Archived

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

Guest rdg

What are the side effects - Texture_Bandwidth_Multi

Recommended Posts

Hi,I was fiddling with this cfg entry, but see no difference (at least that I can tell), if I use 40 or 400 or anything inbetween. Is this entry to help blurries or stuttering or both?I know Nick suggests 70 - 80. Tried em all. ThanksBob G

Share this post


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

Hi,I was fiddling with this cfg entry, but see no difference (at least that I can tell), if I use 40 or 400 or anything inbetween. Is this entry to help blurries or stuttering or both?I know Nick suggests 70 - 80. Tried em all. ThanksBob G
Ground texture blursI have yet to set up any system where 70 or 80 was not used400 is insanity in FSX.. would require a 2GB+ video card to do correctly.. the system is simply skipping operations when people do this because it is quite mathematically impossible to run 400 and the system actually complete the request on todays hardwareIf you are not seeing any difference I would say the base hardware and install are probably running slow to being with.. as my list states, try 70-90 and if no change... set it to the default of 40 and forget it because for some reason (usually hardware or poorly setup) the system is not responding to the request

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and one other thing I recently added to the tuning list.. Fibe Frame Time Fraction If the system is multicore and on SP1 or above REMOVE IT from the config as it serves NO purpose but to screw up the works. It only has use with SINGLE core processors after SP1 and if set too low it CAN cause TBM to not display any or much of any positve resultThey moved most of the threads OFF the first core which FFTF would assist with prior to SP1. Only single core processor will see any true result with that tweak after SP1 and those on SP1/SP2 should use the frame lock instead of FFTF to trim The link to Phils report from Adam at Aces (The lead FSX terrain engine developer) on that setting and SP1 is in the tuning thread now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and one other thing I recently added to the tuning list.. Fibe Frame Time Fraction If the system is multicore and on SP1 or above REMOVE IT from the config as it serves NO purpose but to screw up the works. It only has use with SINGLE core processors after SP1 and if set too low it CAN cause TBM to not display any or much of any positve resultThey moved most of the threads OFF the first core which FFTF would assist with prior to SP1. Only single core processor will see any true result with that tweak after SP1 and those on SP1/SP2 should use the frame lock instead of FFTF to trim The link to Phils report from Adam at Aces (The lead FSX terrain engine developer) on that setting and SP1 is in the tuning thread now
Thanks Nick! No, I have a nicely tuned system thanks to you. QX9650 OC'd 3.8 and running very nice. I was not looking for blurries when I changed the values. I was looking for smoothness. Although I have a few micro-stutters, for some reason I thought the bandwidth value was to help that. Now I will go in and check out the blurries. Blurries is not really noticeable. Only once in a while it looks like a tile is trying to fit itself in (for a lack of a better description), but not wide spread blurries at all. ThanksBob G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Nick! No, I have a nicely tuned system thanks to you. QX9650 OC'd 3.8 and running very nice. I was not looking for blurries when I changed the values. I was looking for smoothness. Although I have a few micro-stutters, for some reason I thought the bandwidth value was to help that. Now I will go in and check out the blurries. Blurries is not really noticeable. Only once in a while it looks like a tile is trying to fit itself in (for a lack of a better description), but not wide spread blurries at all. ThanksBob G
Then I would say a 70 or 80 will tune out that last bit of texture blur you may see from time to timearea you test will also display the result .. flying out in the boonies I doubt you would notice anything at all.. I usually check flying a city urban area as that will present the system a very well rounded area to check.. between the airports, models, cars, roads, autogen and ground you should be able to pick out a change in that setting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then I would say a 70 or 80 will tune out that last bit of texture blur you may see from time to timearea you test will also display the result .. flying out in the boonies I doubt you would notice anything at all.. I usually check flying a city urban area as that will present the system a very well rounded area to check.. between the airports, models, cars, roads, autogen and ground you should be able to pick out a change in that setting
Hi,Yep, KSEA is where I test, and close to where I live. Just across the water from Seattle above the Silverdale area. I agree, there is a quite a load of everything around KSEA for testing.Thanks Nick. I dont know where you find the time!!!!RegardsBob G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,Yep, KSEA is where I test, and close to where I live. Just across the water from Seattle above the Silverdale area. I agree, there is a quite a load of everything around KSEA for testing.Thanks Nick. I dont know where you find the time!!!!RegardsBob G
Im getting ready to head back to Bainbridge from S. Florida for the summer so I have suspended other things for a week .. I am taking some down time today and spent more time than usual on the forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Im getting ready to head back to Bainbridge from S. Florida for the summer so I have suspended other things for a week .. I am taking some down time today and spent more time than usual on the forums.
Let me know Nick if you would like to visit. My wife and I would love to have you. I could teach you how to tweak computers. I really would not mind one bit. Now I bet you dont get an offer like that every day!!RegardsBob G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me know Nick if you would like to visit. My wife and I would love to have you. I could teach you how to tweak computers. I really would not mind one bit. Now I bet you dont get an offer like that every day!!RegardsBob G
hmmmmmnow why do I have this strange feeling am being suckered into a house call :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hmmmmmnow why do I have this strange feeling am being suckered into a house call :(
No, I wouldnt be so rude. To be honest, I would love to meet you and of course we might find a little time for me to pick your brain. So will it be hamburgers and beer, or wine and finger food? Plus we have have a great view of Dyes inlet from the hills while you drink your beer or sip your wine.Anytime is good. I can send you a private message with my phone number if you like.RegardsBob G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I wouldnt be so rude. To be honest, I would love to meet you and of course we might find a little time for me to pick your brain. So will it be hamburgers and beer, or wine and finger food? Plus we have have a great view of Dyes inlet from the hills while you drink your beer or sip your wine.Anytime is good. I can send you a private message with my phone number if you like.RegardsBob G
I was just kidding Bob.. :( I have a lot to do right away when I get back so after I get caught up I can toss you a message

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was just kidding Bob.. :( I have a lot to do right away when I get back so after I get caught up I can toss you a message
Sounds good Nick! I am looking forward to it.Bob G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Nick! No, I have a nicely tuned system thanks to you. QX9650 OC'd 3.8 and running very nice. I was not looking for blurries when I changed the values. I was looking for smoothness. Although I have a few micro-stutters, for some reason I thought the bandwidth value was to help that. Now I will go in and check out the blurries. Blurries is not really noticeable. Only once in a while it looks like a tile is trying to fit itself in (for a lack of a better description), but not wide spread blurries at all. ThanksBob G
Hi Bob,If you haven't already, try FSP_Limiter, setting FSX on UNLIMITED frame rate. It has worked well for me and many others. I am also using a QX9650, and run it between 3.9 and 4.1Ghz. I am able to run vCore considerably lower at 3.9 so I often do unless flying the Cessna Mustang, which uses everything you can throw at it. I always have smooth perf and sharp visuals. I am using the 8xS setting and yes, it definitely improves IQ.I just got back from a trip to Port Orchard to visit with family. I lived in Port Angeles for 4 years. Love the Islands up there :()Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
400 is insanity in FSX.. would require a 2GB+ video card to do correctly.. the system is simply skipping operations when people do this because it is quite mathematically impossible to run 400 and the system actually complete the request on todays hardware
Ok, I DO HAVE a 2GB video card in FSX. What would you recommend :-)(PS: The Gainward GTX285 comes with 2GB - this is a GODSENT with high the resolution I am running FSX with - 3360x1050)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and one other thing I recently added to the tuning list.. Fibe Frame Time Fraction If the system is multicore and on SP1 or above REMOVE IT from the config as it serves NO purpose but to screw up the works. It only has use with SINGLE core processors after SP1 and if set too low it CAN cause TBM to not display any or much of any positve resultThey moved most of the threads OFF the first core which FFTF would assist with prior to SP1. Only single core processor will see any true result with that tweak after SP1 and those on SP1/SP2 should use the frame lock instead of FFTF to trim The link to Phils report from Adam at Aces (The lead FSX terrain engine developer) on that setting and SP1 is in the tuning thread now
Nick, I'm running a 9650 with FSX/Accel. The FFTF entry does not appear in my fsx.cfg yet all 3 UTX's show it at 0.33 on the "Internal FSX Setings that can Effect Ultimate Terrain Performance" tab. Just leave it alone or change to 0.00? If the entry is not in my cfg the UTX setting should have no effect, right?. Or, is UTX telling me it's there but I can't see/find it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick, I'm running a 9650 with FSX/Accel. The FFTF entry does not appear in my fsx.cfg yet all 3 UTX's show it at 0.33 on the "Internal FSX Setings that can Effect Ultimate Terrain Performance" tab. Just leave it alone or change to 0.00? If the entry is not in my cfg the UTX setting should have no effect, right?. Or, is UTX telling me it's there but I can't see/find it?
0.33 is the standard value. with the cfg entry you can change that. So in your case, leave your cfg as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, I DO HAVE a 2GB video card in FSX. What would you recommend :-)(PS: The Gainward GTX285 comes with 2GB - this is a GODSENT with high the resolution I am running FSX with - 3360x1050)
You also have to PROCESS that too.. and at the resolution you are running on the frame buffer even your CPU/card would struggle (at best) to complete a 400 TBM request -and- the design of the card itself may not be what you think... Here is something I posted a while back on the subject which explains how it works================================================================Texture bandwidth multiplier is max at 400. 400 is the max in both FS9 and FSX. That has been posted by both FS9 and FSX developers. The number multiplies a hidden value called the TextureMaxLoad. By default that is 3. The TextureMaxLoad (not to be confused with (TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=1024, that number is different!) is the number of 1024x1024 (in FSX) textures to be loading in KB to the system. The TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT does exactly that, it multiplies that number. it is mathematically impossible for a video card memory of less than 2gb to work a value of 400 for the result and that does NOT take into account the CPU overhead that would follow!TextureMaxLoad= value can be edited into the FS9.cfg file and the default of 3 increased however that 'hook' setting is not available in FSX.cfg. Lets look at the math TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT x TextureMaxLoad =TextureMaxLoad = 3 times the size of the ground textures in KB in FSX this is 684KB400 x (684 x3) = 400 x 2052 = 820,200KB Convert KB to MB = 801.5625And remember, that is using JUST the ground texture size in FSX. There are other textures that must be processed along with models that would also mean the video card is ONLY rendering GROUND textures in its core/memory with nothing else including geometry calcs going on, nor does it include any reserve bufferpool You are into a minimum 2GB video card and supporting core ability at that point when you take into consideration everything that card must deal with and todays CPU's are not going to keep up with that either.OK so I think its safe to assume we are not using 400 with any hardware out there today 70 x 2052 = 143,640KBConvert KB to MB = 140.27MBThat is MUCH more reasonable and it leaves room for all the other textures, geometry and calculations and buffering needed for a nice resolution image at the application request of 512MB from the system if available. In that we can stretch it to 100 but past that the card and the CPU become saturated forcing the sim to skip things to render the image, therefore on typical memory video cards 400 is doing nothing at all but pushing the system and forcing it to decide what to skip and what to keep to maintain gameplay.=================================================Assuming this Gainward card is not using some type of SHARED (1GB + 1GB) memory controller in which FSX only sees 1GB, (which is VERY possible but I have not looked into that card) then @ 2GB I would estimate a 120-200 TBM may be possible taking into account all other factors. The bottom line is test it and see...I would say you would be better off running a reasonable TBM and raising the LOD RADIUS a notch or two.. but again, theres that bottleneck: CPU
Nick, I'm running a 9650 with FSX/Accel. The FFTF entry does not appear in my fsx.cfg yet all 3 UTX's show it at 0.33 on the "Internal FSX Setings that can Effect Ultimate Terrain Performance" tab. Just leave it alone or change to 0.00? If the entry is not in my cfg the UTX setting should have no effect, right?. Or, is UTX telling me it's there but I can't see/find it?
as mentioned LEAVE IT out of the config and DO NOT set any FFTF value on a multicore processorThe entire line does not belong in your config file

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick, can't say for sure if it is 1+1 or not, but I have seen an incredible gain in texture load times for AI aircrafts compared to my 1GB ATI card. It took 2-3 seconds when I looked around until the aircraft textures popped up, now it' almost instantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick, can't say for sure if it is 1+1 or not, but I have seen an incredible gain in texture load times for AI aircrafts compared to my 1GB ATI card. It took 2-3 seconds when I looked around until the aircraft textures popped up, now it' almost instantly.
With FSX ATI is not using both cores and memory in their x2 (you ONLY had 512 for FSX with that card) and their core design is no where near as fast in RAW horsepower for an old rendering engine like FSX. ATI is geard toward SHADER optimized code.. FSX is not, which is why ATI rules in Crysis and cant get out of 2nd gear in FSXAs I said, I would need to research the card.. something I do not have time to deal with right now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've checked back over several old posts on this subject, and I just want to check that we are talking about the same entry in the CFG file.Most of the old posts refer to "Texture_Bandwidth_Mult" instead of "Texture_Bandwidth_Multi" - so I'm not at all clear if the final "i" should be used in the name or not. I've just checked my own CFG file - for which I'm 90% certain that I didn't change this key after the last time I let FSX build a default file, and it ends in "MULT", not "MULTI" (all capitals in my case).In short, which version is correct (and/or does FSX ignore any letters after the key it recognises and so does not really matter). Bob,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've checked back over several old posts on this subject, and I just want to check that we are talking about the same entry in the CFG file.Most of the old posts refer to "Texture_Bandwidth_Mult" instead of "Texture_Bandwidth_Multi" - so I'm not at all clear if the final "i" should be used in the name or not. I've just checked my own CFG file - for which I'm 90% certain that I didn't change this key after the last time I let FSX build a default file, and it ends in "MULT", not "MULTI" (all capitals in my case).In short, which version is correct (and/or does FSX ignore any letters after the key it recognises and so does not really matter). Bob,
TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=not MULTIAs for FS9 it is the sameIn FS9 under the GRAPHICS header the TML hook can be added to trim and the user can rework the result by the math I posted above however for FS9 the ground textures are 256 and NOT 684TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=20 to 400TextureMaxLoad=3 to 10 ( I do think higher is possible too but 3 is default)typically one would need to significantly drop the TBM if the TML is raised by muchTML x 256 x TBMexampleTEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=140 to 240 (can be lower for slower systems.. 100-110)TextureMaxLoad=10 to 6TML 6 x 256 x 240 TBM = 368640 or 360MBTML 10 x 256 x 140 TBM = 358400 or 350MBMany different ways to work it.. but the deal is in FS9 the higher the TML the faster those textures get loaded with higher priority so its better to try and run a higher TML without choking the system and a lower TBM.. higher TML means greater load on the system too regardless of TBMsuccess with one set of variables over another depends on the system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites