I see several places that people use the 197.13 drivers (beta)...Why not grab the new 197.15 Forceware?http://downloads.guru3d.com/Forceware-197....nload-2500.html

Res: 1920x1200 on a 24 inch wide-view32 bit for color.LOD_RADIUS=4.500000Shockwave, if you grab a copy of Nick's suggested settings, you'd pretty well have what I am set up for except for Vsync now turned off and prerender from 3 to 1. Both settings are done via nHancer 2.5.7. I got artifacts once more when I tried to squeeze play the prerender back to 3. No joy.I always reset both PROFILE and GLOBAL within nHancer after a driver install.Hope this helps,Mitch

Thanks Mitch,Same settings as me except I use higher LODs, but for testing I went back to LOD 4.500000...Still no joy here, Blurrie mess within just 5 minutes of flying low speeds above 200knts, Tested from BP=0 to 40960But still more testing to go.....

But still more testing to go.....

Shockwave, what are your full system specs?And, when you have the time take a look at http://www.venetubo.com/gpu.pptthis is an under the hood look at how CPU-GPU interaction happens, the most interesting aspect being the command buffer and CPU-GPU syncronization. I think it explains a lot in terms of what BP=0 does and why FSX was designed with a vertex pool index in mind.If my theory is correct, and BP=0 does 'remove' that pool, then several things will happen:1) The command buffer WILL fill because of the huge ammount of d3d calls required to run FSX, to counteract this we need to 'balance' this CPU-GPU interaction, and the only way to do so is via 'observation' in this particular case, YMMV... in all comes down to your hardware and particularly how the CPU/GPU are interacting.2) Since you don't have a 'pool' anymore, the CPU doesn't have to rumage throw it or pull queued/batched D3D calls, now the CPU sends those calls DIRECTLY to the command buffer, since you are freeing the CPU of 'managing this pool', you get more performance in FSX, however, because of what is discussed in point #1, it will bring instability and bring things out of balance. If you think about it, it makes sense.. the FSX team probably created the bufferpool to avoid sending EVERYTHING to the command buffer and potentially fill it, so FSX can query the pool (locally) instead of sending a D3D call through the already stressed command buffer.3) If you were stressing your video card already, BP=0 will completely crash it, thats why we are seeing some success reducing GPU related tasks, such as Forcing Vsync to OFF, Pre-render to 1, Aniso/AA to application controlled etc etc. what you are really doing is 'balancing' things.The above conclusions DO make sense, the observations confirm what we have all seen so far, but I don't have access to the FSX code base, so I can't confirm it.

Quote2) Since you don't have a 'pool' anymore, the CPU doesn't have to rumage throw it or pull queued/batched D3D calls, now the CPU sends those calls DIRECTLY to the command buffer, since you are freeing the CPU of 'managing this pool', you get more performance in FSX, however, because of what is discussed in point #1, it will bring instability and bring things out of balance. If you think about it, it makes sense.. the FSX team probably created the bufferpool to avoid sending EVERYTHING to the command buffer and potentially fill it, so FSX can query the pool (locally) instead of sending a D3D call through the already stressed command buffer.UnquoteI really don't understand chasing an apparent unstable tweak like this!Look at the above quote and read it again.Did it cross your mind that they (Aces) actually knew what they where doing when creating that "pool"?Sorry guys, after what...? 30 pages of confusing adjustments, I'll keep my BP, my VertSync and my Aniso, and my... :( vits and sanity, hopefully...

well aces also did not have all the addons we throw at it, nor the larger system specs like 1gb video ram cards and i7 processors. We aren't doing it for the fun of it, we are trying different tweaks because our game is completely unflyable for various reasons, either black screens, crashes, out of memory, texture flickering and corruption, etc. So you enjoy your default aircraft and default scenery and thumb your nose at the rest of us

Did it cross your mind that they (Aces) actually knew what they where doing when creating that "pool"?

I absolutely believe they KNEW what they were doing. In fact, if I was making design considerations for FSX 5 years ago, I WILL include the BufferPool!The FSX team probably created the bufferpool to avoid sending EVERYTHING to the GPU command buffer and potentially fill it, so FSX could query the bufferpool (locally) instead of having to send all D3D calls directly to the GPU command buffer (it was probably a good idea 5 years ago) however, what if you can send EVERY SINGLE D3D CALL directly to the GPU and have the Video Card keep up with the rendering? what if you free FSX of the task of having to 'manage' this pool? does this make BP=0 a 'bad' tweak? no.. it just makes it a good one for those who understand what they are doing, it is not an out of the box tweak, it DOES require some work.And if you don't like the tweak, just don't try it :) you experiment at your own riskLook... I'm sharing my experiences with others, I provide all the details I can so others learn from it, you make your own conclusions if you want... 50% of my posts on this thread were fights because the party poopers and naysayers tell me i'm 'misleading' others... some even suggested closing this thread, come on! don't give up, and feel free to experiment.

also aces never tested the new operating systems, vista and win7. Nor did they even test on xp 64bit I believe. No reason to, default airplanes and default scenery do not push any system to the limit

3) If you were stressing your video card already, BP=0 will completely crash it, thats why we are seeing some success reducing GPU related tasks, such as Forcing Vsync to OFF, Pre-render to 1, Aniso/AA to application controlled etc etc. what you are really doing is 'balancing' things.The above conclusions DO make sense, the observations confirm what we have all seen so far, but I don't have access to the FSX code base, so I can't confirm it.

Thanks,And I agree but I think this was stated already way up front on page one or two, to make BP=0 work you have to limit or turn settings down for some on extreme settings and add-ons like flying a complex AC into FSDT airport or other scenarios etc.The tweak is great as it stands for those that dont mind running a littl less, but for others including myself I prefer on focusing on setting FSX up to for running smooth with the higher settings, including higher LODs all without the blurries that BP=stock allows and without the coruption and BP=0 doesnt seem to still cut it for that anymore now as back in 08 in that respect, for now anyhow.I7-920 @ 4.2Ghz 12Gb 2000 8-8-8-24 or 1600 6-6-6-18 285GTX 1GB (just sold the 2GB card and waiting for Fermi) win7-64 Ult FSX SP2 with more add-ons than I care to li$t.

(just sold the 2GB card and waiting for Fermi)

Well, it wouldn't surprise me if you can run BP=0 with the 470 or 480 at max IQ without any problems.. please, let us know. And yes, 'reducing' IQ has being discussed ad nauseum since page 1, but it is NOW people seem to be actually experimenting.... there are so many pages it gets confusing.... anyhow, thanks for helping with the tests and your positive attitude toward trying to make it work.

well aces also did not have all the addons we throw at it, nor the larger system specs like 1gb video ram cards and i7 processors. We aren't doing it for the fun of it, we are trying different tweaks because our game is completely unflyable for various reasons, either black screens, crashes, out of memory, texture flickering and corruption, etc. So you enjoy your default aircraft and default scenery and thumb your nose at the rest of us

Or just turn down the sliders a bit!They (Aces) - put them sliders in for a reason me think. :(

also aces never tested the new operating systems, vista and win7. Nor did they even test on xp 64bit I believe. No reason to, default airplanes and default scenery do not push any system to the limit

Sure they do!Them sliders again...

Well, it wouldn't surprise me if you can run BP=0 with the 470 or 480 at max IQ without any problems.. please, let us know. And yes, 'reducing' IQ has being discussed ad nauseum since page 1, but it is NOW people seem to be actually experimenting.... there are so many pages it gets confusing.... anyhow, thanks for helping with the tests and your positive attitude toward trying to make it work.

Your efforts are appreciated, don't misunderstand me, but my experience with the BP=0 and all the other stuff (shader-hack, etc) is that they are UNSTABLE!I want stability, smoothness, and if I get that with 20-25 FPS and some proven/tested settings I'm OK.I won't mention where you can get the best advise, you all know that, right?

Or just turn down the sliders a bit!They (Aces) - put them sliders in for a reason me think. :( Sure they do!Them sliders again...

nonsense, my frames don't dip below 50 with default everything. Aces did not test a PMDG 747, fsgenesis mesh, landclass and coastlines from Ultimate Terrain, real weather from ActiveSky.

Well, it wouldn't surprise me if you can run BP=0 with the 470 or 480 at max IQ without any problems.. please, let us know.

My concern will still be the blurries and that unfortunately has more to do with the CPU ... :(

Your efforts are appreciated, don't misunderstand me, but my experience with the BP=0 and all the other stuff (shader-hack, etc) is that they are UNSTABLE!

NOK, I urge you to stop this nonsense. This topic has clearly become a topic to make BP=0 stable, no secret here. We all know FSX works (more or less) stable out of the box. Efforts of people in this thread are simply gold-worth and I urge you to stop bringing the topic down. If you have something constructive to add, please do, if not, go read something else... thanks.Ontopic:Mitch, I tried your settings. I got 3 GPU resets with them, consequentially.But I have to add: I have LOD=7,5, max_texture_load=4096 and REX2 clouds in 4096. I will bring it down and retest... What are your extended settings for quality?

NOK, I urge you to stop this nonsense. This topic has clearly become a topic to make BP=0 stable, no secret here. We all know FSX works (more or less) stable out of the box. Efforts of people in this thread are simply gold-worth and I urge you to stop bringing the topic down. If you have something constructive to add, please do, if not, go read something else... thanks.Ontopic:Mitch, I tried your settings. I got 3 GPU resets with them, consequentially.But I have to add: I have LOD=7,5, max_texture_load=4096 and REX2 clouds in 4096. I will bring it down and retest... What are your extended settings for quality?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I have FSX internally, cranked right up. What I didn't have cranked right up was water. It was originally at 2Mid, but now is fully opened up. I have to say, inside PNW, the highest setting is stunning! Run Nick's nHancer to the letter EXCEPT: Prerender now set to 1, and Vsync now set to OFF. That's about it. With the water on highest, drivers at 197.13 beta and the above....BP=0 is stable until I end FSX, or wake up from having fallen asleep at the desk.... :( BTW, if you want a real challenge to get something up to speed, just purchase EZdock! It has more controls than the Carter Company has pills to sell....and don't ask me how I know.....(smile).Mitch