As I posted earlier in this thread.. this application changes the priority of both autogen and terrain calls (slows them down)Photo based scenery will probably not work well with this application unless the system is very, very fast to begin with

It's working well with FTX scenery on my machine . . .

It's working well with FTX scenery on my machine . . .

FTX is not 100% photo scenery as it does not work like mega or other photo based products.

Hello Dave:1. Crank up the AlacrityPC Top Level Profiles.2. Click File3. Click New4. Under "Enter the name of the new profile", type "FPSLimiter" or whatever you prefer for your title.5. You should have a "Editing Profile FPSLimiter.profile" window display (or whatever you named the profile).6. The "Profile name" should be "FPSLimiter" or whatever title you used.7. For "Description", I used "FPSLimiter"8. For "Inherits From", I used "None (Top Level)".9. For "Profile Icon:" click "Browse".10. Browse to your "FPS_Limiter_0.2\fsx.exe.limited.bat" file and click "open" or double click on it. (You will have to browse to whereever you installed the program and find the execution file. On my system it is located at "C:\FSX Related|FPS_Limiter_0.2\fsx.exe.limited.bat". Your folder will be probably named something else besides "FSX Related").11.Click "AutoStart" in your "Editing Profile FPSLimiter.profile" window.12. Click Add13. To the right of "Program File Path." in the "Add AutoStart program" window that opens, click the Browse Icon.14. A "Select program to add" window will open again showing your execution file. Double click on it, or click on "open" after highlighting it.15. In the "Add AutoStart program" window that opens, by "Type", select "Monitored".16. Click on "Save".17. In the "Editing Profile FPSLimiter.profile" window under "Programs to start and monitor" you should now have: "Fsx.exe.limited.bat Fsx.exe.limited.bat 0 Normal All Normal Monitored. (I don't know if the spacing I typed will show up, but each word or phrase is under one of the headings ("Name, Args, Delay, Pro..., A, Win..., Type".)18. Under "Services" and "Programs" Edit and choose all of the "Stop and Restart" or "Stop" actions you used with AlacrityPC originally for starting FSX.Another easier option is to select "FSX" (or "FS9") under the "Inherits From" options in the "Editing Profile FPSLimiter.profile window. This will copy all of your "Services" and "Programs" selections. However, when I did this, when the program starts up, it tries to startup FSX twice, and the second time it tells you that it is already started. This probably makes no difference, but I didn't want any glitches of any kind, so choose to manually go through all of the selections individually again. You can bring up your FSX profile window and your new FPSLimiter window so that it a little bit easier to duplicate if you are as parnoid as I was.Hope this answers your question and is of help.Respectfully:RTH

I am unable to get these 2 programs to work together successfully. Can you please explain how you have them set up ?Dave.

It's working well with FTX scenery on my machine . . .

Yes I actually knew that, but it sure looks nice :(

Photo based scenery will probably not work well with this application unless the system is very, very fast to begin with

Hi Nick,As far as flying in an area where the scenery transitions to a photo-based tile, what changes should I make to overcome the fact that photo-based scenery does not work well? I see in another thread that you recommended moving AG to the left, but I assume that this does nothing for the photo-based scenery issue? "The scenery seems never to come totally into focus with FPS set to unlimited but as soon as I set the FSX internal frame limiter to 30 and both CPU's are 100% the scenery focuses. " Is this the answer?Thanks, Bruce.

rhodges,Thank you very much for the detailed reply - this was virtually identical to the setup that I was using. In my case, all worked as expected until the fsx.exe.limited.bat was processed - at that point, Alacrity (presumably) decided that the monitored process had ended and restarted all the processes again. By the time FSX had loaded, Alacrity was no longer running.I was still using the original download of Alacrity, so decided to allow it to install the updates. Now when I run it, both Alacrity and FPSLimiter are both still active but FSX takes a lifetime to load. When I close FSX, Alacrity does not seem to recognise that the monitored program has ended and remains active.I think I will have to search on the Alacrity forum to see if there is a solution to this.Dave.

I might be a little late to test this out but after running all the stuff my in-game FPS still jump from 20 to 45 etc.... so the limiter apparently isn't working?? I'm still getting large variances and stutters. I did exactly what was described by Nick N in this post Also, Im attaching the BAT run file just so someone can check to make sure it looks good

I might be a little late to test this out but after running all the stuff my in-game FPS still jump from 20 to 45 etc.... so the limiter apparently isn't working?? I'm still getting large variances and stutters. I did exactly what was described by Nick N in this post

On my system, the limiter does not "lock" the frame rates, but rather allows them to vary a bit around the 30 fps mark.With FSX set to unlimited, framerates could go from 10 to 100+ without the limiter. 20 to 45 is still happening, but a. it evensout over time, and b. there is no stuttering in the simulation that I can see or feel.One thing to check if you are doubting the effect, is to observe the task manager's performance page while running FSX.Native FSX has Core0 pegged at 100% and the other cores swinging, depending on load and the 1 minute lighting refresh cycle of FSX.With the limiter engaged, Core0 runs at 50% or even lower, much of the time.Now, if you fly in heavy scenery, the CPU is likely working overtime all the time, but I notice the CPU working much less hard while at the same time the simulation is very fluid and mostly running close to 30 fps.This is one heck of a great enhancement to my FSX experience!At the same time, lowering the load a bit always pays back in smoothness... Right now I'm flying with Freeway traffic set to zero, and although the little cars were kind of cute, the performance is noticeably better.

I might be a little late to test this out but after running all the stuff my in-game FPS still jump from 20 to 45 etc.... so the limiter apparently isn't working?? I'm still getting large variances and stutters. I did exactly what was described by Nick N in this post Also, Im attaching the BAT run file just so someone can check to make sure it looks good

NickN also said further down the thread those on lesser hardware may not be able to take advantage of this because in order for this to work a minimum amount of overhead must be present, or, the user needs to get real and realize the have always been pushing things too hard on hardware the application is simply not designed to run on with higher settings.. like DDR2 AMD :(As I said in another thread http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?s=&...t&p=1561393

I don't care how much CPU power the app gets.. FSX is basically a year 2000 triangle rendering engine that will unfortunately never catch up to the shader engine based graphic card designs now in use. In reality the wildly un-optimized design for memory access and thread management gives the user the impression a 5GHz processor will fix all their troubles when the fact of the matter is the application will be just as erratic on 5GHz as it will be on 4, or 3. The difference that is seen as CPU speed increases is not becuse the app needs that CPU power.. its because the lousy way the app address the system it needs that power to visually overcome what I consider the wasted resources and poor memory/cpu access of the design.

Meaning we actually have the CPU power in Intel Q when clocked today.. the issue is not the processor but more the application and how it is designed to begin with. Thats why we see a great result even with a throttled CPU. The application is no longer being allowed to hammer the system at will and is being goverened as it should be however there is a downfall to that... autogen and terrain are slowed down but allowed the priority they need none the less. Photo based scenery and also flying Mach1 low over large amounts of autogen will show how much slower autogen and terrain are working very quickly. One can also slew from one place to another and notice it takes longer for autogen and terrain to appear/clear that it does when the application is not being used.

One can also slew from one place to another and notice it takes longer for autogen and terrain to appear/clear that it does when the application is not being used.

You are referring to behavior with photoreal textures? I did a very controlled test: 1. Loaded up a saved flight.2. Slew up to 3000' rapidly, then PAUSE.3. Unpause, Slew forward 5 miles, then PAUSE4. Unpause, and count seconds until all textures in the full field of view using the W key, are upated maximally.I counted 14 seconds with and without FPS_Limiter running. At least in this particular test, they was no difference in texture loading rate. Perhaps a faster drive solution would betray a difference, but I don't really know. Here's one: in a test of this sort, how many megabytes of textures must be loaded into memory over that 14 seconds?

You are referring to behavior with photoreal textures? I did a very controlled test: 1. Loaded up a saved flight.2. Slew up to 3000' rapidly, then PAUSE.3. Unpause, Slew forward 5 miles, then PAUSE4. Unpause, and count seconds until all textures in the full field of view using the W key, are upated maximally.I counted 14 seconds with and without FPS_Limiter running. At least in this particular test, they was no difference in texture loading rate. Perhaps a faster drive solution would betray a difference, but I don't really know. Here's one: in a test of this sort, how many megabytes of textures must be loaded into memory over that 14 seconds?

Typical hardware Noel.. you are not running typical hardware. Be realistic. Most people around here are not running clocked Q/i7 @ 4G and DDR3 with a Nvidia 2x cardWhat I posted is true... there is no need to go into specifics as that will not change the price of tomatoes. The FPS limiter application works but it slows autogen and terrain priority which is why it works to reduce the micro stutters and produce the smooth flight effect. It reduces the thread collisions and does not allow the application to run wild to the system which should have been accomplished by the makers of the product but was not however I can see why they may have opted to not apply such a governor to the system.. photo scenery clarity can have issues the way FSX is designed if such a system is in place. But for reference without the limiter running on a older Q67 @ 3.6Ghz and a 8800GTX and a high end storage solution, slewing would restore to full scene in about 7-10 seconds max where with the limiter it could take anywhere from 15-20. With the limiter in operation the issue has little to do with storage and everything to do with how the application works. The limiter reduces the priority to autogen and terrainand yes, both your SCSI and the 7K 250GB solutions present a slower storage solutions to the application over a WD Vrap. I explained why and provided a chart with the data which shows the real world differences between SCSI/SAS/ large platter/buffer SATAII and a WD Vrap.

The FPS limiter application works but it slows autogen and terrain priority which is why it works to reduce the micro stutters and produce the smooth flight effect. It reduces the thread collisions and does not allow the application to run wild to the system which should have been accomplished by the makers of the product but was not however I can see why they may have opted to not apply such a governor to the system.. photo scenery clarity can have issues the way FSX is designed if such a system is in place.

Nick, I wonder.. if this little application that was not designed for FSX specifically, can have a beneficial impact on how FSX behaves, is there any possibility that someone could set out to create a "shell" that would specifically govern FSX in some even more optimized way? Call it FSX.5 or so...

can someone sum up the tweaks to fsx that help? so we set frames in game to unlimited, what about fiber fraction, buffer pools, texture bandwidth multi, etcthanksAlex

does this program you have suggested work under vista 64, I cant get it to start. Thanks Peter

does this program you have suggested work under vista 64, I cant get it to start. Thanks Peter

Yes. Works in both Vista 64 and Windows 7 64.