[BufferPools] PoolSize=0 the holy grail of FSX performance...

[yankeegolf3 52]

Hi,Well, I've given up on the following tweaks, they do nothing for FSX on my state-of-the-art system.BUFFERPOOLS, AFFINITYMASK and TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT.

hi Mike,When I see the system you've got and that you are not pleased with it, I am appalled... It seems that there will never be a computer capable of running FSX . :( I remember watching a video on you tube by a guy who claimed that the latest systems don't run FSX well and are even worse than older ones. He said that FSX was designed with the belief that future systems would have very high processor speeds and in fact those speeds have not increased very much for the last 2 years. It seems that he was right. I have a 4 year system at 3 GHz and Hyperthreading only 3Gb of DDr2 ram, a bus at 800mhz, and I can have decent performances with no autogen (not a big loss). I will keep my system and forget about buying a new one.

[Mike_CFII_MEL 790]

Hi,I'm not displeased with FSX's performance with my system, I'm getting 28fps at KJFK (FSDreamTeams addon) with KEWR and KLGA addon airports installed as well, this has to be one of the hardest hit areas to fly within FSX, thats why all my testing is done here. I believe FSX should of been the sim-of-all-sims, built from the ground up to take advantage of todays systems, the old/overbloaded engine that was patched-and-patched-and-patched should of been scrapped, just my opinion I'm sure there are many other opinions out there as well. That's one of the reasons I'm not sorry that the Aces team was disolved, maybe now we will get a from the ground up sim that will take full advantage of todays resources. A new from the ground up sim that FSX should of been.The only reason I use FS9 99.99% of the time is all the addons I have, once Level-D's 757 and PMDG's 737 hit the market that will more than likely change.

hi Mike,When I see the system you've got and that you are not pleased with it, I am appalled... It seems that there will never be a computer capable of running FSX . :( I remember watching a video on you tube by a guy who claimed that the latest systems don't run FSX well and are even worse than older ones. He said that FSX was designed with the belief that future systems would have very high processor speeds and in fact those speeds have not increased very much for the last 2 years. It seems that he was right. I have a 4 year system at 3 GHz and Hyperthreading only 3Gb of DDr2 ram, a bus at 800mhz, and I can have decent performances with no autogen (not a big loss). I will keep my system and forget about buying a new one.

[ray hughes 165]

This topic once again has got my curiosity. Having mirgrated to Win 7 64bit I had not included the Bufferpools segment in my prior config files after experimenting under XP and not finding any signficant change.Under Win 7 however I put Bufferpools in and set it too 6000000. (This was an approx estimate for my video card (Nvidia 260 with 768Mb Ram).What I have found after inserting this and restarting, is that the sim flies smoother, but panning views introduces small spikes into the scenery that do settle down after a while. I can live with these though, as the smoother flying is what I am after. I have not tried a flight longer than about 30 minutes since this change so cannot garauntee the smoothness will maintained over an hour or so of flying

[jjjallen 37]

It is surprising how well the FSX engine does work. Just consider the modeling of aircraft systems alone, this feat would have taken a small Cray (supercomputer) back in the 80's. When you consider weather modeling and fluid dynamics then a medium size Cray would have been required. Then consider simulating real-world terrain, that would have required a large Cray computer. Addi the simulation of real-time air traffic, that would have required.....jja

[Guest 413X3]

Bufferpools to 0 has turned my fsx into a more smooth sim. No crash from a 5 hour flight when before I was lucky to get 2 hours in without some strange crash or black screen. No loss of textures on my PMDG 747X either like used to happen too. Will do another flight during the day to see how it runs, at night was perfect

[ulisses 1]

lol and rewardsI have a GTX260 and i'm currently using a BP setting of 70000000 to avoid sound issues and white squares.Btw, does anybody have a hint to reduce flickering issues with nVidia drivers? No matter what driver settings i use, some sceneries are a flickering hell and i'm pretty sure that it isn't the fault of the sceneries since no author would release a scenery with problems like that.

Hi, just today I was trying to reduce flickering, mainly at distance, and using nhancer I teste bias to 0.125 and 0.250 what helped but introduced some corruption in FSX on screen texts. I returned bias to 0.00 and set antialias to combined 8x and anisotropic to 12x what gave me a good result at my resolution (1680x1050)...also, clamp is on and filtering is set to high quality.. in a GTX 275. BTW I'm using BP at 5000000. After each nhancer change, FSX must be restarted for see the effect.Ulisses

[Guest FSXBuster]

2.818 views - 95 posts?!Seriously, someone has to stop this pure nonsense going on here,LOL!The latest "advise" from the OP, about turning up the water settings, got me to post this...GET REAL FOLKS!Why on earth are you doing this, when there's second to none advise here:http://205.252.250.26/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.p...=1208959973/0#0http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=29041They are old threads, but up-to-date, and there's all what you need to get your system in top-shape!

[Guest UlfB]

2.818 views - 95 posts?!Seriously, someone has to stop this pure nonsense going on here,LOL!The latest "advise" from the OP, about turning up the water settings, got me to post this...GET REAL FOLKS!Why on earth are you doing this, when there's second to none advise here:

Because a lot of people have been on a quest to find the Holy Grail ever since FSX was released. And when OP claims to have found the Holy Grail of FSX a whole lot of simmers get interested. As easy as that, IMO.

[bojote 23]

The latest "advise" from the OP, about turning up the water settings, got me to post this...

I do get flickering if I use anything less than HIGH 2.0. My personal opinion? completely nonsense! it doesn't make sense AT ALL... By flickering I mean 'texture flashes'IF I set water to High 2.0 thinks look great.. why? I don't know! FPS is very subjective, but flickering is not.. probably corrupted textures or not DXT5 compressed? maybe.. I was simply offering advice based on my personal experience, I still don't understand 'why' offering advise its a bad thing... specially considering how different FSX performs under the wide variety of setups people have.as for the 'Holy Grail' well.. I agree, YMMV but if you read the original post, this is meant for >1GB video card users. You want to contribute? get GPU-Z do some measurements, get a 2GB card and report back, otherwise [EDITED BY MOD]

[Guest]

Why on earth are you doing this, when there's second to none advise here:http://205.252.250.26/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.p...=1208959973/0#0http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=29041They are old threads, but up-to-date, and there's all what you need to get your system in top-shape!

Totally wrong. :( First of all the links are NOT up to date, because Windows 7 isn't mentioned in those links at ALL, while everyone knows Windows 7 is THE system to use for FSX right now. (And Windows 7 probably is also the reason for Bufferpools settings being quite different than they use to be!).Also there isn't a mention of SSD's at all in those links: and I suppose everyone also knows by now SSD's are the way to go for FSX because they completely render the very long defrag instructions useless and outperform any other HD-setup.So how's that for 'up to date'...? :( Besides all this, the guides are great (and meant) for perfect computers, but a lot of people don't have perfect computers and so they may need different tweaks (or different settings for those tweaks) to make up for that.NickN has some very solid advice and I also benefited a LOT from it (even though I use Windows 7), but for instance I have Bufferpools at 500000 (500.000) which is only 0,5 Mb. You won't find that information in his guide (yet) because that information hasn't been er... confirmed and certified yet. But anything higher or lower on MY computer and I get more stutters. So following NickN's advice will get you going indeed, it's a great start to get the basics right, but for a lot of people it's not the end of what's possible. If people would ONLY follow NickN's guide and only the links to his posts would be valid, than lots of people would NOT be getting the most out of FSX. That simply is a FACT that can't be denied because far too many people uses his guide but altered certain settings, sometimes to extremes, to get better performance.

[Guest FSXBuster]

I do get flickering if I use anything less than HIGH 2.0. My personal opinion? completely nonsense! it doesn't make sense AT ALL... By flickering I mean 'texture flashes'IF I set water to High 2.0 thinks look great.. why? I don't know! FPS is very subjective, but flickering is not.. probably corrupted textures or not DXT5 compressed? maybe.. I was simply offering advice based on my personal experience, I still don't understand 'why' offering advise its a bad thing... specially considering how different FSX performs under the wide variety of setups people have.as for the 'Holy Grail' well.. I agree, YMMV but if you read the original post, this is meant for >1GB video card users. You want to contribute? get GPU-Z do some measurements, get a 2GB card and report back, otherwise [EDITED BY MOD]

Advise?You are shooting with a pumpgun, 360 degrees around you, BLINDFOLDED!Sure, something will fall from the sky then, good hunting...

[Guest FSXBuster]

J van E:"while everyone knows Windows 7 is THE system to use for FSX right now."By what kind of authority is this statement backed??Look around you, with all the people getting CTD's, black screens, shimmer there, and stutter there, works "best" with the old Vista driver 182.50 etc. etc.Go have a look at ww.simforums.com, where several users have gone from W7, and back to XP 64 bit...But of course, if you prefer the headaches with this NEW OS, then go ahead!

[Steve1969 8]

J van E:"while everyone knows Windows 7 is THE system to use for FSX right now."By what kind of authority is this statement backed??Look around you, with all the people getting CTD's, black screens, shimmer there, and stutter there, works "best" with the old Vista driver 182.50 etc. etc.Go have a look at ww.simforums.com, where several users have gone from W7, and back to XP 64 bit...But of course, if you prefer the headaches with this NEW OS, then go ahead!

I totally agree with you on this. W7 brings it's own set of problems (texture loss, black screens, lock ups etc) and it is not the panacea that people claim it is. I have tried all the OS's and in my humble opinion you simply can't beat XP64 for FSX

[Guest]

J van E:"while everyone knows Windows 7 is THE system to use for FSX right now."By what kind of authority is this statement backed??Look around you, with all the people getting CTD's, black screens, shimmer there, and stutter there, works "best" with the old Vista driver 182.50 etc. etc.Go have a look at ww.simforums.com, where several users have gone from W7, and back to XP 64 bit...But of course, if you prefer the headaches with this NEW OS, then go ahead!

Okay then, I'll take that back. I was speaking only on my own authority :( because I really love W7 with FSX but also because most people I know love W7 and FSX too. But apparently I am wrong in this regard. But even then, NickN's information is not up to date and ALL my (other) points still stand. So... why do you only react to this one little item of my post...? Does that mean you've got nothing to say about my other arguments? :(

[Guest FSXBuster]

Okay then, I'll take that back. I was speaking only on my own authority :( because I really love W7 with FSX but also because most people I know love W7 and FSX too. But apparently I am wrong in this regard. But even then, NickN's information is not up to date and ALL my (other) points still stand. So... why do you only react to this one little item of my post...? Does that mean you've got nothing to say about my other arguments? :(

Hmmm..? Agree? Not really. But I'm buzy at work, so won't post a long story!I have W7 and XP as doubleboot with FSX on both.W7 64 is a special "Nvidia 7 Edition" - slimmed and trimmed, it works OK, but not like XP.My XP 64 is the "Superior" edition, 120 Mb footprint on the OS, Google it...Both OS's of course registered with keys and what not... :(