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

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?

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.

:( :( :( 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??

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.

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.

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....

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. :(

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??? :(

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!

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 sites. The 940 is really the best bang for the buck all the way around:Video card... 280 or the 285: PSU: PC Power and Cooling single rail PSU's @ 750watts minimum:You may use this thread to select memory and setup as I listed the settings there. http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=239864Good luck!

Thanks, Nick; I hadn't seen the thread, as I've been away from the sim and pc's for a few months, but have now jumped back in with the LH Maddog, FSBuild, ASA, AS XPax, RadarContact and a couple of other things. :( From my sig you can see I quoted as "good for another year". :( I put that there when the C2D and FSX just came out - some two years ago, so it really is time to move up. I didn't expect the cost, though. I thought my eight month old 9800GTX would be fine, and hadn't even considered the OS - XP - 32 bit. I do not want to move to Vista, and so will probably need XP-64 on top. So, for anyone calculating.... this is what I/we face for the upgrade in Canada. B) OS - XP Professional x64 Edition w/SP2b - $150PSU - Silencer S75QB 750 Quad (S75QB) - $140GPU - EVGA GeForce GTX 280 SSC - $550CPU - CORE I7 940 2.93GHZ - $719MB - ASUS P6T Deluxe S.1366 - $360RAM - OCZ 3 GB (3 x 1GB) DDR3 - $143Total - $2062 :( These prices are Canadian bucks at Infonec Computers in Toronto. They are about the cheapest around here, with good service and warranty management: http://www.infonec.com/site/main.phpIt's a big bullet to bite... not "just the CPU & motherboard".

Thanks, Nick; I hadn't seen the thread, as I've been away from the sim and pc's for a few months, but have now jumped back in with the LH Maddog, FSBuild, ASA, AS XPax, RadarContact and a couple of other things. :( From my sig you can see I quoted as "good for another year". :( I put that there when the C2D and FSX just came out - some two years ago, so it really is time to move up. I didn't expect the cost, though. I thought my eight month old 9800GTX would be fine, and hadn't even considered the OS - XP - 32 bit. I do not want to move to Vista, and so will probably need XP-64 on top. So, for anyone calculating.... this is what I/we face for the upgrade in Canada. B) OS - XP Professional x64 Edition w/SP2b - $150PSU - Silencer S75QB 750 Quad (S75QB) - $140GPU - EVGA GeForce GTX 280 SSC - $550CPU - CORE I7 940 2.93GHZ - $719MB - ASUS P6T Deluxe S.1366 - $360RAM - OCZ 3 GB (3 x 1GB) DDR3 - $143Total - $2062 :( These prices are Canadian bucks at Infonec Computers in Toronto. They are about the cheapest around here, with good service and warranty management: http://www.infonec.com/site/main.phpIt's a big bullet to bite... not "just the CPU & motherboard".

Here.. save a few bucks http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16814130446same perf, same spec's,... less filling,... better tastesee if thats available in your neck'o the woods. its got a bit better clock speed on it tooEDIT: I just checked your supplier.. no deal on the price. Well, you know what.. that system will last you for quite a while and it can be upgraded for card and memory speed down the road in a year or so. I think DDR2 and 1st Gen DDR3 is essentially dead in this hobby ( I have not been on DDR2 since March of 07) so although its a tough one to swallow, its certainly not a slouch for FSX if clocked up. The i7's are easier to clock than any proc I have ever worked with.I mean.. when we take what we spent 2 years ago and compare it to the perf of a system like that, the price is really not that bad

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?

10 fps? You mean from 15 fps to 25 fps? You bet, count me in. If you know of such a tweak let me know but I am skeptical. I tried many such 'miraculous' tweaks and either they did not do anything or they heavily compromised the quality of the game. Once in a while there is a frenzy on these forums that someone came across such a 'holy grail' tweak but upon closer examination it turns out to be one big ZERO. How many times have I seen this?

Thanks, Nick; I hadn't seen the thread, as I've been away from the sim and pc's for a few months, but have now jumped back in with the LH Maddog, FSBuild, ASA, AS XPax, RadarContact and a couple of other things. :( From my sig you can see I quoted as "good for another year". :( I put that there when the C2D and FSX just came out - some two years ago, so it really is time to move up. I didn't expect the cost, though. I thought my eight month old 9800GTX would be fine, and hadn't even considered the OS - XP - 32 bit. I do not want to move to Vista, and so will probably need XP-64 on top. So, for anyone calculating.... this is what I/we face for the upgrade in Canada. B) OS - XP Professional x64 Edition w/SP2b - $150PSU - Silencer S75QB 750 Quad (S75QB) - $140GPU - EVGA GeForce GTX 280 SSC - $550CPU - CORE I7 940 2.93GHZ - $719MB - ASUS P6T Deluxe S.1366 - $360RAM - OCZ 3 GB (3 x 1GB) DDR3 - $143Total - $2062 :( These prices are Canadian bucks at Infonec Computers in Toronto. They are about the cheapest around here, with good service and warranty management: http://www.infonec.com/site/main.phpIt's a big bullet to bite... not "just the CPU & motherboard".

Almost forgot... you need this to clock: http://www.quietpcusa.com/Thermalright-Ult...ler-P507C0.aspxbe aware the fan that comes with that is a 3pin standard. The motherboard is a 4pin PWM (3 pin will work,.. just no speed control). I installed a better fan with PWM for speed control: http://www.frozencpu.com/products/5879/fan..._R121225BU.htmlI use OCZ Freeze thermal compound.. spread it THIN like onion skin..

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.)

I'm a bit nervous about wading into this thread (I hope nobody replies to this starting by saying "with all due respect.."). I think DDS textures are a bit different from DXT. Namely DDS textures are upside down. I know using DXTBMP if I want to save a texture as a DDS file I need to use the flip vertical function otherwise all my textures appear upside down in FSX. I believe DirectX prefers textures in this format and any DXT textures would have to be inverted before being displayed and thus introducing a bit of a processing delay. How much that delay is I don't know but every bit counts.