Gary:See my computer specs in my signature - would I need to apply the 4GB switch option to my rig? I suppose I still should try it as I'm on Win 7 64bit and FS9 is a 32bit application?Thanks.

Hi Paul:Yes, with 12 GB system RAM installed and sitting there otherwise unused for FS beyond the indirect benefit of the Windows7 memory cache size... and a 2 GB Windows allocated task session for FS9.exe (including all 'FS environment associated' modules / gauges etc.), you'd want to apply the "4 GB Patch" cited above.Using the "4 GB Patch" with FS9.exe as cited above would allow more physical RAM memory and USERVA to a Windows allocated task session for FS9.exe INSTEAD of using the "/3 GB switch" option in your boot configuration, and instead of patching FS9.exe to set 'only' the 3 GB application address space "LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE" flag. :( Hope this helps ! :( GaryGB

Gary,Yes, I have the 3GB patch set up properly with FS9.exe patched and everything.I am using Win XP-32bits on a rather old system (4-years).I think the reason for the CTD was too much stress on the system with all the traffic loaded, as I checked for land class files, duplicate afcads, texture files and missing aircraft in traffic bgls...I just wonder if the fs9.cfg settings proposed in the tweak (which sound more "aggressive") can make the software more sensitive to CTD.ThanksGhiom

As these "3 Tweaks" above have not been tested in FS high-complexity load-up and flight scenarios such as you describe, it is possible that susceptibility for OOMs or instability leading to CTDs could be 'revealed' more readily.First I'd have to inquire, though, whether edits to the [FS install path]\Terrain.Cfg that disable the texture definitions for calls made by vector and/or land class BGLs might result in FS doing "internal texture path searches" that ultimately compromise rendering engine functionality under heavy load... in spite of the initial apparent FPS benefit that generally seems to have been reported here with the testing scenarios reported thus far.PLEASE don't misunderstand my good intentions in stating that, as I'm all for testing new FS tweaks... thoroughly. FYI: FS9 is particularly infamous for incurring instability and/or CTDs when land class BGLs terrain texture definitions cannot find mapped texture files in the FS system texture folder where they are expected to be found (if a local paired \Texture folder stops the FS search path... but doesn't supply the needed textures).One might wonder if FS9 may also incur instability and/or CTDs if texture definitions for Autogen vector / object content definitions "called" or "mapped" via the Terrain.Cfg are not found ! :( Although I have not yet personally tested this possibility (since I am presently in the midst of some FS development and testing work that requires "fixed" parameters in Terrain.Cfg and [FS install path]\Autogen\Default.xml for other scenery testing purposes), I initially alluded in my post #30 above to an established method for tweaking "some" Autogen definitions via Default.xml used since at least FS2004 (FS9)... which also works in FSX.http://forum.avsim.net/topic/329728-possible-new-tweak-for-fs9/page__view__findpost__p__1948127[EDITED]"rhumbaflappy Posted 22 February 2004 - 07:53 PMHi Jimmi.There is another way to get rid of the road autogen, that leaves the bridges and utility towers alone.The terrain.cfg file can be altered to delete all lines that contain "VectorAutogen=" in the "// Roads" section. That kills the vector autogen that makes telephone poles and highway signs, while leaving the rest.Framerates will rise quite a bit, as there are no longer thousands of telephone poles near scenery-dense urban areas.( Rename the original terrain.cfg as terrain.orig before the surgery, so you know where it is if you want to restore it ).Dick" http://forum.avsim.net/topic/35992-the-impact-of-vector-objectsdefaultxml-when-not-turning/http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?57644-Look-what-I-found!-*DEFINATELY-TIP-OF-THE-YEAR*http://forum.avsim.net/topic/31437-observations-on-autogen-problem/page__st__25http://forum.simflight.com/topic/7368-fix-for-fps-degradation-over-large-cities-and-apprlandings/...And let us not forget this thread with posts by Jim Skorna and John Venema aka Koorby (of Orbx):http://forum.simflight.com/topic/39844-getting-rid-of-autogen-buildings/One could also try this "edited" FS9 Default.xml file instead of the existing [FS install path]\Autogen\Default.xml file (back up the original first !):http://library.avsim.net/search.php?SearchTerm=fs9xml.zip&CatID=root&Go=Search[END_EDIT]IIRC, back in 2003 when FS9 was originally released, numerous discussions addressed how to edit Default.xml (or disable it by re-naming); at the same time, there was a generally-accepted assertion stated a few times in FS Forums that there were no settings in FS8 "Terraintextures.Cfg" and/or FS9 "Terrain.Cfg" which end-users 'could' or 'should' change.Being a guy who likes to "think outside the box" more now with regards to optimizing FS performance, I'd recommend that Paul and others here with an interest in testing new possibilities for FS, consider looking into whether disabling blocks of Autogen vector / object content definitions in Terrain.Cfg is actually causing FS to do "internal texture path searches" that ultimately may compromise rendering engine functionality... when under heavy load etc..This might best be done using MS / Tom Russinovich's Sysinternals 'ProcMon' utility filtered for "FS9.exe", and scanning the (very large... literally MILLIONS of log entries) for redundant file searches by FS9.exe when one's Terrain.Cfg has disabled blocks of Autogen vector / object content definitions... as discussed in this thread.BTW: If you have a copy of Sysinternals 'FileMon' it should work also, but note it has been deprecated in favor of ProcMon for improved data capture.http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896645Second, I'd be curious as to whether one may still do more to compensate for the challenge put to one's FS9 rendering engine by high-complexity load-up and flight scenarios... by implementing some additional tweaks that might be tried under the duress of your described test scenario leading to a CTD.FYI: I'd try disabling most Windows XP "Services" (I run ONLY 7 Windows XP 'system' services, plus the service for my software firewall... yet I have secure internet access and can turn on/off 1 service when I need to print, and 1 service when I need access to other computers on my network).This scenario is to be distinguished from what most Windows XP users computers are usually found to be running (to the detriment of their system performance and available RAM): an average of 58 to 78 "Services". :( Yep, that's 6.5 to 8.75 times as many services than are needed for the way I run FS.Sadly, the average FS end user system configuration drags down available RAM and CPU clock cycles, preventing system resources from otherwise being used to make FS fly the way it "could" be on ones present computer. :( BTW: I'd also disable all the superfluous and hidden Extensible Performance Counter List items (except for 3 which "may" be used by 3rd party utilities popular with FS users), since Windows performance testing/reporting features already have their own set built into the OS code.I'd also disable (and 'enable') a number of other things in Windows, as there are additional measures which can be implemented to improve overall system performance that ultimately enhance FS functionality beyond tweaks to FS system files as above; perhaps when I get some more time, I can post some more about 'my' approach to FS system tweaking.Hope this helps whet your appetite for more "thinking outside the box"... to enhance FS "out of the box" performance ! B) GaryGB

So, I'm a newbie and just loaded FS9 on my iMac and everything looks great. I did Gary's tweak and also modified my terrain.cfg file as suggested by Hugo. Yesterday I added Ultimate Terrain and when I ran the setup, I got an error message saying terrain.cfg file corrupted, no texture 1024. Otherwise scenery looks a little better and FS works fine. I did a short flight around Denver before and after installing ult terrain. I don't know if I should be concerned about the error message or not. Does ult terrain change the terrain.cfg file? Should I try going back to the default terrain.cfg file, reload ult terrain, then redo the tweaks?FYI, I plan to install GE Pro this weekend.

Yes, I would "try going back to the default terrain.cfg file", reload UT-USA for FS9, then after doing a test flight in Day and Night conditions in FS9 with all UT-USA features turned on except "Night Lighting", establish what your average performance / FPS is.Then do a test flight in Day and Night conditions in FS9 with all UT-USA features turned on including "Night Lighting", establish what your average performance / FPs is.NOTE: UT-USA has known incompatibilities with MegaScenery for FS9 autogen display when the UT-USA night lighting option is also enabled during the Day; you must manually disable the UT-USA night lighting option in that add-on's configuration utility for Day flights, and only enable it at night... to resolve that issue.I'm not sure as to whether GE / GE-Pro for FS9 has the same night lighting and autogen display compatibility issue, nor do I know whether those add-ons actually add entries to the FS9 Terrain.Cfg, or simply need to read it during installation / configuration.However, it is apparent UT-USA needs the 'default' Terrain.Cfg intact during installation / configuration, so at least restore the default Terrain.Cfg for purposes of that add-on... before changing to a "test" version of Terrain.Cfg.But please read the caveat in my post #77 above that an edited Terrain.Cfg should be further tested in various FS9 flight / configuration scenarios to determine whether / when / how it may be considered reliable to use. :wink:http://forum.avsim.net/topic/329728-possible-new-tweak-for-fs9/page__view__findpost__p__1951540 Hope this helps ! :( GaryGB

Thanks Gary I am going to give the 4GB patch a go first and see how things go and then I'll try the other tests you mentioned earlier.Thanks man - can't wait for some more great tweaks from you.

Between the tweaks I already had on my old machine - and then once getting my new gaming machine everything was good - and now that I've applied the terrain.cfg tweak I found posted from another user here and these new tweaks that Gary gave us my machine is running FS9 like a dream - it looks and plays amazing.Thanks Gary - can't wait for more of your awesome tweaks for us all.Oh and forgot to mention that the 4GB patch helped as well - well at least there was no bad effects :)Thanks again guys.

I did the terrain.cfg change but I didn't lose the roads, did I do something wrong?I use Ultimate Terrain and GE Pro.

This is a great thread.It should be added to the thread called "Compilation of Popular Tweaks ". :(

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.

:(

I think I found a possible side effect from increasing TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD and TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT. Although everything looks awesome, some textures may not load after a long flight. Yesterday I had a two hour flight and when I landed, most of the ground objects were gone and half the jetway textures were missing. It looked really wierd. However, when I exited FS2004 and restarted, everything was fine. All objects and textures were present. I'm told these tweaks probably overloaded/confused FS2004 and caused it to randomly stop loading models/textures. I guess it's FS2004's way of self preservation.I still like the tweaks and will monitor and see if I have any other issues.Mike

Look!! He finaly stopped by. Now you can all tell him about your TB values!

"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.

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.Providing some test results as well as some links would be even more helpful to expanding the FS9 community knowledge base !

Since Jim had not yet "linked" to any posts on the subject of TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT (aka "TBM") in the context of FS9, nor in particular, posts by Word Not Allowed, I did a search on the AVSIM forums using the query strings "Word Not Allowed" and "TBM", yielding 2 hits specific to the AVSIM FS2004 / FS9 Forum:Blurred Scenery - Any other advice?The FS2004 (FS9) ForumDec 14 2010 01:48 PMLast post By: martinlest2 http://forum.avsim.net/topic/321039-blurred-scenery/page__p__1892357__hl__tbm__fromsearch__1#entry1892357Blurry in the DistanceThe FS2004 (FS9) Forum Sep 29 2009 11:49 PMLast post By: Word Not Allowed http://forum.avsim.net/topic/261948-blurry-in-the-distance/page__p__1644036__hl__tbm__fromsearch__1#entry1644036FYI: Although in the FSX Forum, this was interesting in its comparison of TBM parameter values in FS9 versus FSX:Anyone else get occasional black flash over sceneryMS FSX ForumJun 23 2010 02:34 AMLast Post By: Word Not Allowed BTW: Many thanks to Word Not Allowed for taking the time in those threads to share his insights from some significant personal review of available info from different sources, in addition to sharing his personal testing results with FS9.Cfg parameters on his own systems over the years ! :Applause: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", even if our "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".Thus, it seems to me a good idea that we 'should' welcome ALL additional ideas from others, however controversial they might be in light of prior statements made by ACES, or others based on their individual experiences on their own FS configurations; AFAIK the goal here, after all... is expanding the FS9 community knowledge base. :( PS: Jim, I'm still curious... have you tested these tweaks in FS9 yet ? :Big Grin:GaryGB

Hi,Yes, I have and no difference for me. A modern hardware system and modern drivers installed and set up correctly do not need any FS9 tweaks. We needed stuff when FS9 was first released, but the hardware caught up and passed the software a long ago. Now the limitation is in the software, and changing a few values in the FS9.cfg is not going to change the limitations of the software. Only those with quite old hardware might benefit.

Tested the first tweak/adjustment mentioned in this thread, and I have to say it really helped the blurries...I noticed I get them the most around the Houston area for some reason. Anywise...works on FS2004, Windows7 64-bit, 6gb ram, 1-gb ATI video card. The other tweaks I haven't noticed a big change however...maybe my math is wrong with the video card information. :-P

Hi,Yes, I have and no difference for me.

It would be very helpful to this ongoing discussion if you would please describe what FS9.Cfg parameters and values you tested on what hardware using what Windows version, as well as whether you have implemented the "/3 GB Switch" in 32-bit Windows, and set the FS9.exe "3 GB" LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE flag for same... or if using 64-bit Windows, the "4 GB Patch".

A modern hardware system and modern drivers installed and set up correctly do not need any FS9 tweaks. We needed stuff when FS9 was first released, but the hardware caught up and passed the software a long ago. Now the limitation is in the software, and changing a few values in the FS9.cfg is not going to change the limitations of the software. Only those with quite old hardware might benefit.

IMHO, it could be more meaningful to this discussion if you would please define what you regard as meeting the criteria of "modern hardware system and modern drivers installed and set up correctly", and what you regard as "quite old hardware". :( Certainly I believe it's possible you may have a legitimate basis for what you have written thus far in this thread. :( However, I also think most readers here likely anticipate seeing more detail from someone who was entrusted with providing tech support for a complex FS addon that has been around for many years. :( If you'd be so kind as to elaborate on your reply above, I believe it might be less at risk for being regarded by some... as a "sweeping generality". B) Thanks,GaryGB

Tested the first tweak/adjustment mentioned in this thread, and I have to say it really helped the blurries...I noticed I get them the most around the Houston area for some reason. Anywise...works on FS2004, Windows7 64-bit, 6gb ram, 1-gb ATI video card. The other tweaks I haven't noticed a big change however...maybe my math is wrong with the video card information. :-P

Thanks for the feedback thus far ! :( I believe it could be very helpful to this ongoing discussion if you would answer a few questions, please: * What model CPU ?* What model ATI 1-GB VRAM video card ?* Have you set the FS9.exe LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE flag via the "4 GB Patch" as described above ?PS: Regarding the "math" on the video card: did you calculate 1024 MB VRAM x 1024 = 1048576 for TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD (aka "TML") ?Thanks,GaryGB