"IIRC, 40 was a commonly recommended "TML" max for FSX; the commonly recommended max for FS9 is "usually" 400 (except herein)."I can link to someone who will still tell you that anything over 40 has no effect, even in FS9 and he visits and posts many times a week and his user name begins with a K.

Yes Gary, between my first post in this thread about the terrain.cfg and your 3 tweaks you've posted here, we'd LOVE to see all your other tweaks that you say you have. I'm sure it will makes all fly FS9 for many fun years to come.I know I'm enjoying mine more then I ever have before and I've been flight simming since 2000.ThanksPaul

I can link to someone who will still tell you that anything over 40 has no effect, even in FS9 and he visits and posts many times a week and his user name begins with a K.

Please do provide some links; this thread is about making one's FS "out of the box experience" better... however that may be achieved. :( IMHO, this thread is about taking another look at our current FS knowledge base, and considering additional possibilities by "thinking outside the box" via promoting end user interaction with an unbiased exchange of ideas. :wink:Providing some test results as well as some links would be even more helpful to expanding the FS9 community knowledge base ! :( So, Jim, I'm still curious... have you tested these tweaks in FS9 yet ? :((PS: Had to check that your name was Jim and not Jeff... glad I got it correct to avoid any confusion as to identities.) http://forum.avsim.net/topic/188801-please-welcome-jim-skorna-to-hifi-simulation-software/GaryGB

Gary:How many more 'new' tweaks for FS9 do you have anyways? Care to post them here and share them?Thanks.

Gary:How many more 'new' tweaks for FS9 do you have anyways? Care to post them here and share them?Thanks.

I'll have to take a look at the existing documentation I have on my test results, and see what would be feasible to share here. :( I'd only consider doing so in a such a manner that minimizes contributing to chaos and confusion on the part of end users who may be unfamiliar with some of the computer hardware and OS technicalities which would have to be dealt with aside from FS itself.Thus, I'd have to review my written content and try to make it comprehensible by all here in a forum with users at different skill levels, and for whom English may be a second language; that might take a while to edit into an acceptable form. BTW: I really can't claim the other "tweaks" I referred to as "mine" in the sense that "I" created them; they are all simply "my own empirical results" with testing FS9.Cfg parameter values... already "known" and written about by FS community members who took the time to share with the rest of us. :( My empirical testing results with these otherwise "known" FS9.Cfg parameter values, in some cases, involve settings beyond- if not entirely- "outside the box" of what others had already said was the min or max (...and with some authority, and in some cases, with detailed explanations as to 'why'). :Shocked:Some of the tweaks are simply obscure and unexplained "numbers" found in one or several FS forum threads discussing FS9.Cfg.I subsequently tested to see if those unexplained parameter FS9.Cfg numbers made any sense, and whether they produced any perceptible change in FS9 when compared to the more commonly seen "NORMAL" min / max parameter values cited by "authorities" such as Aces or various noted FS community members.Yet other tweaks involve settings in the computer BIOS, Windows, or via driver configuration utilities, and have been discussed by others elsewhere; for these, I could at best describe what has worked on my systems... and describe how others might also implement their own individual results.I sometimes prefer to question commonly held beliefs; and I was determined to see if I could make "my" FS9 run better on the computer(s) I had available over the years. :( I'll definitely consider sharing some more of 'my' other "test tweak results" in the future, pending further review of how to do so with consistently beneficial results for the FS community. B) GaryGB

Gary,I just checked my FS9.cfg and terrian.cfg. All the changes I made are still there. Nothing reset.Mike

As long as you don't change some settings via FS self, there are no changes in the FS9.cfg. If you do, like setting the fps limitation, some parameters are going to their default value; so is also a well known tweak in the section [Weather] : MAX_UNLIMITED_VIS=32000 which limits sight to a more real +/- 40 miles and which gives you a few fps.Rgds,Hugo

I think I messed up this tweak. I flew to Chicago KORD (FSDT scenery) and all the runway markings, taxiway lines, parking markers, and wording on the buildings was blurry. I put back my original FS9 CFG and everything was fine again.Now with this tweak the lines are supposed to look like this TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=262144 // 256? Cause when I did the tweak I put it like this TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=256. I left out the original number and the //.Also I have a Nvidia GeForce GTX 275 graphic card. How do I know what the VRAM size in MB is?I think I am going to let F9 rebuild the CFG file and start over with this tweak.

Ok I re did this tweak and my CFG lines look exactly like the ones in this thread. Everything is good now, no blurries at the airport anymore.

Gary,I just checked my FS9.cfg and terrian.cfg. All the changes I made are still there. Nothing reset.

I just checkd my CFG file and mine has changed a little.for the DETAIL_TEXTURE= line I put DETAIL_TEXTURE=2 // 1 the line now reads DETAIL_TEXTURE=1for the TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD= line I put TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=262144 // 256 the line now reads TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=262144for the TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT= line I put TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=25600 // 400 the line now reads TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=25600

I'm getting much better framerates using Activesky Evolution,REX,Ultimate Terrain and GE Pro. Nice tweak.

Is tweak 3 the video card VRAM with zeros added on to the end? I have a GTX 260 with 896 VRAM so is tweak 3 thus 89600?I am not very computer savvy so any help would be appreciated.RegardsNic Jackson

For "Tweak #3", try multiplying size of VRAM on video card (ex: 256 MB) x 1024 to get this "test" parameter value

896x1024= 917504

Is tweak 3 the video card VRAM with zeros added on to the end? I have a GTX 260 with 896 VRAM so is tweak 3 thus 89600?I am not very computer savvy so any help would be appreciated.RegardsNic Jackson

"Tweak #2" (for TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD aka "TML") text was corrected in this post #30:http://forum.avsim.net/topic/329728-possible-new-tweak-for-fs9/page__view__findpost__p__1948127Try 896 MB VRAM x 1024 = 917504 as the parameter value for the TML "Tweak #2". :wink:Hope this helps ! :( GaryGB

Thanks for the quick and concise reply guys,much appreciated.RegardsNic

Sorry, but I haven't yet understood tweak #3 (3, not 2!): what is that 25600//400? If I have a graphic card with 1024 Mb VRAM, shuld that number be 102400//400?Thanks!James