Hello everyone,Maybe I'm throwing a stone into the pond (translation of a Dutch expression, don't know whether it exists in English, but you'll no doubt understand the meaning). Searching the various forums one can find lots of opinions and advice on certain parameters in the FS9 config file, dealing with texture processing. Among them TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT (TBM), TextureMaxLoad (TML) - not to be confused with TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD - and of course framerate (FPS). From various sources I understand that the sim puts these elements into a formula: TML (default is 3) multiplied by TBM (default is 80 I believe), divided by FPS (provided FPS has been locked). Assuming this is true, then obviously such a formula must have an outcome ("x"), which, looking at the formula, would be the number of textures being processed per frame. There are all sorts of ideas about the values of the first three elements (e.g.TBM to be set at 400 or a lower figure 'until stutters disappear', TML set to a value between 3 and 10, locking FPS, etc.), but surprisingly I've never come accross posts which elaborate on the significance of the outcome of the formula, the value of "x". Let us assume that we set TBM at the much acclaimed value of 400, and we do not insert a line "TextureMaxLoad=", so the value remains at its default value of 3, and finally we lock our FPS at 24, then "x" would be (400x3/24=) 50. But what does that figure mean? E.g. related to a mid range graphics card with 256 Mb VRAM, is 50 high or even too high? And what about variations in the elements of the formula? 200x6/24 leads to the same value of 50, but does the sim see it that way too?I have the impression that I am not the only one in the FS community who finds this part of the 'FS caves' mysterious and I'm really not expecting quick answers. But maybe there is a guru out there who can shed some light on this issue. :( Kind regards,Ren

Hello everyone,Maybe I'm throwing a stone into the pond (translation of a Dutch expression, don't know whether it exists in English, but you'll no doubt understand the meaning). Searching the various forums one can find lots of opinions and advice on certain parameters in the FS9 config file, dealing with texture processing. Among them TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT (TBM), TextureMaxLoad (TML) - not to be confused with TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD - and of course framerate (FPS). From various sources I understand that the sim puts these elements into a formula: TML (default is 3) multiplied by TBM (default is 80 I believe), divided by FPS (provided FPS has been locked). Assuming this is true, then obviously such a formula must have an outcome ("x"), which, looking at the formula, would be the number of textures being processed per frame. There are all sorts of ideas about the values of the first three elements (e.g.TBM to be set at 400 or a lower figure 'until stutters disappear', TML set to a value between 3 and 10, locking FPS, etc.), but surprisingly I've never come accross posts which elaborate on the significance of the outcome of the formula, the value of "x". Let us assume that we set TBM at the much acclaimed value of 400, and we do not insert a line "TextureMaxLoad=", so the value remains at its default value of 3, and finally we lock our FPS at 24, then "x" would be (400x3/24=) 50. But what does that figure mean? E.g. related to a mid range graphics card with 256 Mb VRAM, is 50 high or even too high? And what about variations in the elements of the formula? 200x6/24 leads to the same value of 50, but does the sim see it that way too?I have the impression that I am not the only one in the FS community who finds this part of the 'FS caves' mysterious and I'm really not expecting quick answers. But maybe there is a guru out there who can shed some light on this issue. :( Kind regards,Ren

Hello:Your stone in the pond equates in English as FLOGGIN A DEAD HORSE. I have tweaked these numbers in every manner possible with not a lot of difference from one scenario to the next. A google search will return some good results some of which may explain the formula you mention. In addition to google you can also search here at Avsim for care and control of fs9.cfg and there will find some good info. Some pilots out there have put their config files online for you to copy and try. The end result that I found was trial and error until you get the settings that work best. With so many different combinations of hardware and lots of scenery and aircraft textures to load up it still seems hit and miss. Hope this helps a little. Good luck with it.

Hello everyone,Maybe I'm throwing a stone into the pond (translation of a Dutch expression, don't know whether it exists in English, but you'll no doubt understand the meaning). Searching the various forums one can find lots of opinions and advice on certain parameters in the FS9 config file, dealing with texture processing. Among them TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT (TBM), TextureMaxLoad (TML) - not to be confused with TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD - and of course framerate (FPS). From various sources I understand that the sim puts these elements into a formula: TML (default is 3) multiplied by TBM (default is 80 I believe), divided by FPS (provided FPS has been locked). Assuming this is true, then obviously such a formula must have an outcome ("x"), which, looking at the formula, would be the number of textures being processed per frame. There are all sorts of ideas about the values of the first three elements (e.g.TBM to be set at 400 or a lower figure 'until stutters disappear', TML set to a value between 3 and 10, locking FPS, etc.), but surprisingly I've never come accross posts which elaborate on the significance of the outcome of the formula, the value of "x". Let us assume that we set TBM at the much acclaimed value of 400, and we do not insert a line "TextureMaxLoad=", so the value remains at its default value of 3, and finally we lock our FPS at 24, then "x" would be (400x3/24=) 50. But what does that figure mean? E.g. related to a mid range graphics card with 256 Mb VRAM, is 50 high or even too high? And what about variations in the elements of the formula? 200x6/24 leads to the same value of 50, but does the sim see it that way too?I have the impression that I am not the only one in the FS community who finds this part of the 'FS caves' mysterious and I'm really not expecting quick answers. But maybe there is a guru out there who can shed some light on this issue. :( Kind regards,Ren

Hi ReneI too have tweaked these numbers (along with many other in the fs9.cfg file) up and down for ages. I have now arrived at what works for me but I can tell you that a mate of mine copied my cfg file and put it into his system and the results were 'orrible!!So, as libman has eluded to, there isn't a 'one fix for all scenarios' situation. Oh that there was, it would have saved me many hours and hair!Good luck in your quest for one of the holy grails of flight sim, the dreaded case of the cfg file.

Thank you all very much for your kind answers and guidance, much appreciated. Yes Paul, for a moment I was indeed afraid that the community would think 'this guy has too much time at his hands', which is true (I'm retired). We have to conclude then that the subject remains somewhat mysterious and that trial and error will show what is best for your particular system. As I am preparing the purchase of a new computer, which will no doubt be more powerful than my current five year old rig, in future the tweaking issue (at least for FS9) will hopefully become of less significance.Kind regards,Ren

Hello,

As I am preparing the purchase of a new computer, which will no doubt be more powerful than my current five year old rig, in future the tweaking issue (at least for FS9) will hopefully become of less significance.

IMHO methink tweaking will stay on order whatever powerfull system you own.Anyways .. you will experiment it first hand when you will run FS2004 on your new PC :)Regards.Gus.

Hi Gus,Thanks for your input. OK, I will not argue with your statement. I'm not expecting that tweaking will become redundant, but I assume that todays graphic cards with at least 512 Mb on board and 6Gb RAM will make a difference in itself, compared to my present 7900GS (256 Mb) and 2 Gb RAM.Kind regards,Ren