[HOW TO] Fixing dissapearing textures - The real FIX!

[ryanbatc 12,857]

You can leave everything alone, but it is a good idea to at least put the HIGHMEMFIX=1 line in your config to ensure you won't lose VC textures with complex aircraft, if you have ever had that problem. It should not effect performance.

I've never had the loosing textures issue - what exactly do people mean when they lose textures? Sometimes my VC textures take a while to load between view switching but they always load eventually...Also does all these cfg entires work with the frame rate limiter .bat file? That's what I'm using in conjunction with nHancer and it's much better for smoothness/visuals than the default FSX in game AA/AF settings

[bojote 20]

Ulfb,Did you leave TML at 1024? That's the one setting I don't understand about *******' settings ... he says make it "30" whereas the default is 3. I show default of 1024, and up to 4096, as you mentioned.

I'm posting a 'clarification' on the avsim FSX forums.. I think you'll find this info interesting...

[bojote 20]

I just made a fast benchmarking over London City with different settings for the setting:

[Display]TextureMaxLoad=n

I tested with 1, 30, 100, 500 and 1000, whatever these settings mean. I haven't read any explanation other than ******* remark "Default is 3 (same as above, we need to make video texture transfers *fast* so it won't affect low latency devices)".No impact on average fps at all. No noticable effect on graphics quality. Texture loading seems to be the same.Could you please explain what effect I should expect?

Ulf you run with unlimited frames or you lock them? one more thing.. 'changing' the value, simply does not change stuff.. :) I posted an explanation here:http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=281312.. if simply affects the allowable 'maximum' bytes for texture loading per frame.. there is a formula for that.

[n4gix 4,947]

Just a quick question, how do you force a shader re-compile? :(

Greg, as ******* stated in the other thread, adding this entry will force a recompilation of the shaders:[GRAPHICS]SHADER_CACHE_VERSION=1 // it 're-builds' the Shader Cache (good to do on every fsx.cfg change) just enter a random number (versioning)

[Guest UlfB]

Ulf you run with unlimited frames or you lock them? one more thing.. 'changing' the value, simply does not change stuff.. :) I posted an explanation here:http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=281312.. if simply affects the allowable 'maximum' bytes for texture loading per frame.. there is a formula for that.

I run FSX with fps limited to 26. I run unlimited only when I performance benchmark FSX.I guess I should rerun my tests of different TextureMaxLoad settings with locked fps.Thanks *******!

[Guest UlfB]

I've now rerun the test with the settings

TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=400TextureMaxLoad=30

I altetered between the above setting and my normal setting TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=70 (no TextureMaxLoad). FPS locked to 26 all the time.I used two test scenarios (Seattle PNW and Copenhagen City GEX+UTX). I loaded a test flight, which is airborn at 2000 feet. I waited a few seconds and then slewed forward to a distant point and observed how fast textures would load. I did this several times alternating between the two different sets of settings.I could not detect any difference between the two settings. Some times one of the settings seemed to result in a much faster texture load, but on other occasions the other seemed to be faster.

[bojote 20]

I've now rerun the test with the settings

TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=400TextureMaxLoad=30

I altetered between the above setting and my normal setting TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=70 (no TextureMaxLoad). FPS locked to 26 all the time.I used two test scenarios (Seattle PNW and Copenhagen City GEX+UTX). I loaded a test flight, which is airborn at 2000 feet. I waited a few seconds and then slewed forward to a distant point and observed how fast textures would load. I did this several times alternating between the two different sets of settings.I could not detect any difference between the two settings. Some times one of the settings seemed to result in a much faster texture load, but on other occasions the other seemed to be faster.

remember, TextureMaxLoad and TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT alter the 'Max' allowable number of bytes to 'transfer' per frame... if you see no difference when using 70 or 400 means that 70 already fulfills the needs for the current scene that is being rendered.. its two different things: max allowable vs. ammount of data to transfer.

[Guest UlfB]

remember, TextureMaxLoad and TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT alter the 'Max' allowable number of bytes to 'transfer' per frame... if you see no difference when using 70 or 400 means that 70 already fulfills the needs for the current scene that is being rendered.. its two different things: max allowable vs. ammount of data to transfer.

So this should be dependant on your system. What should you expect from this tweak using and old system (AMD X2 6000+) compared to a new high end system (i7 980 or 975)? Or is the effect of the tweak more dependant on the GPU (memory bandwidth)? I'm not a hardware expert and the technical data (formulas and such) doesn't give me the information I need to understand what to expect from this tweak.Any help would be very much appreciated.

[bojote 20]

So this should be dependant on your system.

It would be more dependant on the 'type' of scenery that is being rendered at a given time plus the capabilities of your hardware... for example:Imagine a complete photoreal scenery 7 cm resolution at 4096 texture size... clouds 4096 texture size.. water 1024 now start going in circles and do this at 70 FPS.if you have a VERY fast machine maybe it could be able to process ANYTING you throw at her.. however, WHAT IF that is not the case? what if you see that at some point the huge ammount of 'data transfer' is hogging the bus or killing your vid card? you need to throttle it down.. to where? well.. it requires you to determine your hardware capability limits... a good place to test is Pacific North West :)Every system is different.. on my current system for example, I have EVERY SINGLE SLIDER maxed out (except water which is set a HIGH 2.0 and Bloom which is disabled) and I limit the FPS to 25 using the external frame rate limiter tool. there is absolutely NO WAY.. under the most incredibly demanding UNREALISTIC situation, that I dip below 20, I run 25 FPS 99.99 of the time, However, I have NOT YET tested PNW, so, 'probably' when I get it I would have to determine if my current settings are 'appropiate' for it OR I need to thorttle them down a notch. my objective right now, is being able to run FSX at 25 FPS in my 'test case' scenario (which is highly unrealistic) but I use it as a benchmark. When I achieve that (and I'm pretty sure I will with the GTX 480) I will retire :)

[Guest UlfB]

Imagine a complete photoreal scenery 7 cm resolution at 4096 texture size... clouds 4096 texture size.. water 1024 now start going in circles and do this at 70 FPS.if you have a VERY fast machine maybe it could be able to process ANYTING you throw at her.. however, WHAT IF that is not the case? what if you see that at some point the huge ammount of 'data transfer' is hogging the bus or killing your vid card? you need to throttle it down.. to where? well.. it requires you to determine your hardware capability limits... a good place to test is Pacific North West :)

So this tweak should improve texture loading when you fly in circles over very high resolution sceneries?If I would increase my display settings and throw in 100% AI traffic and flying in circles around KSEA, how would I measure the effect of tweaking TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT and TextureMaxLoad? Average fps with unlimited fps or with limited fps? Or should I observe how smooth the flight is? Or? What effect should I expect when changing the TextureMaxLoad setting? Or is this setting only working in conjunction with other tweaks?Please excuse me if my questions seems stupid. Just trying to understand.

[Guest UlfB]

I did a new test, flying in circles above KSEA PNW. I did a 40% AI, increased autogen density to very dense. Water to High 2.x.I flew a lot of circles around KSEA and then slewed away to a distant point.Could not detect any difference between your proposed setting and my default regarding texture load or average fps. What is the purpose of applying this tweak?If I hog down FSX with heavy duty sceneries and max out sliders and run into performance or IQ problems I normally decrease my settings to retain a fluid and enjoyable flight. Do you mean that applying this tweak with some kind of balanced TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT and TextureMaxLoad would allow me to keep the high settings and still have smooth flight with higher average fps?

[bojote 20]

I did a new test, flying in circles above KSEA PNW

How many G's are you pulling on that turn? what is the turn radius of the aircraft you are using? at what speed are you flying? can you (while flying in circles) pan around the VC to the sides all at the same time? if you don't see any diference, then, no need to use my proposed settings :)

[McCrash 3]

What better week to post a 'Holy' grail Fix, I call it the Holy Grail of FSX stability... ;)Here you go, the 'short' version... (people hate it when I get technical)simply add HIGHMEMFIX=1 to the graphics section of your fsx.cfg file, like this:[GRAPHICS]HIGHMEMFIX=1never ever a building, object or VC textures will dissapear... enjoy.

Hi! This seems to ring a bell about early Window's releases, say around W3.1 or so. Do you or anyone else have any bells going off?

[Guest UlfB]

How many G's are you pulling on that turn? what is the turn radius of the aircraft you are using? at what speed are you flying? can you (while flying in circles) pan around the VC to the sides all at the same time? if you don't see any diference, then, no need to use my proposed settings :)

I used the Eaglesoft Piper Comanche. Pretty tight turns. I panned around in both VC and spot view. No difference. Thanks for your efforts to explain the purpose.

[McCrash 3]

We need a sticky with final clear instructions for these tweaks.