STALE_BUFFER_THRESHOLD defaults to 60.STALE_BUFFER_THRESHOLD is the number of frames the graphics engine waits before discarding stale (old) data.

Hi *******,Then why does the line appear as STALE_BUFFER_THRESHOLD=2147483647 in my fsx.CFG?I guessed this value was in bits which would equate to 256MB.Sorry if this has been covered before elsewhere - I'm just feeling a tad confused at this point..so what's new..LOL!Regards,Mike

Then why does the line appear as STALE_BUFFER_THRESHOLD=2147483647 in my fsx.CFG?Mike

don't worry, FSX automatically defaults back to '60' if the value for STALE_BUFFER_THRESHOLD is above 1024. This was covered already...

I notice occasional quick and random flashing completely black of certain "tiles" on a sporadic basis.

Do the following:increase SWAP_WAIT_TIMEOUT and test.. tell me if this fixed it. if it didn't revert back to SWAP_WAIT_TIMEOUT=2 and do this:Set water to 'exactly' one notch before max. if this still doesn't solve your problem, try this:Increase TextureMaxLoad to 30 (if not already set)Let me know if this solves the problem... it should.

Do the following:increase SWAP_WAIT_TIMEOUT and test.. tell me if this fixed it. if it didn't revert back to SWAP_WAIT_TIMEOUT=2 and do this:Set water to 'exactly' one notch before max. if this still doesn't solve your problem, try this:Increase TextureMaxLoad to 30 (if not already set)Let me know if this solves the problem... it should.

SWAP_WAIT increased to 3 - possibly an improvement but still some flashing black tiles, so reverted to "2"Water - even at Low 2x, still getting the odd flashes - also nolticed it on default land sceneryTextureMaxLoad - I only can finf TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=1024 - I don't have a cfg entry "TextureMaxLoad" :( Also, My CPU Affinity is set to 84 as I have i7 and Hyperthreading enabled. Is this right?

SWAP_WAIT increased to 3 - possibly an improvement but still some flashing black tiles, so reverted to "2"Water - even at Low 2x, still getting the odd flashes - also nolticed it on default land sceneryTextureMaxLoad - I only can finf TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=1024 - I don't have a cfg entry "TextureMaxLoad" :( Also, My CPU Affinity is set to 84 as I have i7 and Hyperthreading enabled. Is this right?

The " TextureMaxLoad=30 " goes in your [DISPLAY] section, Greg.Set the " AffinityMask=14 " and turn off Hyperthreading.Water at less than six will give occasional flashing: water at six - there is none...and my STALE_BUFFER thingy is set to 24.You can bump the i7 up to 4 gig easily.

TextureMaxLoad - I only can finf TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=1024 - I don't have a cfg entry "TextureMaxLoad" :( Also, My CPU Affinity is set to 84 as I have i7 and Hyperthreading enabled. Is this right?

84 is correct. Now, you should have a TextureMaxLoad, did you remove it? try to upload your fsx.cfg to the tool again, check that it is added.Also, a much better solution... like Paul said, set the Affinity to 14 and TURN OF that HT!

Dear Bojote,Few words to say to you...many thanks for what you do, who you are...!FSX is a huge challenge for many people and you work so much on it !!!Glad to know you !Dominique

*******, Thanks for all your sleuthing to improve performance in so many FSX enthusiast's PCs! I worked for 30 years in Boeing's Simulator Engineering department and smooth performance is incredibly important for the illusion of flying. I have a fairly unique configuration that I am helping a friend with and I have utilized your tweaks to get very close to optimum but yesterday we went downhill in performance and I thought I would ask for your opinion to maybe improve it. The system is a very top end PC - an Intel i7 980X (Currently at 4.0Ghz) with an Nvidia 470 (3D) and a 450 (2D). The 470 is used to drive three monitors at once with a Matrox Triple Head 2 Go - all at 1280x1024. The front monitor is actually a projector that provides a 7 foot image. The side monitors are 50 inch LED screens. Due to the desire for good direct side looks, the system uses separate, independent windowed views - NOT the wraparound single view that you can get with the Matrox system. With your tweaks - especially UsePools=0 - we were able to get very smooth, highrate (40->50fps) performance (in downtown Seattle or in FlyTampa's HongKong) - simply amazing! But then when we setup the Zoom factors for +-45 deg for the front projector (zoom=.33) and +-30 deg for the side screens (zoom=.7), the performance dropped at least 15% (the field of view was increased nearly 50%). In addition to the decrease in frame rates, some stuttering started up - so that the "smoothness" really declined. I am wondering if the PC could be overclocked to maybe 4.6 Ghz and some other tweak settings might get the smoothness back - we have Vsync forced on (60Hz monitors). Any ideas for us to try? BTW, the RejectThreshold+PoolSize settings didn't seem to help like UsePools=0 did. As I said, if we return to default Zoom=1.0, the glassy smoothness returns. Thanks again so very much for your focus on the desire for a great simulation experience!Dave

Hi, I have just tried using the modified fsx.cfg file but when trying to start FSX it failed to start with the following error message.'There are multiple objects with the same title name. They must have unique title names.'F1UT2_100_DeadalusSimobjects\UT2 Aircraft\100 ....... etcI then copied back my original fsx.cfg file but at startup it prompted me to use FSUIPC ( which I have previously already been using). I accepted but when FSX started my aircraft window showed a completely black model with no textures?Any suggestions please.Barry

Hi,I just resubmitted my fsx.cfg and declined the Vsync mod. The tweeked fsx.cfg still fails with the multiple title names but at least when I copied back my original fsx.cfg FSX seems to be back to normal with aircraft textures displaying correctly.My video card is an ATI Radeon HD4800 is that what is conflicting with Vsync ?Regards Barry

Hi,I just resubmitted my fsx.cfg and declined the Vsync mod. The tweeked fsx.cfg still fails with the multiple title names but at least when I copied back my original fsx.cfg FSX seems to be back to normal with aircraft textures displaying correctly.My video card is an ATI Radeon HD4800 is that what is conflicting with Vsync ?Regards Barry

Barry, can you send my the link to the 'original' fsx.cfg file? I want to submit it myself, I suspect a problem in the Simobjects lines.@Dave, I'll look into your question later, I want to analize it a bit better.

*******,Is this what you want - the header from the tweeked fsx.cfg?// This file was tweaked on Dec 10, 2010 at 19:53 GMT using Bojote's automated FSX Tweaking & Tuning Service// Your 'original' fsx.CFG file was backed up at http://www.venetubo.com/fsx/9b152546a3f407a44331993875e7a94a/backup/fsx_backup.cfg// This file is optimized as follows: 8 core(s), CPU speed 1, HT 1, GPU 2, PREF 2// You can visit Bojote's FSX Tweaking & Tuning service at http://www.venetubo.com/fsx.htmlRegards - Barry

*******,Is this what you want - the header from the tweeked fsx.cfg?Regards - Barry

Barry, there is a problem with your 'original' FSX file the following entry is duplicated:SimObjectPaths.6=SimObjects\UT2 AircraftYou also have some of the 'TRUSTED' section entries duplicated.The FSX Tweaking tool does NOT allow duplicate entries, to 'FIX' this, you'll need to first open your original, look for the SimObjectPaths.6=SimObjects\UT2 Aircraft line and REMOVE IT. You have two SimObjectPaths.6 lines! (notice the #6)As for the 'TRUSTED' section, I suggest you remove it completely, FSX will again prompt you to install/authorize the add-ons, this is a completely safe process.

But then when we setup the Zoom factors for +-45 deg for the front projector (zoom=.33) and +-30 deg for the side screens (zoom=.7), the performance dropped at least 15%

Dave, I had the exact same experience. The field of view affects performance drastically, BOTH CPU and GPU, the only change I would suggest (but you'll have to experiment with it) is the following:Try WITH and WITHOUT BufferPools (UsePools=0 or UsePools=1) and notice if you see any diff. Aditionally, when using UsePools=1 try to also adjust RejectThreshold to either 96K, 128K and 256K (values for this setting are in bytes) so when I say 96KB I mean 96*1024 = 98304What you want to determine is which way to go:1) No BufferPools2) BufferPools with Small RejectThreshold3) BufferPools with a large RejectThresholdRejectThreshold simply 'limits' how much 'data' is pumped to the card each frame. So, for VERY fast cards (GTX 580) a RejectThreshold of 256KB can be very, very good. Slower cards require either NO POOLS or very small RejectThreshold values.FSX (depending on CPU speed) 'writes' to a vertex buffer every frame. This buffer resides in your video card MEMORY. The 'trick' is to 'balance' this process, you don't want FSX writing very FAST to the buffer (an i920 @ 4.2 for example) with a slow card.. in this scenerario, it is BETTER to disable BufferPools. When using 'BufferPools' FSX is 'responsible' for 'sending' the data to the card and managing the buffers. So, if there are slowdowns sending data to the card, FSX will suffer and get out of sync.In the other hand, Using NO BUFFERPOOLS means FSX simply sends 'raw' data directly to the card. In won't 'queue' any frames, it will just process each frame and 'assume' it was proccessed. This is a great boost to performance because bypasses FSX managing this pools, but it is also 'risky' AND can reduce the overall raw FPS because there is no 'buffering' of frames, they are processed as they come.Experiment with the above... let me know how it goes.Cheers,

Thanks for the quick response *******.Don't understand how I ended up with two SimObjectPaths.6 in my config file. I have manually edited all the changes recommended and everything seems to be working OK now.Regards - Barry

*******, Thanks much for your prompt response! I won't get a chance to experiment for a few days but I certainly will keep you posted when I do experiment. Do you think that if we had a 580 (at least to test it), we might have a chance to get better results over the current 470 driving the three screens via the Matrox TH2Go? We didn't get a 580 because the video card driver is reportedly immature at this time. Also, I doubt if any more overclocking (from 4.0 upwards) would help that much - what do you think?Thanks for your amazing expertise!Dave