With all the respect and the friendship which comes to Nick, he is not (and I'm sure wouldn't like to be) a guru.There is also a bunch of talented guys with technical skills around here and Nick never pretended holding the one and only truth and knowledge.Personaly I think there is a serious drift following word for word anyone's advices.I believe we should try, tweak by ourselves, learn from other but not following blindly anyone's biblical words :--))Just my two cents!

In total agreement, David. And Nick has ALWAYS stated that his guide is just that, a guide, not a bible. It is designed to get you in the ballpark. Which shouyld be satisfactory but if you have the desire and skill, there is more that can be done. I bite my tongue everytime I read a post by someone who is having problems but "set it up exactly as NickN said".Vic

So... i will buy a new system.. i'm tired of this sh##..

Well... you still are testing under a situation NONE of us have tested yet, so.. WHO says I won't have the SAME latency readings if using the ORBX scenery??

Hi,Unfortunately, this option will not work with FPS Limiter's bat file.

On my system I use a simple two line Batch File:cd /d "G:\F_S_X"start /high fsx.exeThe first line changes directoty to the FSX folder, the second line starts FSX with High priority.I've changed my FSX shortcut to run the batch file instead of FSX.EXE.

With all the respect and the friendship which comes to Nick, he is not (and I'm sure wouldn't like to be) a guru.There is also a bunch of talented guys with technical skills around here and Nick never pretended holding the one and only truth and knowledge.Personaly I think there is a serious drift following word for word anyone's advices.I believe we should try, tweak by ourselves, learn from other but not following blindly anyone's biblical words :--))Just my two cents!

No sir.. don

With all the respect and the friendship which comes to Nick, he is not (and I'm sure wouldn't like to be) a guru.

As far as I'm concerned I didn't see anyone saying that. And I'm not sure why my rather ironic remark became a skip goat for asserting something opposite, that was not there in the first place, lol. I was just curious how I could miss that priority tweak before. I tried it today first time and gained some more fluidity in the known areas. Thank you, FalconAF! And Nick_N, of course, for all other tweaks I have. :( Dirk.

Bojote,I went all the way back through this thread noting the specs of the various systems when compared to the value of the 0 BF claimed. What became obvious to me was that some factor different from the others must be causing my terrible texture flashing when using this tweak. The only logical deduction, as you had previously suggested, was that the massive overclock of my video card was probably the problem. So, I changed drivers yet again from 195.81 to 196.21 which (because of a known bug) knocked my EVGA Precision controlled GTX275 (1792mb) from an OC of 721 to the default 633 with a corresponding lowering of its other settings. I also had previously made FSX Vista sp2 backwards compatible. Results: The effects are staggering. I have absolutely no artifacts, flashing, stutters, blurries or anything else except constant smooth and fast FPSThat kind of performance is only part of the story. The vivid colours and quality of the rendering is incredible. Here is a picture I took over Tamworth NSW which has 7cm scenery. It is absolutely stunning in the rendering. I only wish I could show you what it looks like outside of my cockpit instead of this reduced copy:Bojote, thank you for bringing such a brilliant and important advance to FSX based flight simulation. Perhaps these changes might not work for everyone, but it sure has for me. Thank you sir. Thank you very much.Stephen

I only wish I could show you what it looks like outside of my cockpit instead of this reduced copy:

Well, your enthusiasm speaks for itself... that, plus the screen capture being jaw dropping is more than enough reason to consider your post my 'feel good post of the day' ;)

Perhaps these changes might not work for everyone, but it sure has for me. Thank you sir. Thank you very much.

You are very welcome Sthephen, and as I stated very clearly on the original post this is 'Hardware Dependant' also, you were the more persistent! so I'm glad you were able to make things work the way you liked. The shot speaks for itself :) and don't worry.. I won't let other users negative comments prevent me from being vocal about things I see that might benefit the community and advance our hobby!

I thought I'd throw in my two cents as well. With an ATi 4850x2 2 GB, setting bufferpools to '0' has completely removed stutters on my system and I've gained 4 FPS on average in a flight around Seattle and KSEA. Very good find friend!I'll test it on a long flight tomorrow and see if I get the same results.

Hi,Unfortunately, this option will not work with FPS Limiter's bat file.

Yes, could anyone please help to combine the both into one batch?Thanks,Dirk.

but I think I'm getting tired of making comments and having a bunch of sarcastic folks come here and argue without ANY KIND of techincal facts the validity of the claims made by me or other posters... I can't believe well established members would say 'It doesn't work because Phil said so' or worst.. call 'Gems' advise which is EVIDENTLY misleading.

Puzzling, when I offered "Technical facts" you blew me off, like the fact that GPU-Z memory usage will be all over the place depending on what type of AA and other filtering is going on - multiplied accordingly by your screen res, so the Bufferpools results varying from user to user as read in GPU-Z wont tell the tale about BP unless you establish a base line. but no matter, I guess that wouldn't be technical?What about the need to clear out data caches and rebooting the OS between test or comparing what the BP line was before or comparing removing the BP line as other pointed out to avoid inaccurate results, Not technical enough? These people are being "Sacrcastic"?This means "we" the "Sarcastic" dont want anyone to have any fun tweaking FSX or offering new tweaks? What?1. As the OP of the "Gems" thread, No one said anything about something not working, nor that it can't or won't "because Phil said so", nor anything even close. Were did you come up with that?2. The info was posted as a direct result of request and statements for lost info from ACES (Technical facts) that was directly related to the questions raised in the many tweak threads by NIck and others. There is a lot of info like that, PDFs written by Aces for Intel and others that have helped developers, driver engineers and many of us to get a better handle on things. That some of it has been misquoted, or misapplied to the wrong versions of FSX or that it was 2nd or 3rd hand does not mean it shouldn't be mentioned or brought out, does it? That some of that info can be proved to be inaccurate or different becomes accepted much easier of it has been validated by at least some sort of proper procedure, which is exactly what I was trying to imply to you, never, ever did I say it was a waist of time or that you should stop tweaking! That would be especially odd since as you know we were already testing those tweaks on other forums. What I did exactly say was "KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK" ???? what gives?3. I made it quite clear that the info came second hand, from Adam to Phil before you even posted in that thread.4. In the case of the Infinity Mask The Info also STILL happens to be true, Valid and correct and still relevant even as cores increase (for FSX that means All the way up to 32 if it happens). What exact part do you not agree with or find is untrue?5. What part is "EVIDENTLY misleading"? That I recommended better controlled testing? Or that without listing some obvious info that the result are hardly relative? What?You seem bent on saying we must challenge the status quo but yet at the same time that someone offered you a challenge to go about a better way of testing or for questioning you for not taking many things into consideration, For that you want to labeled me or anyone else who dare question you as a someone who is against the community or a naysayer for tweaking FSX? Wow, Gee Thanks!You totally misread the post.

Puzzling, when I offered "Technical facts" you blew me off, like the fact that GPU-Z memory usage will be all over the place depending on what type of AA and other filtering is going on - multiplied accordingly by your screen res, so the Bufferpools results varying from user to user as read in GPU-Z wont tell the tale about BP unless you establish a base line. but no matter, I guess that wouldn't be technical?

I don't recall contending GPU-Z memory usage will not be all over the place depending on AA, AF and/or resolution, specially considering that THEY ALL contribute to video ram utilization!! in two or three oportunities, in this same thread I mention this, so I don't know why you say I blew you off? By the way Paul... the ONLY reference to 'you' in my previous post was to the 'Gems' comments!

That some of that info can be proved to be inaccurate

I beg to differ. A common rule here seems to be that the status quo can't be touched by those unworthy or with a post count less than 1000.

4. In the case of the Infinity Mask The Info also STILL happens to be true, Valid and correct and still relevant even as cores increase (for FSX that means All the way up to 32 if it happens). What exact part do you not agree with or find is untrue?

I don't agree with (some) of Phil comments. But, does it matter? According to Phil Taylor, threads (or to be more specific) fibers (but not threads), STILL run on CPU0 regardless of AffinityMask setting. Affinity mask PREVENTS a thread from running on a 'specific core' or set of cores... SAME rules that apply to a thread apply to fibers because they are Threads SUBCOMPONENTS! you can either 'open a fiber' or CONVERT a thread to a fiber. When you use AffinityMask in FSX or ANY OTHER APP you are 'hiding' logical CPU's to the specific app! so, the app doesn't even know the CPU exists! If affinity mask is set to 12 (on 4 cores), cores0 and 1 will NOT RUN ANY FSX related thread, period. Write your own app!, read the affinity, call a fiber function, either CreateFiber or ConvertThreadToFiber and tell me if it will ever run on CPU0 with affinity mask set 12! SURPRISE! IT WONT!!!

better way of testing or for questioning you

So, GPU-Z and task manager are not valid tools, yet, Latency checker is? did you know that if the BUS is not stressed enough latency will always remain the same rendering the latency checker tool USELESS? you know this right? please, go ahead and PING www.google.com check the results, now get a stress tool that will SATURATE your ethernet interface, ping google again, what happened to latency??? what if the ethernet interface was not stressed enough? how was the latency then? surprise! UNCHANGED! latency tool only proves BUS SATURATION! if there is NONE the latency tool is useless!and Paul, don't take it personal! because this is not about you or me... BOTH of us are enthusiastic about our hobby, correct? both of us like/want to have good performing machines to run or beloved sim, correct? so like Fr. Bill said in a previous post:'Enjoy the experience, but don't get so caught up in things that you forget to fly! :)'I think I'm a tweakaholic in need of help :) back to flying... err sleeping sorry.

So, GPU-Z and task manager are not valid tools, yet, Latency checker is?

*******,I tried running GPU-z and found no difference in memory used with BP at 0 or 2000000. DPC Latency checker appears best with a BP setting of 1000000. I have a 1GB GTX280. Is this because my screen resolution is only 1680 x 1050, that I only see about 378mb of video memory in use when I am flying in FSX?Noel

*******,Well, no you never acknowledged what was presented in that you maybe rushed thru and seemed to miss the whole point, as still we have yet to see you posting that low screen resolution you use in FSX when discussing it with others or not mentioning AA/AF values as it relates, which was the whole point. Post#30/68/71/74 compare to the the rest of posts.

I don't agree with (some) of Phil comments. But, does it matter? According to Phil Taylor, threads (or to be more specific) fibers (but not threads), STILL run on CPU0 regardless of AffinityMask setting. Affinity mask PREVENTS a thread from running on a 'specific core' or set of cores... SAME rules that apply to a thread apply to fibers because they are Threads SUBCOMPONENTS! you can either 'open a fiber' or CONVERT a thread to a fiber. When you use AffinityMask in FSX or ANY OTHER APP you are 'hiding' logical CPU's to the specific app! so, the app doesn't even know the CPU exists! If affinity mask is set to 12 (on 4 cores), cores0 and 1 will NOT RUN ANY FSX related thread, period. Write your own app!, read the affinity, call a fiber function, either CreateFiber or ConvertThreadToFiber and tell me if it will ever run on CPU0 with affinity mask set 12! SURPRISE! IT WONT!!!

Impressive! But No I dont think so, not the way Intel helped Aces program FSX-SP1, FSX-SP1-SP2 was programed for lock free synchronization for infinity mask threads and having testeted this to death I am pretty sure runs just as I quoted in the Gems thread. http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=64781 post #11 Statements from other lead Programers at ACES also seem to support this, so I'm not sure I would 2nd guess that one, but go ahead.If you have a copy of VT Thread check from Intel lying around I would run that and maybe see for yourself.

So, GPU-Z and task manager are not valid tools, yet, Latency checker is?

Not relevent since I made no comment about LC nor that about GPU-z nor anything beeing Invalid, however since you bring it up, it is a valid point in the case of TM.

did you know that if the BUS is not stressed enough latency will always remain the same rendering the latency checker tool USELESS? you know this right? please, go ahead and PING www.google.com check the results, now get a stress tool that will SATURATE your ethernet interface, ping google again, what happened to latency??? what if the ethernet interface was not stressed enough? how was the latency then? surprise! UNCHANGED! latency tool only proves BUS SATURATION! if there is NONE the latency tool is useless!

Again, Not relevent to me, made no comments about it and further saw no point. Are you getting enough sleep? :( However I could give you info about FSX like what types of thread run on which cores specificly or what the fiber fram fraction formula is in detail, but then iether you would run with it and make a new post with a new super threads on corex tweak and then I would have to post another Gems thread or you might just blow it off becasue it comes 2nd hand! :(

and Paul, don't take it personal! because this is not about you or me... BOTH of us are enthusiastic about our hobby, correct? both of us like/want to have good performing machines to run or beloved sim, correct? so like Fr. Bill said in a previous post:

Then I guess you shouldn't state that others or myself said or implied things that we didn't nor should you take it so personaly when someone post info contrary to your beliefs about how FSX does this or that esp when it was meant to help you. But I do agree I would rather enjoy scenery design and flying, which is what I should get back to. As for you and me, Not a problem and again I will say to you - Keep Up The Good Work!As for machines, I Have been enjoying FSX on a new very good running machine that you can check out here if you like: http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=276076Hoping to test a new WD Sata 6gs drive soon as well as a Fermi, not to mention a six core..what will work, what will be broken? Soon find out I hope!Now go to Bed! :(

Nick alluded to this in his post and it may explain the CPU-Z memory usage anomaly and also explain why different operating systems are getting different results:This from a msdn blog (by Zemblanity called 'Windows And Video Memory') but google brings a few results on the subject:"...XP uses the XP driver model (XPDM) and video memory is a fixed/finite resource. Windows Vista and Windows 7 use the Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) where graphics memory is virtualized. This means that in XPDM you are limited to the amount by the amount of physical memory on the graphics card, but in WDDM you are not. Therefore WDDM allows running either more applications or more resource intensive applications than was possible with XPDM. You can read more about WDDM at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa480220.aspx. There is no hard limit of video memory in either WDDM or XPDM, but depending on the driver, there are other limits. For example, some drivers have limits on the number of surfaces that can be created.In Windows Vista and Windows 7 the Desktop Window Manager (DWM) is used. Instead of presenting directly to the front buffer as in Windows XP, apps present to a DWM buffer. The DWM then composes the buffers together to create the image you see on your screen..."I have a 2 hard disks. Both setup up with FSX (SP2) but one XP (tried both 32&64) and one Win7. If I increase Bufferpools on the XP PC I reach a limit where the ac model gets corrupted (wheels on wings etc) and spikes appear during play. On the Win7 disk (exact same PC hardware except disk of course) the same value for Bufferpools does not produce this. In fact I've increased it repeatedly and not seen these artifacts until I concluded that it made no difference to *my* system (and I can't say that the flight was any smoother) - I was asking for more and more video memory and the system was giving it to me from a virtualized pool - I didn't reach a limit but this may be as I've 6Gb of RAM and of course I may have eventually done so. BTW my VRAM is 768Mb (IIRC).Now I'm not saying Bufferpools=0 doesn't work (I haven't tried it yet I'm working away from home at the mo) however given the above change in VRAM handling we perhaps need to be careful and specify which OS we are using and taking this into account when looking for a reason or condemning other folks results.(One thing I do know is that the PC game Wings of Prey gives me 60fps pretty much constantly - lots of smoke causes a slight blip - and looks prettier than FSX and I never, never thought I'd see myself type that! However thats another story...I just hope we see a future FSX+ which gives this same performance)Andy

Not relevent since I made no comment about LC

and

Again, Not relevent to me, made no comments about it and further saw no point. Are you getting enough sleep? :(

Agreed... a lot of things not relevant or related to you Paul, however I clearly stated 1) this is NOT about you ;) 2) I clearly said that the only reference directly to you was the 'Gems' portion.. and I mean that ONE reference, ONLY ONE...so, whats the point in getting a reply from me? lets see... would I address the Affinity mask thing? (I suggest you edit your posts, your said INfinity TWICE)or the formula for the fiber frame which, evidently you can't share because you are bound by the NDA? or threads that follow/respect affinity masks but fibers that dont? or the low resolution thing? (go back, I said I use 1920x1080 for my tests) READ CAREFULY and you'll see!!And thanks, I do think that you sincerely mean the keep the good work, I really do, I just don't know why you took things so personal with me.