turn both Triliear optimization and aniso. sample optimization on. And set Filtering in FSX to anisotropic.

Wont that generate alot of the shimmering effect in the trees and water?

deleted

FSX never had that feature. Unfortunately...

I always thought I might be stupid and not know it. Now I have the proof!!GOOD NEWSIt works. No artifacts, no flashes, smooth and fast performance. I took off from Darrington set on extreme dense autogen, everything jammed to the right. perfect performance. The chase ends here. We have arrived.Stephen

Wont that generate alot of the shimmering effect in the trees and water?

Not on my computer...

I always thought I might be stupid and not know it. Now I have the proof!!GOOD NEWSIt works. No artifacts, no flashes, smooth and fast performance. I took off from Darrington set on extreme dense autogen, everything jammed to the right. perfect performance. The chase ends here. We have arrived.Stephen

So FSX Anisotropic isn't so bad after all... :(

I always thought I might be stupid and not know it. Now I have the proof!!GOOD NEWSIt works. No artifacts, no flashes, smooth and fast performance. I took off from Darrington set on extreme dense autogen, everything jammed to the right. perfect performance. The chase ends here. We have arrived.Stephen

Good for you Stephen!However everyones taste for acceptable image quality varies as you know, and it has a huge impact on your results. So what all settings did you use?In the Driver/nhancer what level of Aniso did you use 4x-8x16x or did you set "application" only? What Screen resolution and color depth? What AA was used - "inhance game settings", alphaAA or transparencyAA? GamaAA etc? In FSX what LOD are you using - stock max of 4.5 or is it at max quality of 9.5 or somewhere between? What max texture size, 1024, 2048 etc? What scenraio did you test under and what aircraft did you use?What do you have as far as FPS cap?etc etc.

Forceware 197.15 Windows 7?Anyone have success with the above driver?I tried some of the new ideas. Even though there a less spikes and less flashes, I'm still getting them.

Just set BP back to 500000000 and smooth as silk. But that is with the latest gforce driver - 197.15. Very nice.BFG 285GTX - 1gigjja

Wont that generate alot of the shimmering effect in the trees and water?

YES!Tried it - looked at it - and went back to my previous settings.

Okay, right, I've settled for the following settings. In order to make comparisons easier I give you as much information as possible. With these settings I get an fps of 25 (my maximum with the limiter) above PNW, apart from above large cities like Seattle, where it may drop to 18 (depending on where I look). It doesn't get lower than that. It's not smooth, like it is above rural area's, but still flyable. Above Orbx's Darrington fps might drop a little too (something like 24 and slightly less smooth, but hardly noticable). System: i7 920 @ 3.3 (stock cooler) on a Gigabyte X58-UD5 (HT and other 'enhancements' off in the BIOS), Windows 7 64 bit and FSX on a 80 Gb SSD (Intel Postville), other programs on an old fashioned Samsung Spinpoint (600 Gb), GTX 285 (running stock) with 196.21 driver, 6 Gb 1333 RAM running at 1333 with timings 7-7-7-20 (officialy that should be 9-9-9-24). I use the ENB-series HDR, Track IR (version 4 but with the version 5 software), Gamebooster (although I doubt if it makes a difference), the FPS Limiter (set at 25) and set FSX.exe to High priority (manually). I use REX and FEX for enhancements (both with low resoluion settings). I almost always fly GA, currently the Carenado C182RG is my default plane.Performance tweaks:[bUFFERPOOLS]Poolsize=0[DISPLAY]TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=80 (although I can't say other settings make a noticable difference...)nVidia settings (I don't use nHancer):FSX settings:Without BufferPools at 0 I'd never get this smooth performance with Extremely dense autogen. Darrington becomes a stuttering mess with any other BP-settings (or when I leave the tweak out of the cfg and use the default setting).If I forgot to mention something, please let me know.

However everyones taste for acceptable image quality varies as you know, and it has a huge impact on your results.

Very true. I know for instance some of you won't like the FSAA I get, but to me it looks awesome and performance is great! But hey, I'd do anything for smooth Extremely dense autogen. :(

Screenshots would be nice...I notice you have zero AI, GA & Airport Veh.?IMO this is not a typical set-up, but of course, everyone can do what they want, and you seems to be happy with this combination. :('Question: Any specific reason why you not use nHancer?

Just set BP back to 500000000 and smooth as silk. But that is with the latest gforce driver - 197.15. Very nice.BFG 285GTX - 1gigjja

We have the same card, can you please confirm the BP setting? It looks like you have too many 0's.

I always thought I might be stupid and not know it. Now I have the proof!!GOOD NEWSThe chase ends here. We have arrived.Stephen

Just Kidding! I couldn't resist the opportunity to declare that! :( There were no flashes though but it was a short flight and certainly not taxing the system. It does look promising though.Stephen

Screenshots would be nice...I notice you have zero AI, GA & Airport Veh.?IMO this is not a typical set-up, but of course, everyone can do what they want, and you seems to be happy with this combination. :( '

Yeah, good catch.I should have included that at the top of the list, AI is another large performance factor not to be left out.

Screenshots would be nice...I notice you have zero AI, GA & Airport Veh.?IMO this is not a typical set-up, but of course, everyone can do what they want, and you seems to be happy with this combination. :('Question: Any specific reason why you not use nHancer?

Yes, zero AI. Not typical indeed, but I am not the only one who flies without (or with little) AI. I can use GA AI without huge difference in performance, but I don't feel the need too, because OR I don't see them OR if I do they just get in my way. And I almost always fly from and to small airfields, so I don't need airliners and airport vehicles too. And yes, I am happy with these settings because they give me what I want. :( I don't use nHancer because I don't need the extra's it offers... I can't think of a simpler reason. :( I can make some screenshots to show you how it looks (if that's the reason why you ask?).

Yeah, good catch.I should have included that at the top of the list, AI is another large performance factor not to be left out.

LOL A good catch, as if I ever lied about it. B) AI is at the complete bottom of my list, so... But I will see what happens when I use Orbx's recommended settings (16% GA), just to please you all. B)

Okay, right, I've settled for the following settings. In order to make comparisons easier I give you as much information as possible.

Excellent post! - The way it should be done IMO.And sure, for some of us those settings are not our cup of tea but visa versa is the way that goes.

Yes, zero AI. Not typical indeed, but I am not the only one who flies without (or with little) AI. I can use GA AI without huge difference in performance, but I don't feel the need too, because OR I don't see them OR if I do they just get in my way. And I almost always fly from and to small airfields, so I don't need airliners and airport vehicles too. And yes, I am happy with these settings because they give me what I want. :( I don't use nHancer because I don't need the extra's it offers... I can't think of a simpler reason. :( I can make some screenshots to show you how it looks (if that's the reason why you ask?).LOL A good catch, as if I ever lied about it. :( AI is at the complete bottom of my list, so... But I will see what happens when I use Orbx's recommended settings (16% GA), just to please you all. B)

No, meant it in the way of it should be listed as you did.And if you are running stock AI as compared to add-ons like UT or TX as many of us run makes it that much more important to list.