suit with how the title really runs when applied. In that, its the same advice from the maker of the software in which their engine design requires thinking outside the box to get it to respond. Following the letter of the 'logic' in the SDK and how people can run lower res or low sliders and remove autogen via the FSX config does not work for most and in many cases it actually makes the sim run worse. There is more to it and that applies to how the rendering engine is being addressed by the system and its hardware and visa-versa.And please note I said that people on lesser hardware may be able to use those hacks assuming the tools used do the job right in the conversion. That was based on hardware which was better suited for FS9, not FSX.Again, all due respect to you Luis as I have learned many things from you in the past reading your threads.MatthewWith all due respect to you, unfortunately you still appear to be upset about me suggesting perhaps you should refer to FSGS if you can not get your sim in order on your own. Most who I have worked with in my suggestions seem to find a positive result in following the lists I have provided however your primary issue was stutters and please refer to what I said above about those hack in relation to stutters after applying them to a system.Lower scenery sliders (too low) and texture hacks do NOT EQUATE to higher frames and performance with better visual quality with the right hardware installedhttp://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=240476He did try low sliders and assumed incorrectly the tile would run better! He went from 10-13FPS to 25-30 tuning FSX correctly (raising sliders) on the same CPU speed I am not going to back and forth with anyone. If anyone here wishes to hack their sim textures, be my guest however I am reminded of something someone said a long time about the time all these butcher texture hacks came out in 2006 which I think says it all:Some of these look interesting and worthwile; some just aren't doing what you think they are doing.-PTaylor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A friend of mine is using 3 outside views and therefor even his high end pc needed al the help it could get.I resized the Enhanced autogen from Nick and Anthony from 1024x1024 to 512x512.Format still DDS.It gave him 10% extra framerates.
10%?So he went from, lets say 24FPS to 26.4?How was this measured and what tool analyzed the result to define a 10% increase has in fact occurred in a product notorious and well known for not providing accurate and quantified data in that frame counter value?Just an FYI: The Enhanced autogen package maintained the DEFUALT FSX texture size and file formats of all the textures we enhanced. There was NO resolution increase involved AND Not all of those textures were 1024.. many of them were 256 and 512 already..(a few smaller as I recall) so are they all now 512 from the automated conversion tool used to make them 512?That goes hand in hand with a Nvidia 8400 card running FSX at 100% sliders and performing perfect in large cities/weather in Windows7!It's just incredible what I see posted,... Incredible!Like I said .. Im not getting into it... People who read this thread can of course do as they wish :( LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have only ever run FSX on a Vista 32 rig. I realize that that can be a problem right there. I have tried all kinds of tweaks,from autogen to cfg. Few have ever made much difference. The only things that have ever helped me are...1. System maintenance.2. Hardware upgrades, of which I've done three in the last year and a half. But that is just what has worked for me.Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I said .. Im not getting into it... People who read this thread can of course do as they wish :( LOL!
Nick, with all due respect, there are too many variables at work for you to understand how FSX will perform in every case. You don't know his system configuration or what tools are being used to resize the textures. What's with the "rolleyes" smilie? No one is an absolute authority on FSX performance tuning, however your guide is very useful, thankyou for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick, with all due respect, there are too many variables at work for you to understand how FSX will perform in every case. You don't know his system configuration or what tools are being used to resize the textures. What's with the "rolleyes" smilie? No one is an absolute authority on FSX performance tuning, however your guide is very useful, thankyou for that.
there are too many variables at work for you to understand
:( :( :( B) B) Pretty nervy from a fellow whose only contribution to this forum has ever been gossipy comments and precious little else..... Perhaps we might compare your posts with Nicks posts, hmmm?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there are too many variables at work for you to understand how FSX will perform
My first post was quite specific at the end ... YMMV and you are pushing this by putting words in my post defined quite differently than I stated and clarified them. I have quite clearly said if the hardware is better suited for FS9 use (as in low memory and shader ability and low CPU) then those changes MAY help, assuming the tools used indeed did not damage the textures and converted them correctly.If a users sim were truly running "great" with all kinds of aircraft, as some have 'claimed' it is, the thought of hacking or reducing FSX texture sizes to try and gain perf would not even cross the mind of an individual to do it. There would be no reason to do it. Which by Aces definition would be DAMAGE to the default product file scale and released product design and my statement around the use of that word is correct in such a tweak.Please Matthew... dont go there with me... you and I have been down this path before and it was quite obvious what the problem was to me and everyone else....with all due respect end of discussion for me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect Nick, its not possible for you to know how FSX will perform in every case given the wide variety of system configurations in use. We are talking about PCs here and not the XBox where the hardware configuration is fixed.Hopefully by now "Bonkster" has tried the tweak himself (after backing up his textures) and was not put off by your remarks that it is "one of the worse things you can do to FSX".

If a users sim were truly running "great" with all kinds of aircraft, as some have 'claimed' it is, the thought of hacking or reducing FSX texture sizes to try and gain perf would not even cross the mind of an individual to do it. There would be no reason to do it.
Some aircraft perform badly compared to others. If a tweak such as the one above gives someone an extra 10fps wouldn't that be a valid reason to try such a tweak? To get a bit more fps headroom.
Please Matthew... dont go there with me... you and I have been down this path before and it was quite obvious what the problem was to me and everyone else.
What problem are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some aircraft perform badly compared to others. If a tweak such as the one above gives someone an extra 10fps wouldn't that be a valid reason to try such a tweak? To get a bit more fps headroom.
Please upgrade your hardware, learn how to spec and set up a system with the hardware which the application and your intened installed addons will need and be able to take advantage of, learn how to tune FSX correctly and if you can not accomplish this task correctly on your own, seek professional assistanceThose hacks reduce the visual impact and visual experience of FSX assuming something does not go wrong with the conversion process in which that was reported years ago many times as people tried this hack... reports of the sim looking like crap and also displaying strange colors and errors. It is true many had success too and saw relief but those people were on hardware left over from FS9 that they should have upgraded FOR FS9. It was not long after that the reduction tweaks were abandoned as everyone started getting their act together and upgrading as needed.and if Aces thought reducing the textures would have made the sim look exactly the same and run better at the same time, I do not think they would have designed the sim they way they did. Those people are not stupid however unfortunately users sometimes are. If you are going to hack them you may as well hack them all including the ground textures back to FS9. Are you changing the texture masks when you do this conversion? How about the autogen layout in the agn files? Are they targeted on a 1024 layout or a 512-256? hmmm.. guess we cant change those then. But they are 1024 so they must be bad?Thats my last word Matthew. I prefer people understand the can of worms they may be about to open before they open the can.. if they decide to do it., fine.. no skin off my back. You hack a nicely made 1024 texture downsized to 256 or 512 stretched across a 1920x1200 or any other decent res screen you get what you deserve in clarity and I know what it does to perf on modern and even semi-modern hardware. If that's what you like.. go for it! hack awaywith all due respect Now,... I have concluded my dialogue in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:( :( :( B) Pretty nervy from a fellow whose only contribution to this forum has ever been gossipy comments and precious little else..... Perhaps we might compare your posts with Nicks posts, hmmm?....
B) Like many others, I have been fortunate to have used Matthew's freeware offerings to the community countless times (my thanks) - what was it again that you have contributed??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I prefer people understand the can of worms they may be about to open before they open the can.
Yes good point, tweaking may cause problems and its a good idea to backup textures, config files etc before tweaking so a user can easily revert back if they have problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could i just jump in here with a first-time observation of something. I just got a new Core i7 rig. Now granted its the low end Nehalem and its not even overclocked but by Thor and by Odin it has transformed FSX. I didnt need to make any tweaks. Theres no stuttering and Im running scenery=very dense & autogen=dense and its just smooth. Im not concerned with what the FPS is. What Im trying to say is that if you have a capable system then dont even bother with these tweaks for less a-gen, downsized a-gen, etc. etc. Just run the sim and go fly. Those of you with Nehalems will know what Im on about :( I am convinced that this is the CPU FSX was waiting for. Now the sim will really show its teeth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10%?So he went from, lets say 24FPS to 26.4?How was this measured and what tool analyzed the result to define a 10% increase has in fact occurred in a product notorious and well known for not providing accurate and quantified data in that frame counter value?Measured by using a saved flight with no clouds and no ai objects.Then reading minimum / average / highest fps.Only the building textures have been resized from 1024x1024 to 512x512 by using DXTBmp and Paint Shop Pro Photo X2.I tried them myself and even I got around 7% better fps.As I normally not fly below 2500ft I can see no difference in sharpness.Btw The W7 setup with 8400 card is still flying perfectly....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B) Like many others, I have been fortunate to have used Matthew's freeware offerings to the community countless times (my thanks) - what was it again that you have contributed??
Nick, with all due respect, there are too many variables at work for you to understand how FSX will perform in every case.
Hmmm... Equally, I suppose I could reverse that and simply ask you the same question, Kendall - right? :( 1). "Nick, with all due respect," is both condescending and disrespectful - because we all know whats coming is going to be a controversial criticism.2). "there are too many variables at work for you to understand"... huh? - intimating that MatthewS does understand??? How would MatthewS know what NickS understands or doesn't understand? Does he know Nick personally? Does he work with Nick? Is he aware of Nick's qualifications? This is both an impudent, arrogant and an offensive statement. :( I believe the truth is that Nick_N understands very well the technical vagaries of FSX, both in its current and historical architectural design, and is quite well qualified to make the statements he has made in this post. A fine example is the post below:
Enhanced Major Metro Autogen (requires FSX Enhanced Autogen World)http://library.avsim.net/search.php?Search...t&Go=SearchThis is the second and final part of our enhanced autogen release. This package repairs and upgrades 48 major city autogen building textures world-wide and RESTORES the light maps Aces missed in which large numbers of buildings (Paris, Berlin, London, etc) have been dark since the release of FSX.Enjoy Attached Image!
Authors: Nick Needham and Anthony Vos. You don't have to defend MatthewS, Kendall, and it will do you no good attempting to drag my posts into the mix: yours and mine (contibutions) contain about the same help, expertise and technical depth: I have seen no evidence that MatthewS is sufficiently qualified to critique Nick in such an public and ungentlemanly manner.I have been the senior systems administrator (HP Tru64 and Solaris8, 9 and 10) for a 65,000-student community college for ten years, and - although simming since '86 -I can't even begin to think that I could be anywhere near qualified to make that "there are too many variables at work for you to understand" statement. It smacks of arrogance. Plain and simple. Nick is very patient and magnanimous. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could i just jump in here with a first-time observation of something. I just got a new Core i7 rig. Now granted its the low end Nehalem and its not even overclocked but by Thor and by Odin it has transformed FSX. I didnt need to make any tweaks. Theres no stuttering and Im running scenery=very dense & autogen=dense and its just smooth. Im not concerned with what the FPS is. What Im trying to say is that if you have a capable system then dont even bother with these tweaks for less a-gen, downsized a-gen, etc. etc. Just run the sim and go fly. Those of you with Nehalems will know what Im on about :( I am convinced that this is the CPU FSX was waiting for. Now the sim will really show its teeth.
Many thanks, ThU. Glad you jumped in - this was beginning to be a depressing post.This beast is quite something, eh?. 8 simultaneous threads on a desktop. Three memory channels. Amazing. I take it yours is the 2.66 gig proc, right?http://www.intel.com/products/processor/corei7/index.htmhttp://www.infonec.com/site/main.php?modul...&catID=1651Here we go again -decisions, decisions, decisions.... Anyone want a 2-year old C2D e6600, c/w motherboard and memory??? :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many thanks, ThU. Glad you jumped in - this was beginning to be a depressing post.This beast is quite something, eh?. 8 simultaneous threads on a desktop. Three memory channels. Amazing. I take it yours is the 2.66 gig proc, right?http://www.intel.com/products/processor/corei7/index.htmhttp://www.infonec.com/site/main.php?modul...&catID=1651Here we go again -decisions, decisions, decisions.... Anyone want a 2-year old C2D e6600, c/w motherboard and memory??? :(
Since this has nothing to do with the downward spiral of the topic which I really did not intend to happen and is a much better alternative to sending FSX back to being FS9 or potentially worse, I will throw in my 2 cents.. the 940 as it is not as memory multiplier restricted as the 920 and will be much easier to get to 4Ghz than the 920, and cooler too, regardless of what you may see at the TV infomercials Internet hardware sitesYou may use this thread to select memory and setup as I listed the settings there. http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=239864scroll down throughThe advantage of the 965 is its just a simple multiplier change and a few other settings, and, you can run the full speed of your memory in any clock at the same time which does present advantages now and later as memory speeds increase for the platform... however it does come at a very high cost. The 940 is really the best bang for the buck all the way around.Video card... 280 or the 285. The key with that card is using the higher CPU speed of i7 and also select the 28x card based on the fastest core speed. The all have the same memory bus and PPL's. Overclocking them is possible however if you prefer not to overclock the video card manually EVGA makes a superclocked factory model ready to go in the 280/285 as I recall. Make sure the PSU is able to handle all this.. .for a single card i7 system I highly suggest PC Power and Cooling single rail PSU's @ 750watts minimum (750 will do the job just fine) but if you intend to load the system up with drives and other devices a 800/850 may be a better choice... thats your call. I would stick with PCP&C on the PSU though. Good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites