Don't miss this one: a NEW FSX optimizer

[Noel 4,488]

Update and report;Well i think i got this working.I really did not notice and appreciable difference. it may have made the frame rates smoother, but in truth it just does make the experience any better.I think it may in fact slowd things down.I sort of give up trying to tweak fsx.It is what it is, and i think its fun regardless.Peter

Hi Peter,Tell me, were you running FSX in UNLIMITED mode before trying FPS_L? If so, then about the only improvement you would see would be less surges/spikes if you were experiencing this issue.

[JimmiG 244]

I had hoped this would resolve the stuttering sound issue that I get, but only when flying over simple scenery like forests.Unfortunately it only caused garbled textures and lots of stuttering, plus it doesn't work with DX10.

[Guest Nick_N]

I had hoped this would resolve the stuttering sound issue that I get, but only when flying over simple scenery like forests.

Phenom X4 9650 @ 9950, 4GB XMS2, Radeon HD 4850 512MBand therein lies that problemby the way.. .forests are not simple as a matter of fact they are insanely over populated/complicated with trees (bad mistake Aces) which is why the issue you are seeing occurs and why perf even in bush airports can be lousy in some spots. Pine trees are the worse due to another reason I wont go into here but the bottom line is the CPU and video card are the reason for your problems.. mostly the video cardThe solution to your sound and part of the perf problem is a 1GB GTX 285 and a bufferpool setting of 400-490MB.. and if you really want to be able to deal with trees, dump AMDWe have come up with a partial fix when it comes to AG tree perf in forests with GEX Europe. When installed that fix will effect the entire world with a perf increase. We could not fix it 100% due to logistics in how the sim works by default without messing with the autgendescription files but we put a really, really big dent in fixing it.

[Cruachan 705]

We have come up with a partial fix when it comes to AG tree perf in forests with GEX Europe. When installed that fix will effect the entire world with a perf increase. We could not fix it 100% due to logistics in how the sim works by default without messing with the autgendescription files but we put a really, really big dent in fixing it.

Hey Nick, that's fantastic! Can't wait.However, and with all due respect, I do wish you would stop knocking AMD. There are still quite a few of us running AMD cpu's and getting pretty decent performance in FSX, with all the usual caveats, of course.The fact is FSX is probably the only dog which taxes our cpu's and everything else runs just fine - which is why many of us prefer to stick with what we have rather than expose ourselves needlessly to the expense and rigmarole of changing our mobos and processors. That will come no doubt, just not now.As you know I have an AMD Athlon 64X2 6400+ which, until recently, was coupled with an ATI Radeon 1950 Pro 512MB and performance in FSX was pretty decent while using the default a/c and by keeping away from dense cities and airports. I was still able to enjoy excellent graphics with UTX, ASA, GEX and FEX with intelligent use of the sliders and employing your very helpful setup guidance for XP and FSX. Things have got better since upgrading my GPU to a GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB and the sim continues to run quite well and, it has to be said, often very well. Of course you are correct in emphasizing the need to switch to muticore Intel to assuage user anxietes over achieving good performance in a far wider set of circumstances, but folk like me just don't feel the need to be imperative when we are able to enjoy FSX within the capabilities of our current hardware. With experience we have come to accept our hardware's limitations where FSX is concerned. In any case, many (myself included) still have a huge and highly customized FS9 installed which continues to delight and satisfy our flight simming needs.I'm not getting at you, Nick. Indeed I'm one of your most staunch admirers. Your contributions to the community are immense and, I venture to suggest, almost without precedent. I'm just speaking as one who has made the decision to stick with AMD for the time being. Sometimes it's a case of better the devil you know, which is why wild horses haven't persuaded me to go down the Vista route. In fact I suspect I'll be sticking with XP until MS withdraw their support for the o/s. Everything works so why rock the boat, I say? Who needs unnecessary hassle?What would be nice is to see some advice to help us AMD stalwarts get the best out of what we have (without overclocking).Regards,Mike

[nandrews 4]

FSX set-up guiides.There are quite frequent mentions of such guides, in particular those provided by 'Nick'.I must be out of touch as I have only found scattered snippets of suggested changes.Could someone point me to some of these guides. I am willing to try the different ones.But just to comment. I am surprised that since FSX has been around for a while now and yet there is no definitive process or application to optimise the performance. So many people are chasing the same object i.e., to get the maximum from an overspec'd product with their system. Surely if someone could develop an 'FSX optimiser' they could sell to almost each and every owner of the product!ThanksNigel

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

FSX set-up guiides.There are quite frequent mentions of such guides, in particular those provided by 'Nick'.I must be out of touch as I have only found scattered snippets of suggested changes.Could someone point me to some of these guides. I am willing to try the different ones.Nigel

http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_post...=29041&PN=1

[Guest sillyeagle]

My thread over at Orbx may be of interest to some. If you have the hardware to handle it a 300-400MB Buffer Pool can eliminate all stutters regardless of your autogen level. Even when running the default max per cell values of 4500/3000 I am able to run Extremely Dense autogen stutter free over FTX Perth. A lot of people are having luck, though you have to consider the other factors to run BP that high.http://orbxsystems.com/forums/index.php?topic=9908.0The only time I see stutters with a 300MB+ BP is doing 360 panning in spot view, but when I combine the limiter tool with it I am stutter free even in pans, and totally glass smooth in all other cases. I've got a 4.2GHz i7 GTX260 system, though mango has eliminated stutters on his Core 2 Duo GTX280 as well. The thread started after a night of testing, and I updated it with new findings after the following three night of testing, so as the thread progresses I was able to refine my config. The config I finally settled on is found in the post below, which allows me to run with extremely dense with 100% autogen coverage around the aircraft in intense areas like FTX Redcliff at 25fps+, with a minimum of 23fps. http://orbxsystems.com/forums/index.php?to...g85361#msg85361Many more images of higher quality are in the thread but as an example I was getting a solid 27fps in this scene over FTX Perth, which was totally stutter free, and as you can see I've got 100% autogen coverage in the area.

[Guest Nick_N]

My thread over at Orbx may be of interest to some. If you have the hardware to handle it a 300-400MB Buffer Pool can eliminate all stutters regardless of your autogen level. Even when running the default max per cell values of 4500/3000 I am able to run Extremely Dense autogen stutter free over FTX Perth. A lot of people are having luck, though you have to consider the other factors to run BP that high.The only time I see stutters with a 300MB+ BP is doing 360 panning in spot view, but when I combine the limiter tool with it I am stutter free even in pans, and totally glass smooth in all other cases. I've got a 4.2GHz i7 GTX260 system, though mango has eliminated stutters on his Core 2 Duo GTX280 as well. The thread started after a night of testing, and I updated it with new findings after the following three night of testing, so as the thread progresses I was able to refine my config. The config I finally settled on is found in the post below, which allows me to run with extremely dense with 100% autogen coverage around the aircraft in intense areas like FTX Redcliff at 25fps+, with a minimum of 23fps.Many more images of higher quality are in the thread but as an example I was getting a solid 27fps in this scene over FTX Perth, which was totally stutter free, and as you can see I've got 100% autogen coverage in the area.

The concept of raising bufferpools on a 1GB card was posted on January 7th 2009 by Sargeski, It was done in reference to lowering the latency on the buss at the driver level. It originally was discovered by accident when Sargeski was looking for a solution to sound crackle issues and while using a DPC Latency Checker http://www.thesycon.de/deu/latency_check.shtml he discovered through the latency checker the chipset will lower the latency to the buss when bufferpools are raisedOf course a 1GB card is required to to correct sound crackle problem as it takes between 400 and 490 reserved to accomplish the task.I discussed raising bufferpools in a thread some weeks ago http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?s=&...t&p=1554521 and at the time Mango also confirmed higher bufferpool settings were working for him as well. It was posted again in this thread on page 2 or 3 as well.The side effect to that is it combats part of the issue of autogen and the PCIe buss.It is not an across the board fix for stutters. The video driver and the motherboard in use will also dictate the success. My personal 285 system does not display the same result @ a 450 reserved BP however it does display a good result between 100 and 200I have rarely ever set up a system that I did not use a high bufferpool settings based on the VM but I also do not spec any system for FSX on less than 768MB of VM memory either. The lowest value I have ever run BP is 70MB. So yes, raising bufferpools can have a good effect in FSX however it is not something that is seen by everyone and the target amount best per system is somthing that must be testedHowever.. I would advise against using the autogen restriction lines in the config file for typical FSX users. That may have value for FTX (if it does or not I do not know as I have never need to add the lines) but it can very well screw up the priority system elsewhere. I have seen more issues corrected by removing those lines and letting the sim AG slider work the % than not.Besides.. those values are not a linear way to restrict autogen either.. there is the value and then there is the actual number of items per tile the manufacture marked the tile with to begin with. Not all tiles have the max number of object annotated to them. As a matter of fact, other than trees very few do. Most of the perf seen with older systems using that edit is due to tree restriction (mostly pine trees) on veg tiles that have no autogen annotation but directed by the sim to display the FULL amount of trees in total per tile. (something we partially fixed for the entire world with GEX Europe) I have yet to come across any default tile in FSX that has the full number of buildings (3000) on them. So most of the influence with that tweak and slower systems is with trees/forests on the default tiles and little to do with the buildings. None the less hardware has come far enough today where the use of the lines is really not needed and can cause problems when used. Proper tuning of FSX per the hardware goes much further than anything those lines will accomplish.

[Guest sillyeagle]

I get a kick out of the way you choose to operate, how you usurp authority. That's not to say you don't know your stuff, but what you do really stands out to me.

[Guest Nick_N]

I get a kick out of the way you choose to operate, how you usurp authority. That's not to say you don't know your stuff, but what you do really stands out to me.

I really have no idea what that post is about. What I posted was to inform, with facts. In case anyone, including yourself may be wondering where the high bufferpool setting got its start..I was asked about the sound issue in FSX and suggested the use of the Latency Checker to verify the busshttp://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_post...D=164586#164586Sargeski did the leg work as I was very busy with production work at the timehttp://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_post...D=165614#165614He was the one who made the discovery of the effect on the buss with high BP values. From there I did some checking and discovered it was more than just sound the high setting helped. I found a connection between the ACPI driver, bufferpool amount and the PCIe buss which reduces latency eliminating stutters caused by autogen and reported those findings at several different boards including this one. The thanks for that tweak goes to Sargeski for putting the time into thinking out the problem and working on a solution

[Guest sillyeagle]

Ok, well despite your attempt to convince people otherwise Mango was only using a 100MB BP before I posted my results with 300MB, and now he uses 400MB, but regardless, all I did was share my own experiences here as I have not personally seen 300MB+ Buffer Pools suggested anywhere on the web, so I wanted to get the word out on the great results some are seeing. The point of my posting is not to "take credit" from anyone, as that tweak has as you say been around for a long time. I only wanted to point out the awesome results we are getting with 200-400MB BP's. I know you rule the roost around these parts, so I'll calmly retreat to my cove at Orbx. lol Tweak on brother!

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

Ok, well despite your attempt to convince people otherwise Mango was only using a 100MB BP before I posted my results with 300MB, and now he uses 400MB, but regardless, all I did was share my own experiences here as I have not personally seen 300MB+ Buffer Pools suggested anywhere on the web, so I wanted to get the word out on the great results some are seeing. The point of my posting is not to "take credit" from anyone, as that tweak has as you say been around for a long time. I only wanted to point out the awesome results we are getting with 200-400MB BP's. I know you rule the roost around these parts, so I'll calmly retreat to my cove at Orbx. lol Tweak on brother!

Thanks for contributing! Although I do not have the horse power to use this tweak, your post elsewhere about settings for a Q6600 has really helped me find a sweet spot for my system :(

[Guest sillyeagle]

Glad to hear that! :) And my apologies to Nick, I worked my way through this thread again and I see the BP's in the 400MB range were indeed discussed here, so I am in fact guilty of "posting duplicate information".

[Guest Nick_N]

Ok, well despite your attempt to convince people otherwise Mango was only using a 100MB BP before I posted my results with 300MB, and now he uses 400MB, but regardless, all I did was share my own experiences here as I have not personally seen 300MB+ Buffer Pools suggested anywhere on the web, so I wanted to get the word out on the great results some are seeing. The point of my posting is not to "take credit" from anyone, as that tweak has as you say been around for a long time. I only wanted to point out the awesome results we are getting with 200-400MB BP's. I know you rule the roost around these parts, so I'll calmly retreat to my cove at Orbx. lol Tweak on brother!

I could care less who posted what, whenI provided factual information on the subject you posted, which regardless is a duplicate post and is being discussed in another thread. You are the one that suggested my post and my intensions were something they were not.. and in the process made derogatory comments/suggestions as well as follow it up here. and I do not need any apology as I was never offended.. but thank you none the less :(

[Guest 413X3]

I have the latest nvidia drivers, and a gt 285 gtx, and followed nicks instructions for setting it all up in nhancer. but has anyone else seen awful flashing of textures? when i turn on dome lights in aircraft, or on basic textures like buildings, a lot of the time the textures are flashing.