Fiber Frame Time Fraction value and its effect

[Guest UlfB]

Funny to see this old stuff appear but it's simple it's useless with multicore and SP2because it's removed so impossible to see a difference related to this option lol...We have also different versions to make it easy lol FSX RTM / FSX SP1/ FSX acceleration (including fixes SP2) /FSX SP2and there are differences between all versions too even Fsx acceleration and FSX SP2...So since you have acceleration with SP2 fixes maybe there is the difference?Cheers,

No it's not removed. You could try an extreme setting like 4.00 and FSX will be a true slide show.But I agree that it's useless on multicore and SP2, maybe with an exceptionof using TileProxy-photoscenery.Mark is also using FSX SP2 so that doesn't explain it. The difference might be TileProxy.

...Try a larger value of FFTF, I noticed improvements when I used values of over 1....

I'll try it with ordinary photoreal scenery and GEX/USA.

[markturner 0]

Hi Ulf, I re read the referenced posts, but it was just Nick telling you that you were only seeing an effect because you wanted to, that it was not really happening. Not disputing the validity of his referenced articles, but, I have been experimenting with different values of various entries in my config and .ini files and to be honest, some had useful effects, others did not. Some had very noticable effects, others did not. I only pulled the effect of this particular tweak out for discussion because I did not understand elements of its operation. I was not "wanting to see an effect" , positive or negative, I just observed an effect.And have carried on noticing an effect. Anyway, I have a rather nice lunch at an exclusive private club on a rooftop with a swimming pool in central London to enjoy now, so will rejoin the discussion later. Cheers, Mark

[virtualstuff 759]

No it's not removed. You could try an extreme setting like 4.00 and FSX will be a true slide show.But I agree that it's useless on multicore and SP2, maybe with an exceptionof using TileProxy-photoscenery.Mark is also using FSX SP2 so that doesn't explain it. The difference might be TileProxy.I'll try it with ordinary photoreal scenery and GEX/USA.

Strange since they moved so many jobs off the primary thread... (that's what i actually meant with removed lol)

[Guest UlfB]

...Anyway, I have a rather nice lunch at an exclusive private club on a rooftop with a swimming pool in central London to enjoy now, so will rejoin the discussion later. ...

Enjoy your lunch, Mark!I did some testing with fftf set to 1.00, 1.33, 1.50, 2.00 and 3.00:

• 1.00: No difference compared to running without the tweak.
• 1.33: No difference compared to running without the tweak, but average fps went down just a notch.
• 1.50: No difference compared to running without the tweak, but average fps went down.
• 2.00: Scenery textures seemed to be loading somewhat faster, but average fps went down pretty much. Not good.
• 3.00: Scenery textures loaded faster, but average fps went down below 10fps and the sim is unflyable with massive stutters.

On my system this tweak is of no use. Maybe it's useful when using TileProxy.IMO and the general recommendation should be NOT to use this tweak when using FSX SP2 on a multicore computer.

[Guest UlfB]

Strange since they moved it off the primary thread... (that's what i actually meant with removed lol)

Test it your self. Set it to 4.00 and enjoy a slideshow. I believe that in general you shouldn't use this tweak with FSX SP2 on multicore systems. The FSX graphics engine seems to take good care of threading the texture loading by itself. Setting it to high values above 1.30 - 1.50 seems to decrease average performance in FSX.

[virtualstuff 759]

Test it your self. Set it to 4.00 and enjoy a slideshow. I believe that in general you shouldn't use this tweak with FSX SP2 on multicore systems. The FSX graphics engine seems to take good care of threading the texture loading by itself. Setting it to high values above 1.30 - 1.50 seems to decrease average performance in FSX.

That doesn't surprise me because the system will be in unbalance (default value 0.33) and it's indeed there but looking only at the primary threads.Since they moved so many jobs to the secondary threads with multi core there isn't much workload left.

[markturner 0]

Guys, Guys, Guys, please, I have never said this is a tweak to be used to enhance normal FSX, what I was discussing was PURELY its effect in TileProxy.Can I just make this perfectly clear:I am only discussing the merits of this addition to the .cfg file whilst using TileProxy.I have only been testing while using TileProxy.I am not disputing that in using "normal" FSX, with autogen and textures such as GEX, UTX etc, this tweak has no value. Although I think it is agreed now that the value does have an effect in FSX SP2, despite being told it is impossible.....What I was saying was:Using this tweak and increasing its value above what Christian Buchner recommended helped to increase the speed of high res texture loading WHILE USING TILEPROXY. I wondered if someone could explain why this was. (Simply because I like to understand how and why an adjustment does what it does)Thank you, my lunch was most satisfactory!!!Cheers, Mark

[Guest UlfB]

Guys, Guys, Guys, please, I have never said this is a tweak to be used to enhance normal FSX, what I was discussing was PURELY its effect in TileProxy....Thank you, my lunch was most satisfactory!!!...

Yes. It would be interesting to know how this tweaks works for other FSX SP2 users. I hope that the TileProxy users that chime in will state what FSX version they use and if the use a single or multi core system. Maybe it would be a good idea to start a new thread since I messed this one up?Happy to hear that you had a superb lunch!

[virtualstuff 759]

Guys, Guys, Guys, please, I have never said this is a tweak to be used to enhance normal FSX, what I was discussing was PURELY its effect in TileProxy.Can I just make this perfectly clear:Thank you, my lunch was most satisfactory!!!Cheers, Mark

No need for underscore Mark lol we are just debating if this tweak is useful in case of tile proxy despite ACES it's adjustment(s)...So I'm curious what the load will be on the primary threads (because FFTF looks only at the primary and not the secondary threads) in case of tile proxy?Because that would be the only reason why you could see a difference...Glad you had a great lunch Mark.

[markturner 0]

Hi Awf, I just wanted to make sure that any readers of this post did not assume I was talking about normal FSX useage as much of the recent discussion and testing in the thread revolves around "vanilla" FSX !! Yes, I wondered if it might be to do with using the affinity mask tweak as well, which would affect the task loading of the cores.If yes, then there is definitely some further investigation to be done in terms of finding the best allocation of tasks to which core, to optimise the performance of FSX and the texture loading in relation to other background operating system operations.What do you think?Cheers, Mark

[Guest UlfB]

Yes, I wondered if it might be to do with using the affinity mask tweak as well, which would affect the task loading of the cores.

If you use the affinity mask to reduce the cores that FSX use for graphics rendering, it should have an effect on fftf. If you set the mask to 1 (bitmask 0001 for a quad) this would result that fsx uses your system as a single core. Voila - the fftf setting is usable for balancing graphics threading on the only left core.Simple as that, as I see it.There is no magic about that. But to me it seems very odd that you would get better performance by reducing available cores. But on some system that seems to be the case. Not on mine.

[markturner 0]

Hi , To Ulf and everyone else who was following this or is interested, I have had some input from Christian Buchner on the subject and as this thread got a bit sidelined, I have started a new thread continuing the discussion, but in particular, adding the useage of the affinity mask value as a result of what Christian said. You can find the new thread here: http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=263705Cheers, Mark