What are the side effects - Texture_Bandwidth_Multi

[darem 84]

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.

[Guest Nick_N]

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

[darem 84]

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.

[Guest Nick_N]

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

[Guest Bob Huntley]

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,

[Guest Nick_N]

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