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