8) I find it, very, VERY bad taste that a reputable company like Eagle Soft replies to you with a 'blame on bojote tweaks' attitude for a problem you might be having without even bringing this to my attention first. I sincerely hope this is a misunderstanding on their part or yours. as a next step I suggest you provide me as much information as you can with the crash you are having. (I need error codes and the failing module .DLL name) to help you further.

That simply did not happen, *******. What was mentioned is the possibility of one, specific tweak that might be a possible problem, specifically the AffinityMask=xx, and that only because the C++ code is specifically written to exploit all available cores.Thus far, there have been at most four reported instances of this specific issue.On the other hand, I myself use that "tweak" and have not once encountered this specific reported issue.

[JOBSCHEDULER]AffinityMask=14  

Do you want to see my config file?I wanted to send you my email but could not via PM. I have an offer that I cannot make via a forum post.

On the other hand, I myself use that "tweak" and have not once encountered this specific reported issue.

[JOBSCHEDULER]AffinityMask=14  

I told the user about this probably being hardware related. However, the way I understood it was that something *I* suggested was causing the problems! thats what got me thinking!! Anyway, the user clarified this is not 'speficic' to any tweak I suggested but more general. I still don't know what the actual 'problem' is, I asked the user for the crash report to see if there is any reference to nvidia DLL's or D3D9.dll or something like a system DLL.

Do you want to see my config file?I wanted to send you my email but could not via PM. I have an offer that I cannot make via a forum post.

Brad, send me a personal email: jaltuve [at] gmail.com

Great to hear Perry.The only things I would change/experiment with in your config:1) Your PoolSize value is too large. If fact, leave it default.. remove that line.2) Experiment with UsePools=0 and check performance. I would not change anything else.You can obtain your optimal PoolSize value using this formula (but you REALLY don't have to do it) this is just for perfectionist, picky people like me:Poolsize = (Locked_FPS x RejectThreshold) * (STALE_BUFFER_THRESHOLD / Locked_FPS)STALE_BUFFER_THRESHOLD defaults to 60.STALE_BUFFER_THRESHOLD is the number of frames the graphics engine waits before discarding stale (old) data.make sure PoolSize is a multiple of 32.

Hi *******, I tried what you said above and my computer does not like Usepools=0, alot of graphic spikes and the graphic problem I mentioned before also came back. So I tried using the formula you provided. using STALE_BUFFER_THRESHOLD as 60 because I could not find it in my cfg. any where. (22 FPS x RejectThreshold=131072) times (STALE_BUFFER_THRESHOLD defaults to 60 divided by 22 FPS) =78641088 . I changed it a little so it would divide by 32. I tried a flight with this from friday harbor to KSEA. Things were pretty good while I was in more rural areas but as I got closer to KSEA my computer started to struggle with some minor stuttering and frame rate dropping to 16 FPS. But as I started to land I got that graphic problem I told you about, which is all of my instruments get corrupted, lines and pixals flashing in them. Eventually the computer will crash and I have to reboot. So I am not sure if I did something wrong, but I was not having this happen as far as I can tell when I first ran your tweek and my Poolsize was 90000000, which you thought was to big. This graphic problem seems to only happen with my addon planes that are more complicated. Any thoughts or help would be greatly appreciated, Thanks Perry.CPU Q9450 quad oc to 3.24 GB memoryGTS 250 1GB video cardVista home premium 64 bitNhancer[DISPLAY.Device.NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250.0]Mode=1680x1050x16TriLinear=1HIGHMEMFIX=1ALLOW_SHADER_30=1TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=1024[bUFFERPOOLS]PoolSize=90000000RejectThreshold=131072UsePools=1TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=70TextureMaxLoad=9TransitionTime=4.000000UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=22AffinityMask=14[TERRAIN]AUTOGEN_DENSITY=3DETAIL_TEXTURE=1LOD_RADIUS=4.500000MESH_COMPLEXITY=100MESH_RESOLUTION=23SWAP_WAIT_TIMEOUT=2TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=700TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=600TEXTURE_RESOLUTION=29WATER_EFFECTS=5

I told the user about this probably being hardware related. However, the way I understood it was that something *I* suggested was causing the problems! thats what got me thinking!! Anyway, the user clarified this is not 'speficic' to any tweak I suggested but more general. I still don't know what the actual 'problem' is, I asked the user for the crash report to see if there is any reference to nvidia DLL's or D3D9.dll or something like a system DLL.Brad, send me a personal email: jaltuve [at] gmail.com

Heysus, just to add to what Bill Leaming has already posted. At no time have we at Eaglesoft told users that any of your tweaks are at fault since we've yet to discover such an incident.What we have said is that Eaglesoft does not support any user tweaks of any type. The reason is obvious to any reader...We design and build for bog standard FS9/FSX setups and test on bog standard Vista 32 Bit and Win 7 64 Bit. We are not now, nor will we be, in a position to chase user tweak related issues.Too many users need too much assistance with Machine/OS/FS tweaks for us to be involved. Hope this helps.

Looks like a common approach and the only dev I can recall so far which definitely recommends one of your findings is Flight Sim Labs with their Concorde X. They "need" the highmenfix value there and of course offer some optional tweaks via their utility.I think that PMDG also recommends the highmemfix via their forums, so support on this one value is surely given (correct me if I'm wrong) while all optional things can drive a support worker mad since he doesn't know what combinations a customer is using. The normal hardware mixture together with installed addons is more than enough room for variables of all kind.So "no support" doesn't mean that it's bad or something but it does mean that one should keep the amount of possible error sources low when contacting any devs support. By the way, I think that this "no support" phrase is the most commonly misunderstood one in the software world. Can almost mean anything from "doesn't work with our stuff" to "maybe it does, but we haven't tested it so far" to "no, please don't use this".*******, I really support your efforts and therefor just realized that you offer some "donate" button over at your site. I even used it although I don't really (want to) support Paypal.Now tell me, where do I have to donate to drive you to some nice cloud shadow research?

Too many users need too much assistance with Machine/OS/FS tweaks for us to be involved. Hope this helps.

Thanks Ron, it was already clarified. If you notice my post you'll see I believed it to be a misunderstanding, I simply could not 'verify' the info, because I did not have access to the ES forums... all is clear now and everybody is happy.

cloud shadow research?

I will look into the Paypal thing.. not sure if there are other ways to setup donations with other providers, but let me ask you something... how bad you want this feature? really? I mean, would you 'pay' for having cloud shadows in FSX? The reason I did not pursue this anymore was because REX *IS* actively working on this, so, why would I do something another developer is already doing?If you can confirm to me that REX is NOT and will NOT do this, I might look into it, otherwise forget about it. Doing something another developer is already doing is simply not right.And thanks to all that have donated! you guys are awesome ;)

You are right, *******, if another dev is on it, it doesn't make sense to invest huge efforts there unless you are planning to rule them out (which you don't do) or to get so much better that it would be a waste of time waiting for a not so good solution (we can' t judge about this so far).But the situation currently is that they've showed some shots (real or "photoshoped", I don't know) quite some time ago http://realenvironme...hp?topic=4769.0 and since no progress report was made (for various assumed reasons, please don't see this as a blame on them or something), an ongoing development can be possible or it can be a not so ongoing one. You are right, one has to question this and only a clear answer can trigger your efforts.See this last post and especially the date there http://realenvironme...g34841#msg34841 for another "yes, maybe, wait" statement.The thing why I (and maybe others) came up with this wish is the fact that you are capable of doing this, you've also stated some interest together with "I leave it out, REX is working on it" and, most of all, the ENB author has stated that he is one this feature for the game of his interest (which is GTA) and I therefor realized that it could be a dll-based solution then since his ENB work is mainly dll-based.So if there are wrong assumptions from my side, correct me.While some of us might have thought that REX will come up with more information or even a final solution with e. g. the Overdrive extension (which was well worth donating too by the way), I currently don't see any progress there and, as stated, no clear "no, we've left this thing for FSX and focus on some other stuff". So this leaves quite some room for misinterpretation, I surely admit.The payment question. This will be a very personal answer but of course, if e.g. REX 3 came up with this or something from you would add some shadows which can run with low impact, I'm willing to pay for this huge atmospheric update as on all major things getting implemented by addons. To give you some (again personal) values from my sight, I've paid 40 Dollars on REX2 Extreme, a (virtual!) update to the imaginary version 3 could come at the same cost, maybe with some discount for current users, so you get an impression on how this price could be build. Of course, higher workload on the development can cause higher costs here, the same goes for lower ones ans REX isn't just about one feature but a package.I think your question towards the REX development would be the basic one here and maybe you or I can trigger some clear statement over at their forums. Maybe this feature is useless and nobody wants it, but as I've read some stuff from you and others, I get another impression so far.Let me link this thread page over at their forums and lets see what they say. I really appreciate your attitude with saying not to harm another dev and I surely follow this policy too as I find it honorable.Ok, I've just posted my question over at the REX place http://realenvironme...g82394#msg82394 and linked our both posts on this, *******. Sorry for a bit highjacking though. Keep up that good work regardless of the cloud shadow thing of course. :(

I can't send you messages, *******, but regarding the Paypal thing I wanted to let you know

Hi, *******.Don't get me wrong on this, your Paypal donate button at your site works just fine.I just don't like Paypal at all but still run it as it often enough is the only way to e. g. donate.So no harm done and my dislike of this company could well be very personally based.Good work there and thanks again for insights and efforts.

See this as a virtual private message.

It's all good this end :)

Hi *******,Spoke too soon :(I find I can't recover a stutter-free experience without using the UsePools=0 line.However, when I run my fsx.cfg through your tuning tool it ignores the presence of UsePools=0 and simple changes RejectThreshold=262144 to RejectThreshold=131072[bufferPools]RejectThreshold=131072UsePools=0Now, my understanding is that in fact RejectThreshold will be ignored while UsePools=0 is also present so why was it changed?Also, I had changed FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.1 (introduced by your tool) to 0.2 to try to improve ground texture updating but this was changed back to 0.1 by the tuning tool.My frustration is that FSX is smooth at either 20 or 25fps locked externally while UsePools=0 is in place, but I still see graphic spikes from time to time even with autogen set to sparse. If I remove UsePools=0 and instead rely on RejectThreshold=262144 or RejectThreshold=131072 no spiking occurs, but the sim stutters :(Is there any way around this? I feel I'm very close to achieving the good all round experience so long as I continue to stay away from high density areas. But it does seem that I have to have UsePools=0 in place to achieve the level of smoothness necessary to make it enjoyable.Regards,Mike

*******, concerning this transparency AA stutter thing (remember?). Does it make a difference if you "enhance" or "override" the AA settings via e. g. Nvidia Inspector so far?I'm just using "enhance" now and never hat those strange 10ft above stutters since then. Can be related but don't has to, so I'm asking if someone else has experienced this difference so far.I currently have a GTX480, and "enhance" doesn't come with a downside, even on overlays. Strange fact, the frames get severely influenced if I give those overlays a frame with "undock window" (which I never use). From the AA thread over at the PMDG area (thanks to Ryan for his work there), "override should fix this but currently doesn't help.However, it would be nice to get rid of those nasty 10ft above stutters if one switched to "enhance". Worth a try?

Thanks Ron, it was already clarified. If you notice my post you'll see I believed it to be a misunderstanding, I simply could not 'verify' the info, because I did not have access to the ES forums... all is clear now and everybody is happy.

Glad to hear Heysus. Sorry for our part in the misunderstandings.:(

*******, concerning this transparency AA stutter thing (remember?). Does it make a difference if you "enhance" or "override" the AA settings via e. g.

I think the best person to ask about this things is Ryan, I don't even use nVidia Inspector ;)I will however, make some tests trying to override the AA settings to see if it makes a difference. I'm away from home this week, so no way to test on my desktop.

Hi *******,Spoke too soon :(I find I can't recover a stutter-free experience without using the UsePools=0 line.However, when I run my fsx.cfg through your tuning tool it ignores the presence of UsePools=0 and simple changes RejectThreshold=262144 to RejectThreshold=131072Mike

Mike, the tool 'detects' if you have UsePools=0. Also, *IF* your video card is a GTX 480 or BETTER I will 'adjust' that and ENABLE the UsePools=1, otherwise I leave it unchanged (at 0). the reason for this, is some users complaining the tool 'reduced' their performance. Those users were effectively using UsePools=0 (and got BETTER performance that way)If you want the tool to CHANGE UsePools to 1, lie to it. Tell the tool you have a 480.If you want to get rid of the stutters while using UsePools=1 you need a faster card (and AT LEAST a 4.0 Ghz CPU)If you Don;t want the stutters, probably your only choice is UsePools=0, if this proves being unstable then set LOD_RADIUS to 3.5, mesh res to 10m and autogen to normal/denseGuys.. I'm sorry if I dont reply regularly during the next few days, I'm a little swamped with work.