LOLOLOL :( When I get my new i7 930 next week and overclock the thing to 4.2, it might even be objectively true!Stephen

Yea, Stephen, just wait for it - to enter a new Era of misery. :(

.... and today, after charting each change of the things that aren't tweakable in the Settings->Display for a couple of hours, (and not furthering the cause) I dug into the FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION, and found that (A2A Spit, 1200ft, 240kts, 340deg over 34C) by progressively lowering that setting well below the "normal" setting - FSX became smoother and smoother and smoother... FPS locked at 24.FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.025 // 0.0125 // 0.025 // 0.05 // 0.10 // .15 It's been at .25 for a while - taken from someone else's post, but I hadn't played with it, and I thought "nothing to lose" . I started off by dropping it to the last figure - 0.15 - and the difference was noticeable, so I continued..... Whether it works for the older quad series procs I don't know, but it definitely made a huge difference to PNW on my clunker.

Such a low Fiber Frame settings usually results in a very blurry mess because texture loading priority has become way too low... I tried those low settings too and fps went up, logically, but all I got was blurry textures after a while.

Yea, Stephen, just wait for it - to enter a new Era of misery. :(

:( That's sooooo true!!

Such a low Fiber Frame settings usually results in a very blurry mess because texture loading priority has become way too low... I tried those low settings too and fps went up, logically, but all I got was blurry textures after a while.

Yep, I concluded that today morning too. As I was flying, textures became only more blurry, they just wouldn't keep up!

Yep, I concluded that today morning too. As I was flying, textures became only more blurry, they just wouldn't keep up!

You're bursting my bubble, guys.. :( I flew from Renton to Darrington without any blurring - 0.5 hour, followed by a 0.6 from 1S2 - 89WA in the A2A Cub, both with Orbx Weather 3, and that was adequate for me, but I guess I have to make longer flights ... perhaps it depends upon other settings, too.This is a real problem, isn't it. We want a fair amount of GA and/or commercial traffic at each airport, in most any weather condition, with good scenery. PNW provides the good scenery, - even at lower-than-normal texture, scenery and mesh slider levels, but add both of the other two in and she starts to micro-stutter. Anyway - I will stick with my settings, though, because right now it's silky-smooth, and I feel like Mitch did when he first got his 975! :(

Renton - Arlington - Darrington - Arlington - Auburn: 1100 ft/ 240kts, OrbX 3 weather, MyTrafficX5.2b: TnG at Arlington, 4 low ccts around Darrington, two at SEA (35 aircraft), then down at Auburn (31 GA aircraft. .9 hour. There was no blurring. Locked this time at 22. I think there's a small amount of headroom to increase something else, but it's stable, with occasional, very minor split-second hesitations.Mode=3840x1024x16BP=400000, TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=60UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=22FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.025AirlineDensity=26GADensity=26FreewayDensity=12LOD_RADIUS=3.500000MESH_COMPLEXITY=62MESH_RESOLUTION=22TEXTURE_RESOLUTION=28AUTOGEN_DENSITY=2DETAIL_TEXTURE=1WATER_EFFECTS=2TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=800TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=700

Are you all actually aware what we are doing here? Splitting atoms to make an orange juice... Pointless thing. I just attempted even more "tweaking" to be able to depart KJFK in my 747 - NOTHING HELPS. I got black screens this time, not even fuzzy little dots jumping around.If I delete BP, everything is going well, but at the cost of 1/3 of the framerate. Taxiing at 20fps around KJFK is NOT fun.

Hi Word Not Allowed,I run BufferPools at 500000, if I run them higher I get a black sky, if I increase BP even higher I get a full black screen. So for my system, 500000 seems to work the best.

Are you all actually aware what we are doing here? Splitting atoms to make an orange juice... Pointless thing. I just attempted even more "tweaking" to be able to depart KJFK in my 747 - NOTHING HELPS. I got black screens this time, not even fuzzy little dots jumping around.If I delete BP, everything is going well, but at the cost of 1/3 of the framerate. Taxiing at 20fps around KJFK is NOT fun.

I am in the level flight now, from KJFK to EGLL, but here I did notice something:If I delete shaders folder each time I change BP setting, usually everything is working alright. In fact changing any terrain setting. Maybe that's the connection!

Not to throw a monkey-wrench into all of this, and at the risk of adding another "variable" to it all (just what we all need), but nobody has mentioned this in this entire thread yet.PNW (and FTX Australia) uses a combination of photoscenery and autogen. Historically, with non-photoscenery, Trilinear filtering has usually been the best filter choice (less demanding on your system resources). With photoscenery, Anisotropic helps prevent "blurry" ground textures, but is a more "demanding" filter process for your hardware.ORBX recommends Anisotropic Filtering for it's products, which makes sense based on the amount of photoscenery included with it. But that is going to stress your system hardware more. If you aren't flying in any of the ORBX areas (or any other photoscenery area) you can usually "throttle down" the filtering to Trilinear and still get excellent scenery results with less stress on your computer.Comparing all these settings in ORBX vs non-ORBX scenery areas should be taking into consideration the type of filtering the person is using too, or the "data" is meaningless. Someone with an i7 over-clocked to 4GHz and a 2GB GTX card is gonna be able to get away with a lot more than someone with a Quad Core and a 1GB GPU when it comes to how the selected filtering method will affect scenery anomolies. The BufferPools settings may need to be quite different to avoid those anomolies.Screen resolution will also come into play (although this apparantly has been mentioned before), I'm running FSX at 5040 x 1050 on a TH2G 3-wide monitor setup, and have absolutely no anomolies anywhere in FSX. At that many pixels, I'm sure my BufferPools are getting a major workout. But any "data" reported here should include the person's screen resolution also, or it is meaningless as a comparison for anybody else.

Anything less than Anisotropic Filtering is a whole decade step back to bad image quality. Use Tri if you must but, its god awful and suggest you find another way to regain performance.Back in 2001:http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/dis...-filtering.html

Anything less than Anisotropic Filtering is a whole decade step back to bad image quality.Use Tri if you must but, its god awful and suggest you find another way to regain performance.

Thanks, Shock: I switched after I read your note, and there's little or no impact. Locking at 22 leaves headroom, while still being smooth. I remember trying this, and going back to Tri, as aniso was definitely a frame killer at that time. The difference in texture quality is outstanding! It gets better by the minute! I owe you one! :(

I managed to finish the whole 6,5 hrs flight. In the end, I switched from full screen to windowed (also did that in flight, nothing happened), I got a black screen. Luckily flight was finished, but nevertheless... weird that it only happened in the end.

Hi Word Not Allowed,I run BufferPools at 500000, if I run them higher I get a black sky, if I increase BP even higher I get a full black screen. So for my system, 500000 seems to work the best.

Good call! That's what I ended up going back to.jja

Good call! That's what I ended up going back to.jja

Really! When I set to that, I get pretty much stuttering... but will try again with the technique of deleting shader folders. Maybe it's different. I was running this whole flight with BP=0 and it went well, just until the last switch!