Yep, thanks Nick, I just tried the various settings, and it slowly but surely starts driving me crazy!(I'm not an engineer, so my angle to all this is different than yours...)Usually I have a BP at 12000000 with a 512 Mb card, and for testing I just tried 120 as BP, and to my utter surprice, STUTTERFREE over KSEA with sliders 3/4!Try it...

Thats 12MB and it is valid for a 512 card.. 15MB is about the limit though with a 512 card and a higher scenery slider could force you to edit it to a lower value if you are exceeding the hardware limtitations with the BP edit.Finding sweetspot values is all about balance and usually no 2 systems display the exact same result. Users must find the TBM/BP and slider values that work in harmony

http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007...-week-or-2.aspx

There was actually another conversation somewhere about this too. I dont know where it is as I did not save a link to it

Yes, I understand completely, I have my set-up in "F1 Shape" (!) - due to your second to none advise, thanks!But pls. read this: Poolsize=120It def. looks better than my 12000000...PS: Found an old thread while searching,LOL!http://forums1.avsim.net/lofiversion/index.php/t66330.htmlInteresting read...

Yes, I understand completely, I have my set-up in "F1 Shape" (!) - due to your second to none advise, thanks!But pls. read this: Poolsize=120It def. looks better than my 12000000...

The common denominator to this low BP edit appears to be W7 or Vista (W7 more than Vista). I would like to bet it has to do with the changes in the driver model with the OS's. As I posted, FSX will probably ignore but the system bus itself is effected by the change. At some point, as I stated in another thread, I intend to do some checking on this but right now my focus is on patch work for productlater guys!

I have bofferpools set at 300mb.Anything below that causes stutters in certain sceneries.I can go to 400mb, but I have experienced corrupted scnenery with a 400 setting.I'm so glad I found the sweet spot and the perfect drivers with the right nhancer setting.I'm sorry to see that so many people are still looking for answers.

and I have a 2GB 280GTX Poolsize zero nets a stuttering mess

How much VIDEO memory does GPU-Z display as being used by FSX in your setup?can you base your observations on measurements? GPU-Z will show you HOW MUCH video memory you are currently using!is it too much to ask to check?

The common denominator to this low BP edit appears to be W7 or Vista (W7 more than Vista). I would like to bet it has to do with the changes in the driver model with the OS's. As I posted, FSX will probably ignore but the system bus itself is effected by the change. At some point, as I stated in another thread, I intend to do some checking on this but right now my focus is on patch work for productlater guys!

Yep, I forgot to mention - this tweak was on my Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit set-up...Looking forward to the patch!

How much VIDEO memory does GPU-Z display as being used by FSX in your setup?can you base your observations on measurements? GPU-Z will show you HOW MUCH video memory you are currently using!is it too much to ask to check?

When you explain to me how you know that GPUz readout VM amount is actually being used by FSX, what part of it is in use by the application itself and not just being allocated based on driver management due to the setting, then we can talk.. otherwise what you posted was a complete assumptionUntil such time as there is some way to verify what is going on, like we did with BP=200 to 490 using the DPC tool, then anything posted about this is pure speculation. I am not saying there is no value to using zero! I am saying that based on what we do know more than likely what is happening is not in FSX itself but the system in use. If what you posted was true everyone would come in here and call this a miracle.. they dont! :( There must be a real reason to seeing positive results with this and right now W7 (and how it deals with driver/memory management) appears to be the primary common denominator.

Yep, I forgot to mention - this tweak was on my Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit set-up...Looking forward to the patch!

I use WindowsXP x64 for FSX.. no muss, no fuss, no crazy strange sound reductions to offset payware texture issues and black screens, no affinity mask in use or BP settings that would be out of range, in other words.. no hoops to jump thorugh and ladders to climbUntil I see a SP for W7 and evaluate it I will remain on XPx64 SP2c (full XPSP2 install disk, SP2 web update from XP SP1 is a no-no due to issues with the HAL installed by SP1 and pci.sys ntfs.sys in SP2)

I would like to bet it has to do with the changes in the driver model with the OS's.

In fact, VISTA and Win7 DO manage VRAM differently...so, lets assume the following:FACT (From Phil Taylor blog): Raf said:In RTM, the default setting was 1MB (1000000). The lower this number, the more pools the allocator will have to rummage through to find space for buffers and the more stutters you may have. In Sp1, we raised the default to 4MB (4000000) and optimized the underlying algorithm for finding free buffersOPINION: certain Raf comments caught my attention: 1) allocator will have to rummage through to find space 2) underlying algorithm for finding free buffersFACT: What Raf is saying is that Buffer allocation and the algorithm to find free space is not done a the driver level, but instead, the FSX team did this at the software level! Raf said: 'Optimization of algorithms' really? So it was NOT optimized before? hmm.. what If the driver changes the way it manages memory? will this 5 year old algorithm still be valid today?OPINION: What if Vista & Win7 driver model offers a alternative solution to finding this vertex and index buffers for D3D apps? what if this is done automatically? what if PoolSize=0 effectively means 0 and FSX doesn't use *any* algorithms at all and uses the driver for this?Observations need to be based on measurements in order to have some validity. Perception is useless... we DO have a tool that can help measure the impact of PoolSize values in FSX. that tool is GPU-Z... What I've been trying to do is share my findings and seek the opinions of those with more knowledge of FSX to understand the impact of LOW PoolSize settings and help determine if this is snake oil/placebo.

What I've been trying to do is share my findings and seek the opinions of those with more knowledge of FSX to understand the impact of LOW PoolSize settings and help determine if this is snake oil/placebo.

I understand that!But dont call this a miracle holy grail tweak! It does not work the same for everyone just like AffinityMask=14 doesnt=================================Until such time as there is some way to verify what is going on, like we did with BP=200 to 490 using the DPC tool, then anything posted about this is pure speculation. I am not saying there is no value to using zero! I am saying that based on what we do know more than likely what is happening is not in FSX itself but the system in use. If what you posted was true everyone would come in here and call this a miracle.. they dont! There must be a real reason to seeing positive results with this and right now W7 (and how it deals with driver/memory management) appears to be the primary common denominator. ===================================I am not saying it doesnt have value but until such time as a defined reason can be ascertained making assumptions based on GPUz readouts is guesswork bunk and the VM display should not be assumed it is in 100% FSX application use:)

But dont call this a miracle holy grail tweak! It does not work the same for everyone just like AffinityMask=14 doesnt

It is not! in fact, I think in the 3rd post I clarified and said this tweak was VERY specific... Only those with >1GB Video cards and Win7/Vista will see any benefit. I'm just not satisfied changing values and having good results I want to understand the 'reasons' as much as you do.

When you explain to me how you know that GPUz readout VM amount is actually being used by FSX, what part of it is in use by the application itself and not just being allocated based on driver management due to the setting, then we can talk.. otherwise what you posted was a complete assumptionUntil such time as there is some way to verify what is going on, like we did with BP=200 to 490 using the DPC tool, then anything posted about this is pure speculation. I am not saying there is no value to using zero! I am saying that based on what we do know more than likely what is happening is not in FSX itself but the system in use. If what you posted was true everyone would come in here and call this a miracle.. they dont! :( There must be a real reason to seeing positive results with this and right now W7 (and how it deals with driver/memory management) appears to be the primary common denominator. I use WindowsXP x64 for FSX.. no muss, no fuss, no crazy strange sound reductions to offset payware texture issues and black screens, no affinity mask in use or BP settings that would be out of range, in other words.. no hoops to jump thorugh and ladders to climbUntil I see a SP for W7 and evaluate it I will remain on XPx64 SP2c (full XPSP2 install disk, SP2 web update from XP SP1 is a no-no due to issues with the HAL installed by SP1 and pci.sys ntfs.sys in SP2)

The first part of that statement is key, trying to explain that the relevance of simply what AA settings are used and how that alone can more than double GPU memory load seems to get ignored alot in these types of discussions.Might suggest trying to turn ALL filtering off before doing those kinds of test and see what effect are present, may help. As far as WIn7, I have been trying to do some testing with some positive results simply using FSX in XP-SP3 compatibility mode vs the BP and other "tweaks" As I could NOT get a Black Screen condition in XP mode so far under Xtreme conditions, but other effects and thorough testing still ahead.

It is not! in fact, I think in the 3rd post I clarified and said this tweak was VERY specific... Only those with >1GB Video cards and Win7/Vista will see any benefit. I'm just not satisfied changing values and having good results I want to understand the 'reasons' as much as you do.

then the tile of the thread should be,,[bufferPools] PoolSize=0 is working for menot [bufferPools] PoolSize=0 the holy grail of FSX performance... and by the way, zero and low BP values have been reported as working for some for quite some time and without >1GB cards , again this has been around since Vista

The first part of that statement is key, trying to explain that the relevance of simply what AA settings are used and how that alone can more than double GPU memory load seems to get ignored alot in these types of discussions.Might suggest trying to turn ALL filtering off before doing those kinds of test and see what effect are present, may help. As far as WIn7, I have been trying to do some testing with some positive results simply using FSX in XP-SP3 compatibility mode vs the BP and other "tweaks" As I could NOT get a Black Screen condition in XP mode so far under Xtreme conditions, but other effects and thorough testing still ahead.

Ulike XP, being that DX is tied directly to the core of Vista and W7 I would put real money on that with the driver model changes being the direction to look which could also account for the sound quality reductions fixing the black textures big payware planes too.no more goofin off.. back to work here for me :(

I am not saying it doesnt have value but until such time as a defined reason can be ascertained making assumptions based on GPUz readouts is guesswork bunk and the VM display should not be assumed it is in 100% FSX application use:)

That part is some what easy, in looking at the ap and log file for instance of a test I started out with 70-80mb Vram used, jumped into FSX and it hit 700MB and then rose quickly to 900 as I loaded another AC and then as I flew it climbed up to 1018MB, going into the FSX startup menu alone it hit 200-300mb.Again only relevant to my settings with high SSAA, Lod Radius of 6.500000 etc etc.So I think we can get a gain from info but you still have to seperate the filtering needs vs also all what you are telling FSX to disply multiplied by how IT responds = the need for a good shrink or at least a nice stiff drink.

Stephen, you definitely should see an improvement!! try and report back (any card above 1.5GB of memory should benefit from PoolSize=0)

Reporting back:Have to do a restart with the BF at 0. My machine did not like it at all.Stephen