What WILL change is that in the driver / enhancer you can select what level of Aniso you want from 4x thru high quality 16xAF.

I'm just trying to determine if the artifacts are a consequence of the CPU outpacing the GPU and filling up the command buffer. The easiest way to see if this is the case is to either make the CPU do more work (so it sends less calls) OR ease up video settings so calls are completed faster. I think that when the command buffer is filled and a low FPS condition is present the command buffer is flushed and even though this happens VERY fast, it can lead to artifacts EVEN if the GPU or CPU are not showing 100% usage. so again, I'm asking SpiritFlyer to test to see if i'm headed in the right direction.next test is playing with ObjectsToBatchPerFrame too see if I can reduce the number of draw calls and see if it helps.

I'm just trying to determine if the artifacts are a consequence of the CPU outpacing the GPU and filling up the command buffer. The easiest way to see if this is the case is to either make the CPU do more work (so it sends less calls) OR ease up video settings so calls are completed faster. I think that when the command buffer is filled and a low FPS condition is present the command buffer is flushed and even though this happens VERY fast, it can lead to artifacts EVEN if the GPU or CPU are not showing 100% usage. so again, I'm asking SpiritFlyer to test to see if i'm headed in the right direction.next test is playing with ObjectsToBatchPerFrame too see if I can reduce the number of draw calls and see if it helps.

If the buffer gets flushed in a low FPS situation it may lead to a black screen situation if on Vista/Win7 but as I recall I dont think it has anything to do with artifacts (the info points in Word Not Allowed's link edit : see triggered by a Windows service called 'Timeout Detection and Recovery' ).On the other hand, yeah, i dont think its that complicated, lessoning the video settings should reduce artifacts if you are having that kind of problem, kinda the same as turning the sliders down on AG like David to normal setting or lower.Also see some are using the EVGA 285GTX's which have been problematic, some can be RMA'd to remedy.

I'm just trying to determine if the artifacts are a consequence of the CPU outpacing the GPU and filling up the command buffer. The easiest way to see if this is the case is to either make the CPU do more work (so it sends less calls) OR ease up video settings so calls are completed faster. I think that when the command buffer is filled and a low FPS condition is present the command buffer is flushed and even though this happens VERY fast, it can lead to artifacts EVEN if the GPU or CPU are not showing 100% usage. so again, I'm asking SpiritFlyer to test to see if i'm headed in the right direction.next test is playing with ObjectsToBatchPerFrame too see if I can reduce the number of draw calls and see if it helps.

BTW "ObjectsToBatchPerFrame" This was one of the few optimizations of SP1/2 that finally offed more work to the GPU to lesson the burden on the CPU - it is a batch proccessing of AGen that was much more efficiant than RTM

Stephen, for the past two weeks, I've been testing different scenarios, reading throught lots of posts and doing my own research. Also someone posted something that makes sense and confirms what I've seen so far, but until people test it there is nothing conclusive about it.Do this VERY SIMPLE test, DISABLE aniso in nHancer (yes, you read right) the option that says OFF (not application) OFF.. ( and don't worry, it WILL NOT actually disable it as long as FSX has the anisotropic filter option enabled inside the sim) thenm tell me if you still see artifacts.. just do that simple change. I'll elaborate further, but I need you to test that.

Will Do *******, first thing in the morning and post back!

BTW "ObjectsToBatchPerFrame" This was one of the few optimizations of SP1/2 that finally offed more work to the GPU to lesson the burden on the CPU - it is a batch proccessing of AGen that was much more efficiant than RTM

I just finished some more tests, It's amazing, but now everything starts to fall into place, im confident that the BP=0 can work for EVERYONE, and I think I know why so many people were having problems with it... aniso is NOT the problem, just a trigger.Lets all wait for Stephen to report back and we go from there...

Guys, are you testing with heavy PMDG aircraft or with anything else? I think with PMDG there already are many errors as it is, even reported often... and with anything else you might have more luck. Though for me, I wish to fly the PMDG aircraft, as I fly mostly MD11/747 or DA Fokker. All cause artifacts sometimes.

Guys, are you testing with heavy PMDG aircraft or with anything else? I think with PMDG there already are many errors as it is, even reported often... and with anything else you might have more luck. Though for me, I wish to fly the PMDG aircraft, as I fly mostly MD11/747 or DA Fokker. All cause artifacts sometimes.

Word Not Allowed,I've more than 8 situation files that test different scenarios... to give you an idea:1) Heavy Weather, FSDT KJFK, Manhattan X, Ultimate traffic 2 100%, Level-D 767, Frames locked @ 25, 1920x1080 VSYNC ONI cycle ALL AI planes, then change into all views. Using this test I could replicate 100% of the time Black screens.This is the test I used to force black screens and fix it. It is a Video Memory intensive test (stresses video memory)2) Default Cessna, over friday harbor. 1280x720 Frames UNLIMITED VSYNC ON This one stresses the DISPLAY DRIVER through D3D calls plus the driver overhead of having to sync frames (it is NOT CPU or GPU intensive) it stresses the GPU command buffer trying to fill it.3) Default Cessna, over friday harbor. 1280x720 Frames UNLIMITED VSYNC OFFThis one stresses the CPU and GPU to the absolute maximum, having VSYNC OFF the CPU will render more than 140 frames per second and the video card has to keep up drawing every frame, this test doesn't stress the display driver or fills the command buffer because VSYNC if off, so the driver overhead is greatly reduced and better used doing what it does best.The above tests, serve different purposes, but DO a great job stressing the components I want to check. Measurements are made with perfmon counters and GPU-z, and no, I don't use Latency checker because no matter what I do latency never goes over 98I have an i7 920 @ 4.2 w/6GB memory running 7-7-7-16 and a 2GB 285GTX running stock clocks and I was right all along and I will prove it. I stand by my original post on this thread.

Lucky me , I have no artifacts / black screens or whatsoever.Still using the 196.21 driver and alsop Nhancer with AA set to 4x and ADF to 16.Even max texture load to 2048.Imho it all comes down to fast hardware, enough ( and fast ) system memory and a large memory of the graphicscard.

Imho it all comes down to fast hardware, enough ( and fast ) system memory and a large memory of the graphicscard.

Yes, it also comes down to 'balance' of that hardware, and we are going to discuss that in the next few days....

Almost 10 hours flying now with no more artifacts.Smooth and crispy as you can see:Average 25 fps in PNW non-urban areas with driver 196.21.

I also get an average of 25 in PNW but with autogen at Extremely dense... and I have a i7 920 running at 3.3. With your setup you should be able to move that autogen slider to the right...! (I also have mesh complexity at full right, but I have bloom off: I use the ENB series addon which is superior to the ingame bloom and has less impact on fps.I have to say though that I do get late loading textures... but I even get those with extreme low settings, so I think that is just the way FSX is...

What WILL change is that in the driver / enhancer you can select what level of Aniso you want from 4x thru high quality 16xAF. If you let FSX chose it wont be 16XAF (8X and lower depending on generation of card). If you use high resolution screen sizes, lower quality Aniso filtering shows up easily, if lower res - not as much.Also linked to AF is when you select "texture quality" settings in the driver/nhancer. Settings of Higher or mid performance uses AA/AF and texture LOD performance optimizations (shortcuts) however when you chose high quality settings those optimizations are all turned off.

I posted about this somewhere else, but I really can't see a difference between the FSX anisotropic filtering or nHancer's filtering... Also turning on or off the filtering optimizations do not make ANY difference at all. I play at 1680x1050: maybe you'd call that low...? Same goes for the texture quality: no difference at ALL between performance or high quality...Anyway, I am very curious, bojote, what will be your next tip! I think this topic is my favorite FSX topic ever...!!! :(

Edit: Nice Pic David! Notice your Agen is at "normal", if you bump it up to dense what happens?

I'll tell you that when I'll go back home in a couple of days but as far as I remember this was the good ballance to get a smooth flight without artifacts.It's a matter of choice but I prefer lowering the autogen to Normal if it's the price to pay to keep the bloom effect.

Hi David,Remember AA can also be tweaked inside FSX... [GRAPHICS]MultiSamplesPerPixel=8MultiSampleQuality=2

Thanks *******,I didn't know that.I'll give it a try.I've stopped using nHancer since driver 196.21 because I don't feel anymore the need of it.

J van E:Just curious... Why don't you run that i7 a bit faster?4 Ghz should be easy to reach...

J van E:Just curious... Why don't you run that i7 a bit faster?4 Ghz should be easy to reach...

I use the stock cooler. I had my computer assembled by the online shop I bought it at and at that time I didn't really think about overclocking it... I could of course get a better cooler, but they all require installing backplates, so I'd have to take the entire motherboard out of my computer... and I am also a bit afraid I might damage the CPU or do something wrong with the cooling stuff/gel/whatever... :( :( I did manage to get my CPU run at 4.0 already, but I had to lower the speed of my RAM and I also got heating problems (obviously). So yes, my CPU seems to be capable of a higher speed but... I am not brave enough to try it all. :(

OK I understand..I did it the other way around, lapped the old Q6600 and cranked it up to 3.8 Ghz, and THEN tweaked like a madman. :( Still tweaking though, that's sometimes more fun than flying, and this thread (and several others.. ) are an inspiration, thanks!

Lucky me , I have no artifacts / black screens or whatsoever.Still using the 196.21 driver and alsop Nhancer with AA set to 4x and ADF to 16.Even max texture load to 2048.Imho it all comes down to fast hardware, enough ( and fast ) system memory and a large memory of the graphicscard.

You might be right about size of memory on card.I'm still testing. I went back to the 182.50s but after seeing the huge performance jump using the 196.21, I have to make this work.I will try the above suggestions.By the way, I am in complete agreement with some here:This is the best and most important tweak ever created. I say this because if FSX is not handling video memory properly and this tweak allows it to work the way it is supposed to, I'm seeing double the fps and performance.This is astonishing.