The new RAM I ordered arrived today and it is Kingston HyperX 2 x 2GB (4GB total) AT 7-7-7-20 latency. I had to manually set the latency in the BIOS as for some reason, my ASUS detected it to be the same as my previous RAM latencies. After booting into Win7, I re-ran its "detailed" performance assessment which is not just the basic one, but includes DirectX component tests and others which are not included in the basic test. NO STUTTERS AT ALL AND ALMOST EVERYTHING IS MAXED OUT IN FSX! I can't believe it. I was sure the RAM would make little difference after reading this thread and I was preparing to install FSX into my WinXP 32-bit. My frame rates are not fast, of course, since maxing out slows things down but they are still very decent at 12-25fps. However, no add-ons at all yet. I also have SP1 for FSX. I had ordered the Gold edition which includes the add-on acceleration pack and SP2 but I had not installed it yet.

Very interesting... I have rather crappy CLS9 RAM (9-9-9-24) and thought about getting better RAM, but after posting about this on the hardware forum and seeing some benchmark, I thought it wasn't worth the money. But maybe it is after all... Pity you can't give it a try first.

Hi,Two additional tests.The above photo should show a BP=70000000, guess I forgot to paste it on the image.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Wow Mike, you dropped 10 or so frames by leaving that setting of BUFF=0 for 50000000! That's the biggest impact I noted. 10 frames, that's a 30 percent loss of FPS performance at the same x/y coordinates within FSX. Geez.....a good case for cementing this tweak in....Mitch

Mike,What results do you get if you leave out the BP entry?

I'm looking at Mike's screenshots and thinking if full/windowed screen can affect things in FSX, adding even more variables? And for what it matters his window is not even maximized.Dirk.

Hi Dirk,I'm running a triple monitor setup with three Samsung SyncMaster T260HD monitors with a TripleHead2Go, when I capture a screen shot I get all three monitors. FSX is running windowed mode (center monitor) and is maximized to one (25.5") monitor. The blue you see around FSX is a result of a cut and past from the three monitor screen capture.I would put up the one image of all three monitors, but it would be in violation of AVSIM's image policy.Hi Dean,I didn't think of trying it with no BufferPools, I'll give that a try sometime today.

I'm looking at Mike's screenshots and thinking if full/windowed screen can affect things in FSX, adding even more variables? And for what it matters his window is not even maximized.Dirk.

I'm looking at Mike's screenshots and thinking if full/windowed screen can affect things in FSX, adding even more variables? And for what it matters his window is not even maximized.Dirk.

Thats a good point DirkI noticed when I tested it here on 3 systems that do not have any latency issues there was a difference between Window mode and Full ScreenByrna, I can not stress enough the importance of memory timing in relation to memory speedAlthough with i7 we have gone from a 50-60% maximum bandwidth efficiency on DDR2 and 1st generation DDR3 to nearly 90% with i7 because the memory controller is no longer bottlenecked at the northbridge, the relationship between memory speed and memory timing is still in play. I posted a 6 page report showing this a few years back with screenshots to demo the differences. tfm has also run tests showing the relationship between memory speed and memory timing and the improvement those display in FSX. The simplified technical aspects of mempory speed/timing and their relationship to system performance can be reviewed here http://www.thetechrepository.com/showthread.php?t=195you guys on CAS 9 memory can now see where you are and whyIt is also very important to note that the relationship between memory speed/timing and the beneficial result to the sim user is very much defined by how they run their sim and how much they push the scenery. Many do not load their systems to the max, use large res clouds and heavy hitting payware planes/scenery in combination with very high slider values for things like traffic, etcDDR3 1600 @ 7-7-7 is the maximum timing I would ever apply to a 1st gen DDR3 C2/Q or 2nd Gen DDR3 i7 system build for MSFS use and the user must make sure their BIOS is set up correctly to use that speed/timing.When we clock and do not have a extreme processor then we must use FSB or BCLK to obtain our goal. When we do that we may need to accept a lower memory speed than our memory is rated to run if we can not run a high enough FSB or BCLK with respect to the memory multiplier and then the timing becomes that much more critical to assist in makeing up for the loss (see the charts in the link provided). CPU speed is our first goal, then memory speed/timing.. they work togetherThose who use extreme processors do not deal with any memory speed reductions since they can change the CPU multipler without changing the bus speed

you guys on CAS 9 memory can now see where you are and whyIt is also very important to note that the relationship between memory speed/timing and the beneficial result to the sim user is very much defined by how they run their sim and how much they push the scenery. Many do not load their systems to the max, use large res clouds and heavy hitting payware planes/scenery in combination with very high slider values for things like traffic, etcDDR3 1600 @ 7-7-7 is the maximum timing I would ever apply to a 1st gen DDR3 C2/Q or 2nd Gen DDR3 i7 system build for MSFS use and the user must make sure their BIOS is set up correctly to use that speed/timing.

So, to put it as simply as I can :( : I would actually benefit from upgrading my 1333 CLS 9 (9-9-9-24) RAM to 1600 CLS 7 (7-7-7-20?) RAM...? I run my i7 920 at 3.3 Ghz, RAM runs at 1333. I asked this in another topic but got the idea upgrading my RAM would be rather useless. With my current settings 1600 RAM wouldn't run as fast as it could. Wouldn't it be better to get 1333 CL7 RAM then...? I do wonder how much I would actually gain from it... I once tried to set my RAM to 7-7-7-20 and I think that still worked... :( Would that mean my RAM can be faster than I expected?

Thats a good point DirkI noticed when I tested it here on 3 systems that do not have any latency issues there was a difference between Window mode and Full ScreenByrna, I can not stress enough the importance of memory timing in relation to memory speedAlthough with i7 we have gone from a 50-60% maximum bandwidth efficiency on DDR2 and 1st generation DDR3 to nearly 90% with i7 because the memory controller is no longer bottlenecked at the northbridge, the relationship between memory speed and memory timing is still in play. I posted a 6 page report showing this a few years back with screenshots to demo the differences. tfm has also run tests showing the relationship between memory speed and memory timing and the improvement those display in FSX. The simplified technical aspects of mempory speed/timing and their relationship to system performance can be reviewed here http://www.thetechrepository.com/showthread.php?t=195you guys on CAS 9 memory can now see where you are and whyIt is also very important to note that the relationship between memory speed/timing and the beneficial result to the sim user is very much defined by how they run their sim and how much they push the scenery. Many do not load their systems to the max, use large res clouds and heavy hitting payware planes/scenery in combination with very high slider values for things like traffic, etcDDR3 1600 @ 7-7-7 is the maximum timing I would ever apply to a 1st gen DDR3 C2/Q or 2nd Gen DDR3 i7 system build for MSFS use and the user must make sure their BIOS is set up correctly to use that speed/timing.When we clock and do not have a extreme processor then we must use FSB or BCLK to obtain our goal. When we do that we may need to accept a lower memory speed than our memory is rated to run if we can not run a high enough FSB or BCLK with respect to the memory multiplier and then the timing becomes that much more critical to assist in makeing up for the loss (see the charts in the link provided). CPU speed is our first goal, then memory speed/timing.. they work togetherThose who use extreme processors do not deal with any memory speed reductions since they can change the CPU multipler without changing the bus speed

Nick_N, Thank-you for that info regarding memory and CPU. But now I am wondering about something more immediate. I just posted in the CTD forum that installing the UIAUTOMATIONCORE.DLL for Vista fixed my CTDs and freezing, though I will still do a long Trans-Atlantic flight to be sure. However, I just installed FSX and deliberately have not installed nothing else, so I'm running the the default airplanes and scenery. (The default EDDM Munich is gorgeous by the way, compared to the "boxes" in FS2004)... But I am using Win7 Pro 64 and I'm wondering if these stutters will come back if I start installing add-ons. I have several planes in mind, namely PMDG 744X, PMDG J4100, PMDG 737NGX (when it comes out), Aerosoft scenery, a business jet (payware), and a single engine or a dual-engine prop (non turbo), plus a whole slew of add-on airports, both freeware and payware. But to be honest, I will not install any add-on textures. I have decided that the default textures in FSX are amazing compared to what I got in FS2004, but I WILL install add-on mesh to improve the elevation looks/data.What do you think will happen with all these add-ons? Will the stutters perhaps return? By the way, I am aware that my video card may be insufficient and will consider upgrading it later, but I will first see how FSX performs once the addons come in the picture. I am wondering if I should not waste my time installing add-ons in Win7 - 64 and just re-install FSX on my Win XP 32-bit. What do you think? John

What do you think?

I think you should run your sim the way you wish to run it and with the addons you wish to use although you must be careful and make sure your addons comply to the FSX SP version you are using. Naturally as you add resource consuming addons performance changes. That is why we spec the right hardware, so the effect is minimized as we build however there will always be a tuning session or two involved and there can be a few tweaks that may need to be applied. The deal with tweaks is.. if you do not see a defined result you can place as a direct result of a tweak, that tweak may not be doing anything so do not load up your FSX.cfg file with changes all at once. Do them as you see you may need to work out a problem be it blurs, stutters or frames but nothing beats knowing the limits of those sliders and sitting there trying to push them to the max is where most people go wrong. They should not be too low either.

I have an i7920 OC 3.6ghz with a new ATI 5870 1gig ddr5 running 10.1 drivers. FSX in dx9 enhancements done through the video driver via ATI catalyst. settings 8x AA filter wide tent 16x AF AA mode adaptive multi sample. the card is not overclocked. I landed at EDDF in snowy conditions with GEX. REX, UTX, FS Genesis, Zinertek airport textures, A2A 3D redux lighting. lots of clouds all the way down. I was doing this in the frame rate hungry PMDG 747-400X in the 747-8i configuration.First approach and landing was in dx10 and with fsx.cfg BP=2000000 TMB=70 stuttered all the way down to the runway. read this entire post with great interest so I decided what the heck worth a try changed BP=0 TMB=80 set up FPS limiter set frames in FSX to unlimited ran it again in dx9 same conditions. Jaw was on the floor! it was smooth. I am talking FS9 smooth even in the dang virtual cockpit which eats frames like a fat guy at a buffet. For me the fly by is a really good test because it always highlights those little micro stutters. I did the fly by at about 1500ft off the ground over Frankfurt and smooth as silk. Now I will do more testing for sure but this looks very promising...at least for me. Guthrie

First approach and landing was in dx10 and with fsx.cfg BP=2000000 TMB=70 stuttered all the way down to the runway. read this entire post with great interest so I decided what the heck worth a try changed BP=0 TMB=80 set up FPS limiter set frames in FSX to unlimited ran it again in dx9 same conditions. Jaw was on the floor! it was smooth. I am talking FS9 smooth even in the dang virtual cockpit which eats frames like a fat guy at a buffet. For me the fly by is a really good test because it always highlights those little micro stutters. I did the fly by at about 1500ft off the ground over Frankfurt and smooth as silk. Now I will do more testing for sure but this looks very promising...at least for me. Guthrie

That is great Guthrie,Notwithstanding recent back pedaling and jumping on the topic bandwaggon, you can thank Bojote for the Bufferframe=0 tweak. If it was not for his resistance against the prevailing winds that be, the issue would have never been pressed to the benefit of us all. It is a great tweak for most, and might just be beneficial to all, once the issues become clearly understood (if ever).For me, Nhancer, FPS Limiter, BF=0, AM=15 along with a few other common tweaks allow movie screen performance with FSX sliders full right. It is amazing just how far this has all gone in just the last few months. With such an experimental and exploratory groups of enthusiastic testers we can look forward to huge leaps to come. We have an exciting present and future in FSX.Expect ORBX's Texture Flow as another big jump from here to there, already in testing and being implemented. Good times for great flying!

I think you should run your sim the way you wish to run it and with the addons you wish to use although you must be careful and make sure your addons comply to the FSX SP version you are using. Naturally as you add resource consuming addons performance changes. That is why we spec the right hardware, so the effect is minimized as we build however there will always be a tuning session or two involved and there can be a few tweaks that may need to be applied. The deal with tweaks is.. if you do not see a defined result you can place as a direct result of a tweak, that tweak may not be doing anything so do not load up your FSX.cfg file with changes all at once. Do them as you see you may need to work out a problem be it blurs, stutters or frames but nothing beats knowing the limits of those sliders and sitting there trying to push them to the max is where most people go wrong. They should not be too low either.

Hi NickN,Unfortunatley, last night, my patience ran out because, being a former FS2004 user and also being somewhat knowledgeable about the quirks of OSes and FS (as I work in technical support, helpdesk environment, but deal a lot with 2nd level issues also), I uninstalled FSX from Win7 and installed it onto my trusty old WinXP 32-bit. See my last post in this thread: http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?s=&...t&p=1720099.But you are right about add-ons. I will have to, first of all, look seriously into upgrading my video card. My PC was purchased with a budget limitation as with everyone, and also, for FS2004, back in May 2008. It is plenty for FS2004 but looks like my 256MB of VRAM is a major issue and so is my GPU to some extent. So, the tweaks I will be inevitably applying in the future, like you said, ONE at a time and see if it has any effect. Then tweak somethign else. But these issues with the number keys suddently stopping to function in the middle of a flight, when they were working fine in the first half of the flight, was really the icing on the cake for me. Win7 is not made for FSX nor vice versa, and Vista is NOT Win7 as similar as it may be. (see my post link above if you want)But I have printed your tweak guide from the simforums and will keep it for reference.Thanks again for all your help to the FS community with your suggestions/tweaks.John

For me, Nhancer, FPS Limiter, BF=0, AM=15

AM=15. What does that refer to?Stephen, have you played with BP of 1 or 2MB? I am finding this is actually superior in that cockpit textures load instantaneously even in birds like the PMDG 747, so overall it's a little better than BP=0 I think. And this is supported by DPC latency check too, just a little though. What has shocked me is how BP in the higher ranges of 5 to 10mb or more actually is a bad thing on this machine. I was running at 5mb for many months.Noel

AM=15. What does that refer to?Stephen, have you played with BP of 1 or 2MB? I am finding this is actually superior in that cockpit textures load instantaneously even in birds like the PMDG 747, so overall it's a little better than BP=0 I think. Noel

Affinity Mask, Noel.I've found that an AM of 14, plus a BP of 1000 works fine as well, with very minimal flashing and no one-minute "hangs". I tried setting the priority of fsx.exe to high, and it was certainly smooth, but still hung, so it's back to 14 and 1000, locked at 25 - and amazingly, it will do it at the default processor speed, too. I'll try the 1 meg setting tonight.

I have tried every setting mentioned in this thread and always end up with BP-240000000 in DX9 mode. TPM=100. 196.21 drivers nvidia. No BP=0 here.Only 1Gig vRam though.jja