Hm, bummer... I've been using a BP of 500000 for some time now, but I just bought Orbx Darrington and a BP of zero gives definitely a LOT smoother flight around that airfield! But whatever I do... I get artifacts... :( (Tried various TBM's, various fps-locks, various compatibilitymodes, but nothing helps. Very annoying because after take off with a helo performance is very good, smooth, but the artifacts are too bad... (In the end they lock up the computer.) With another BP like 500000 I get constant stutters...Any other ideas how to get rid of the artifacts? ;) I am using nVidia driver 196.21 right now.

Any other ideas how to get rid of the artifacts? ;) I am using nVidia driver 196.21 right now.

Try this:1) Lock frame rates @ 252) run FSX in Vista SP2 compatibility mode3) Set TBM to 804) Reduce your resolutionIf the above DOESN'T FIX it, try UNDERCLOCKING your video card GPU and Memory and try againIt seems, that when you set BP=0 your card needs to works a little harder trying to keep up with every frame (because is not using a memory pool anymore, this is an assumption, of course), doing the above steps will help you confirm this is the case.do all the above changes in a single session, not individually, then, try adjust them one by one to YOUR original preferred values to see which has the most impact on artifacts.

...4) Reduce your resolutionIf the above DOESN'T FIX it, try UNDERCLOCKING your video card GPU and Memory and try again...

What's the point with reducing resolution and underclocking hardware? I would propose the solution NOT to use BP=0.Maybe next tweak of the year will be to use the resolution 800x600 or not to buy fast graphics cards for FSX to allow the use of BP=0 without artifacts?

Hm, bummer... I've been using a BP of 500000 for some time now, but I just bought Orbx Darrington and a BP of zero gives definitely a LOT smoother flight around that airfield! But whatever I do... I get artifacts... :( (Tried various TBM's, various fps-locks, various compatibilitymodes, but nothing helps. Very annoying because after take off with a helo performance is very good, smooth, but the artifacts are too bad... (In the end they lock up the computer.) With another BP like 500000 I get constant stutters...Any other ideas how to get rid of the artifacts? ;) I am using nVidia driver 196.21 right now.

-------------------------------------------------------------------I hear ya. With Buff at '0', I get smooth as silk progressive animation. With BUff at 500000, I get about 98 % of what having it at '0' gives..but artifact free.I think that having no Buffers exhausts the V RAM on your card and then the artifacts appear. Some think that having a 2 GB card would allow you an FSX artifact-free session.Also another thing. I traced the 'some-have-it-some-don't' FSX freeze to an apparent g3d.dll FSX APP crash. I spent a lot of time on the net last night even reading forums from the FS98 era. All of them (the FS series) have had a version of the g3d.dll crash which seems to be when you enter a new layer of scenery. The universal 'fix' for this was to uninstall your driver suite, reboot, and then reinstall the suite. It is due to subtle corruption of the driver files as a result of faulty posting and overclock of system components. If anybody reading this has the dreaded FSX hang with sound, or even no sound in the background and that you have to call up the TASK MANAGER to end FSX....try the aforementioned cure. Remove your drivers (don't over install) and then apply them once more.Back to Buff at 0. I run with the 195.62 suite and Buff at 500000. This combo gives me quite acceptable performance. Try it. It might work for you.Cheers!Mitch

What's the point with reducing resolution and underclocking hardware?

You didn't read the entire post did you? otherwise you would't be asking such a question ;) take the time to read the entire 'reasoning' behind 'before' offering your negative comments which doesn't help ANYONE. In order to indentify the 'SOURCE' of a problem, you need to determine 'WHAT' is causing it, you don't even know what clocks are set on his hardware, or even what resolution he is using, YET, you jump it with conclusions??? come on!I don't see *ANY* reason for you to come here and being sarcastic on every comment/suggestion I make, do you have a problem with me? or with the fact that some people found BP=0 to be a great tweak for them? I really don't understand what your problem is, if you want some attention, please go troll somewhere else and leave others to judge for themselves what is good or not for their *SPECIFIC* set ups.

Hm, bummer... I've been using a BP of 500000 for some time now, but I just bought Orbx Darrington and a BP of zero gives definitely a LOT smoother flight around that airfield! But whatever I do... I get artifacts... :( (Tried various TBM's, various fps-locks, various compatibilitymodes, but nothing helps. Very annoying because after take off with a helo performance is very good, smooth, but the artifacts are too bad... (In the end they lock up the computer.) With another BP like 500000 I get constant stutters...Any other ideas how to get rid of the artifacts? ;) I am using nVidia driver 196.21 right now.

Mitch, I have a GTX-275 with 1792 ram oc'ed to 721 so bufferpools 0 seems to work best. If I get into any more trouble I will try the 500,000, but right now 0 is sweet.Jercen,Try something to see if it solves your problem with Darrington. Insert the following lines into your terrain section of your fsx.cfg:TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=800TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=800IMAGE_PIXELS_FOR_AUTOGEN_POLYGONS=1024Change your autogen slider to very dense and take a flight out of Darrington and tell us how it went. Mine is as slick as jelly with every feature of the town enabled. Lovely!Bojote,Good to see you.

Mitch, I have a GTX-275 with 1792 ram oc'ed to 721 so bufferpools 0 seems to work best. If I get into any more trouble I will try the 500,000, but right now 0 is sweet.Jercen,Try something to see if it solves your problem with Darrington. Insert the following lines into your terrain section of your fsx.cfg:TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=800TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=800IMAGE_PIXELS_FOR_AUTOGEN_POLYGONS=1024Change your autogen slider to very dense and take a flight out of Darrington and tell us how it went. Mine is as slick as jelly with every feature of the town enabled. Lovely!

Just curious, why not first just use the sliders for adjusting to your system state, get that all squared away and then see what

Just curious, why not first just use the sliders for adjusting to your system state, get that all squared away and then see what

You didn't read the entire post did you? otherwise you would't be asking such a question ;) take the time to read the entire 'reasoning' behind 'before' offering your negative comments which doesn't help ANYONE. In order to indentify the 'SOURCE' of a problem, you need to determine 'WHAT' is causing it, you don't even know what clocks are set on his hardware, or even what resolution he is using, YET, you jump it with conclusions??? come on!I don't see *ANY* reason for you to come here and being sarcastic on every comment/suggestion I make, do you have a problem with me? or with the fact that some people found BP=0 to be a great tweak for them? I really don't understand what your problem is, if you want some attention, please go troll somewhere else and leave others to judge for themselves what is good or not for their *SPECIFIC* set ups.

Understand your frustration but you shouldn't take any of it personally, he didn't attack you, just the idea of what is a happening with the suggestions.While testing BP=0 a year or two back what seemed to occur then seems to be occuring now, just as you pointed out about not knowing what setup someone has.For instance, how many people would have a BP=x setting that they used from some old other tweak sugestion that was not really the best =x setting in the first place and now see a change for the better? Does that make BP=0 better than default for them? Maybe, but maybe not... How would we/they know? How many went back and deleted the line and left at default and tested it after rebooting and clearing the cache before appling it? under what >different scenarios has it been successful? These are the questions or the type of info that should be stated with and before reporting result or offering advice, or hey about just work on the correct AG and scenery density slider settings appropriate to the rig or scenery frist? I mean look at some of the comments, this is a stutter tweak but yet we read things like "FPS shot up 20%" etc.. tells us iether this was placebo or someones rig was not set up well in the first place.BTW I dont use any PB line at all and I dont have stutters, FSX.cfg is all back to stock except for LOD=8.500000 and TBM=80, well for now anyway :(:) And yeah, good to see you back!

Manually. There is an excellent reason Paul, the rendering of the numbers of local buildings versus trees surrounding the town being one of them most affected. This allows a jump from the recommended normal setting to very dense, greatly enriching the rendering of the scenery. Less trees, more buildings and details. One offsets the other, changing the existing ratio, with little visual difference outside the immediate area. Using the sliders instead just dials back the whole thing, everything, indiscriminately and not advantageously in my (and mine alone) opinion. :(

Makes sense I guess if that is your prefrence, Thanks.Did you do this mainly for the ORBX stuff or for the overall?What about the "IMAGE_PIXELS_FOR_AUTOGEN_POLYGONS=1024", why using that one?Paul

Understand your frustration but you shouldn't take any of it personally, he didn't attack you, just the idea of what is a happening with the suggestions.While testing BP=0 a year or two back what seemed to occure then seems to be occuring now, just as you pointed out about not knowing what setup some has.For instance, how many people would have a BP=x setting that they used from somelese sugestion that was not really the best =x setting in the first place and now see a change? How many went from back and deleted the line and left at default before appling it? under what >different scenarios has it been successful? These are the questions or the type of info that should be stated with and before reporting result or offering advice, or hey about just work on the correct AG and scenery density slider settings appropriate to the rig or scenery frist? I mean look at some of the comments, this is a stutter tweak but yet we read things like "FPS shot up 20%" etc.. tells us iether this was placebo or someones rig was not set up well in the first place.BTW I dont use any PB line at all and I dont have stutters, FSX.cfg is all back to stock except for LOD=8.500000 and TBM=80, well for now anyway :(:) And yeah, good to see you back!Makes sense I guess if that is your prefrence, Thanks.Did you do this mainly for the ORBX stuff or for the overall?What about the "IMAGE_PIXELS_FOR_AUTOGEN_POLYGONS=1024", why using that one?Paul

Paul,I don't remember how or why the 1024! :) Some guru somewhere I suppose. Hey, it works fantastically, what can I say? I am not recommending anything. I just wanted to find a way to maximize buildings in rural settings without losing all the trees too. The limit of 800 for the buildings came about when reading what Holger had to say somewhere about how FSX builds them per cell. Going from memory I believe he said that the most it paints is 1300 anyway, so if you want to make a real difference restrict it to under a thousand. These settings allow me to have constant high performance in complex sceneries, big cities and rural landscapes without having to change the sliders. In the countryside the building count is unaffected so all the farmhouses and barns and towns are fully there. In the cities, the tree count is unaffected but the buildings are reduced to a level that provides smooth performance. All hunky-dory and as fit as a fiddle. No one else recommends these things so don't follow me, I might be heading over a thousand foot cliff. :(

Paul,I don't remember how or why the 1024! :) Some guru somewhere I suppose. Hey, it works fantastically, what can I say? I am not recommending anything. I just wanted to find a way to maximize buildings in rural settings without losing all the trees too. The limit of 800 for the buildings came about when reading what Holger had to say somewhere about how FSX builds them per cell. Going from memory I believe he said that the most it paints is 1300 anyway, so if you want to make a real difference restrict it to under a thousand. These settings allow me to have constant high performance in complex sceneries, big cities and rural landscapes without having to change the sliders. In the countryside the building count is unaffected so all the farmhouses and barns and towns are fully there. In the cities, the tree count is unaffected but the buildings are reduced to a level that provides smooth performance. All hunky-dory and as fit as a fiddle. No one else recommends these things so don't follow me, I might be heading over a thousand foot cliff. :(

No No Not the cliff! There is good logic there but trying to seperate RTM from SP1/SP2 gets confusing over time so was just wondering.Just some info from the SDK for you on that other line incase you want to try some other values if it helps you any:"Polyline vegetation is rasterized into a sampling bitmap. The granularity of the rasterization is determined by the following setting in the ESP.cfg (FSX.cfg) file:[TERRAIN]IMAGE_PIXELS_FOR_AUTOGEN_POLYGONS=16 The value of this setting is set at the minimum, 16, and can be any value up to 2048. The higher the number the more accurately a curved polygon will be rasterized. The value 16 indicates a rasterization of approximately 80 meters down to approximately 0.5 meter accuracy for the 2048 setting. There is a performance penalty with the time it takes to rasterize a region, and the memory required for the resulting sampling bitmap."Paul

No No Not the cliff! There is good logic there but trying to seperate RTM from SP1/SP2 gets confusing over time so was just wondering.Just some info from the SDK for you on that other line incase you want to try some other values if it helps you any:"Polyline vegetation is rasterized into a sampling bitmap. The granularity of the rasterization is determined by the following setting in the ESP.cfg (FSX.cfg) file:[TERRAIN]IMAGE_PIXELS_FOR_AUTOGEN_POLYGONS=16 The value of this setting is set at the minimum, 16, and can be any value up to 2048. The higher the number the more accurately a curved polygon will be rasterized. The value 16 indicates a rasterization of approximately 80 meters down to approximately 0.5 meter accuracy for the 2048 setting. There is a performance penalty with the time it takes to rasterize a region, and the memory required for the resulting sampling bitmap."Paul

Changing it from 1024 to 16 and going for a test flight. If I don't return, it is your fault and your responsibility to explain what happened to the police, the aviation authorities and my family. The will is in the safe. :(

just the idea of what is a happening with the suggestions.

Hi Paul, understood.. I think we all agree that even though 'some' have been happy with the tweak, some are experiencing problems.. the suggestion to reduce resolution, will only help determine if VRAM exhaustion 'could' be one of the issues responsible for the artifacts, if the user reduces the resolution and the problem is solved, it doesn't mean 'reducing' resolution was a 'suggestion' just a step to help troubleshoot his/her problem, that was my whole point. I'm not suggesting people to use 1024x768!! :)

And yeah, good to see you back!

glad to see you guys too :)take care,

Changing it from 1024 to 16 and going for a test flight. If I don't return, it is your fault and your responsibility to explain what happened to the police, the aviation authorities and my family. The will is in the safe. :(

I'm back after changing the setting as you suggested FlyingBits. It did not seem to make any noticeable difference whatsoever so I changed it back to 1024. I will experiment with it again when I am in a different scenery location. Generally speaking the higher my quality settings in Nhancer the smoother everything seems to run, which takes no Dr. of rocket science degree to understand.

I'm back after changing the setting as you suggested FlyingBits. It did not seem to make any noticeable difference whatsoever so I changed it back to 1024. I will experiment with it again when I am in a different scenery location. Generally speaking the higher my quality settings in Nhancer the smoother everything seems to run, which takes no Dr. of rocket science degree to understand.

But Officer, I don