I am testing some settings using nHancer. One of them is the Texture filtering setting. However I cannot see any difference between High quality and High Performance... Do you? According to the provided information High quality should be a LOT better... The two optimization options (trilinear and aniso. sample) also don't seem to make a difference... Do you only see a difference in specific circumstances or specific games? (I only play FSX.)

I am testing some settings using nHancer. One of them is the Texture filtering setting. However I cannot see any difference between High quality and High Performance... Do you? According to the provided information High quality should be a LOT better... The two optimization options (trilinear and aniso. sample) also don't seem to make a difference... Do you only see a difference in specific circumstances or specific games? (I only play FSX.)

No and no.

I am testing some settings using nHancer. One of them is the Texture filtering setting. However I cannot see any difference between High quality and High Performance... Do you? According to the provided information High quality should be a LOT better... The two optimization options (trilinear and aniso. sample) also don't seem to make a difference... Do you only see a difference in specific circumstances or specific games? (I only play FSX.)

Yes, they do. But it all hinges on what else you have going on. If you are at high res display, then many things like AA and AF become very apparent, especially between 4xAF, 8xAF and 16xAF (anisoFiltering). If you are using a lower LOD in FSX somethings like AF wont show up very well, but set that manually to ultra high 9.5 like some of us like to use and it is VERY apparent. But it also helps to know what you are looking for.http://www.overclock.net/pc-games/350343-a...tml#post4098069http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2136960,00.asp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisotropic_filteringAs far as the High quality vs Performance (texture quality setting): Performance turns optimizations on that lesson the quality in a minor way allowing for less cost to performance, where as quality mode turn the optimizations off and force full high quality filtering with no shortcuts.

Yes, I can see differences with AF (pretty obviously too) but I wasn't talking about AF: I was only talking about the High vs Performance settings (and the optimizations that come with them). As I said, I know there should be a difference, but I can't see ANY difference there (at a res of 1680x1050), just like McCrash can't. However, I do get different results when it comes to performance (using the BufferPool at 0 tweak). If you can't SEE a difference, why use the high quality settings...? Like everyone seems to do (because NickN told them so)...?

Yes, I can see differences with AF (pretty obviously too) but I wasn't talking about AF: I was only talking about the High vs Performance settings (and the optimizations that come with them). As I said, I know there should be a difference, but I can't see ANY difference there (at a res of 1680x1050), just like McCrash can't. However, I do get different results when it comes to performance (using the BufferPool at 0 tweak). If you can't SEE a difference, why use the high quality settings...? Like everyone seems to do (because NickN told them so)...?

Well, as with anything you still are the final judge of what is best for >you.1680x is kinda mid screen res, and you dont mention what LOD your using in FSX so if you dont see the difference its probably a combination of the two -low res and low lod.

Yes, I can see differences with AF (pretty obviously too) but I wasn't talking about AF: I was only talking about the High vs Performance settings (and the optimizations that come with them). As I said, I know there should be a difference, but I can't see ANY difference there (at a res of 1680x1050), just like McCrash can't. However, I do get different results when it comes to performance (using the BufferPool at 0 tweak). If you can't SEE a difference, why use the high quality settings...? Like everyone seems to do (because NickN told them so)...?

We need to take into consideration the video card driver quality as far as what we see on the screen. Which I think for both nVidia and ATI they have been going down hill lately.The BufferPools=0 I believe has no affect other than allowing FSX to use the default value of 5000000. As far as Nick is concerned, he is very knowledgeable about how FSX works.I use Nick's settings in nHancer and they do work. And I also tried a bizillion other settings in nHancer and Nick's settings have the best result (for my hardware anyway).We are all still looking for the magic bullet and I believe there isn't one.Also in my opinion CRTs are still superior to LCDs. As far as I can tell my system is way to fast for my LCD 'LG W2600H-PF, 1920x1200, 60hz, 26", 5ms'. It would be interesting to see if the 120hz LCDs work better.

Well, as with anything you still are the final judge of what is best for >you.1680x is kinda mid screen res, and you dont mention what LOD your using in FSX so if you dont see the difference its probably a combination of the two -low res and low lod.

LOD is ingame maximum, so 4.500000.

The BufferPools=0 I believe has no affect other than allowing FSX to use the default value of 5000000. As far as Nick is concerned, he is very knowledgeable about how FSX works.

Of course it doesn't do that. When you leave BP out of the cfg the default is used (which afaik is 4 Mb btw). When you use BP=0 all BP-stuff is done by the GPU instead of the computer's RAM. NickN may know a lot (he sure knows more than I do about this all) but he sure doesn't know everything. I have left NickN's settings far behind me and I am glad I did, otherwise I'd still be looking at a stuttering mess. But right now it feels as if I have a complete new computer for free. :( But this is getting OT... I wanted people to see if they can see a difference but apparently not many feel like giving it a try.

LOD is ingame maximum, so 4.500000.Of course it doesn't do that. When you leave BP out of the cfg the default is used (which afaik is 4 Mb btw). When you use BP=0 all BP-stuff is done by the GPU instead of the computer's RAM. NickN may know a lot (he sure knows more than I do about this all) but he sure doesn't know everything. I have left NickN's settings far behind me and I am glad I did, otherwise I'd still be looking at a stuttering mess. But right now it feels as if I have a complete new computer for free. :( But this is getting OT... I wanted people to see if they can see a difference but apparently not many feel like giving it a try.

I have tried the BP=0 setting and I surely can't notice any difference. Maybe that's due to my hardware setup. Who knows?! lol

LOD is ingame maximum, so 4.500000.Of course it doesn't do that. When you leave BP out of the cfg the default is used (which afaik is 4 Mb btw). When you use BP=0 all BP-stuff is done by the GPU instead of the computer's RAM. NickN may know a lot (he sure knows more than I do about this all) but he sure doesn't know everything. I have left NickN's settings far behind me and I am glad I did, otherwise I'd still be looking at a stuttering mess. But right now it feels as if I have a complete new computer for free. :( But this is getting OT... I wanted people to see if they can see a difference but apparently not many feel like giving it a try.

BP=0 does not = default, it was thought that at one time, but no Aces team member ever said that, and you can verify BP=0 compared to leaving BP out of cfg (default) performance is vastly different.BP is associated with Vram no matter what setting. ******* thinks that =0 is just taking it out of FSX's hands and leaving it to the GPU driver to decide how much is needed. I happen to disagree but that is just IMO.