I just did some testing with bufferpool and TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT settings while observing my GPU usage using MSI Afterburner, and here is what I found:Test scenario 1:BP=0TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=40Max GPU usage was 19%, temperature was 69C max.Test scenario 2:BP=100000000TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=90Max GPU usage was 45%, temperature was 71C max.I prefer the performance of test scenario 2 as it seems more fluid, and I can back the water back down to 2.x low, which looks more realistic to me than 2.x high, which is needed for stability with no bufferpool. I found it interesting that BP=0 used the GPU less.

Anyone running this with a older video card and CPU?I wanted to try it but if it's going to break something than no way.

Anyone running this with a older video card and CPU?I wanted to try it but if it's going to break something than no way.

Yes, AMD Athlon 64X2 6400+ (BE,3200MHz,Windsor), NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB (DDR3) (Forceware 197.45 WHQL), and the "UsePools = 0" tweak transformed the sim in terms of smoothness of performance and stutter elimination while low level flying around the Friday Harbor area in the Extra300 at full throttle. I use the Extra300 as my test a/c as it gives me a good indication as to how quickly the ground textures update and remain sharp. Also, and for the first time since purchasing, I am able to fly the RealAir Spitfire and RealAir Siai Marchetti SF260 without those disturbing mini surges.To be honest, I'm not sure yet that this has resolved all my issues with this maddeningly frustrating sim as I noted yesterday some graphic anomalies as I flew into the Vancouver + scenery. Those spikes started to appear (despite autogen being sparse) and eventually the screen image seemed to go on a psychedelic trip with chunks of imagery scattered everywhere. At one point, the top half of the screen contained inverted imagery from the bottom!! This might have had something to do with my experimenting with a TBM value of 400 (my bad!) and I've yet to try retesting with a more conservative value of 40-70.I have most of *******' tweaks in place including the TextureMaxLoad=30, ForceFullScreenVSync=1 and ForceVSync=1 Tweaks and setting Vsync in nHancer for FSX to "Application" won me a few additional fps :) The other Tweaks I'm using are HIGHMEMFIX=1, SHADER_CACHE_PRIMED=1693458432, and STALE_BUFFER_THRESHOLD=2147483647. However, I'm not sure about the relevance of the last two.Currently, in less demanding scenery areas (like Friday Harbor) I am managing a consistent 25fps locked in the sim and the performance is consistently smooth and texture update is good. Perhaps I should be trying the "Unlimited" setting along with the external frame rate limiter for areas like Vancouver +. This sim will be the death of me! The hoops we lesser mortals have to jump through to get it to perform on our still very capable but currently less than stellar hardware (by today's standards) just beggars belief. Is it any wonder I keep returning to FS9 to preserve what's left of my fragile sanity. Yet there's something about FSX that keeps drawing me back to have another go..LOL! Is there an FSXics Anonymous I can join to rid me once and for all of this addiction?Mike

To be honest, I'm not sure yet that this has resolved all my issues with this maddeningly frustrating sim as I noted yesterday some graphic anomalies as I flew into the Vancouver + scenery. Those spikes started to appear (despite autogen being sparse) and eventually the screen image seemed to go on a psychedelic trip...

Thanks for the report... that's what I'm afraid of. I'm not saying your issues are do to the TBM set to 400 or from BP=0 but I guess I want to avoid reinstalls if everything gets screwed up.Oh, I must ask, are you using nHancer at all? I am and I like the way it looks, I also use the FPS limiter .bat file to smooth things out.

Do you know that if you turn every FSX setting off or to 0, including downgrading graphics ect., that the first core will still be running at 100%. This is with AffinityMask =14 on a 4 core cpu. I'm thinking that core 0 is just spinning in a tight loop with nothing to do but the point is that I wouldn't put too much credence in the cpu load percent in taskmanager when evaluating performance.Hope this helps.jja

Thanks for the report... that's what I'm afraid of. I'm not saying your issues are do to the TBM set to 400 or from BP=0 but I guess I want to avoid reinstalls if everything gets screwed up.Oh, I must ask, are you using nHancer at all? I am and I like the way it looks, I also use the FPS limiter .bat file to smooth things out.

Yes, I'm using nHancer. The only changes made to Nick's recommendations are:1. The "Enhance in-game AA setting" is now checked (I use Combined + 4xS)2. Vertical Sync is now set to "Application"I find using the external FPS Limiter at 25fps (with the unlimited setting in the sim) in less demanding areas like Friday Harbor soon produces these mini surges so I've opted instead to lock the frame rate in the sim.You know I've done just about everything to FSX since it was first released and installed and, I kid you not, I've never had to reinstall it...yet! Perhaps I've been lucky, but the impression I have is that it is very stable. Same with XP Home and I can assure you that over the years I've been to hell and back with that o/s but still, I wouldn't change it for the world as I now know it pretty intimately and it allows me to manipulate it in so many ways. I have it running the way I want it. That's a lot to give up on a whim just for changes sake. Everything works well and that's fine by me. Now FSX is another story...sigh! Actually, that's no longer true. Bojote's tweaks have given it a much needed new lease of life.Mike

Do you know that if you turn every FSX setting off or to 0, including downgrading graphics ect., that the first core will still be running at 100%. This is with AffinityMask =14 on a 4 core cpu. I'm thinking that core 0 is just spinning in a tight loop with nothing to do but the point is that I wouldn't put too much credence in the cpu load percent in taskmanager when evaluating performance.Hope this helps.jja

If you were responding to my post, I was evaluating the graphics card percentage of use, not CPU load.

If you were responding to my post, I was evaluating the graphics card percentage of use, not CPU load.

Sorry must have missed that.jja

Sorry must have missed that.jja

No worries.