Paul, not sure about UsePools=1 ? FSX is using bufferpools by default (4 MB as we know). So why would we need this entry ?

FSX utilizes the value set in the CFG. I guess you can say that the value set overrides the default.

As Heiko said, Dean - FSX uses BP by default, and sized at 4 meg. As far as explicitly declaring UsePools=1 and me not knowing the program structure, how it all goes together, etc., Heiko, if you track it with something like Process Explorer - the page fault count is somewhere over 30,000,000 and to me that makes for a hugely busy application; somewhere in there is a parameter that says UsePools=1. Me declaring it up front guarantees it is "1", that's all. I expect that omitting it will work just as well.The size of the pool has to be somewhat determined by the combination of proc speed, available memory, bus speed and gpu speed, Dean, and as you say - there are so many variables. Thing is - getting it in the right spot will make a difference to the performance of FSX, so I think it is one of those tweaks that is well worth playing with. The slower pc will want a pool in the higher range; 6 - 8 MB, and a higher RT, whereas the faster machine (or a slow machine with a fast gpu) - can use a smaller pool with a lower RT. Likewise a fast proc with an older gpu will need a larger pool and a higher RT. Incidentally, the 'Guru' on this subject, and actually the guy that deserves the credit for our collective awareness is ******* Altuve. He brought to light a slew of hither-to 'unknown (by the average user) and unwritten tweaks that have really expanded the horizon of where FSX can go. To some degree it is a pity that FSX is on the way out, as the current and newer hardware is now an adequate platform for the software.

O.k, understood

The slower pc will want a pool in the higher range; 6 - 8 MB, and a higher RT, whereas the faster machine (or a slow machine with a fast gpu) - can use a smaller pool with a lower RT. Likewise a fast proc with an older gpu will need a larger pool and a higher RT.

That's exactly what i am seeing - default 4 MB with a quite low RT seems to work best on my system. If i increase BP or lower RT further the side-effects like stutters or flashes emerge.

I'm using a poolsize of something like 49000000000. What do you think I should be using with the i52500k and gtx560? I've tried 30000 and 0. They didn't work that well.

Hey Drew.. yes that might not work too well.... You have lots of memory with 8Gig - right? so use a PoolSize of 8 MB, (allows lots of graphics - but you need to push that 2600k or better - up to 4.5 gig to actually get lots of graphics) and, because you have a 560 (pretty hot card) - use a threshold of, let's say 256K, so - 256000 x 1.024 = 262144, so the RT number is 262144. If you don't get flashing or spiking, then drop it down to 128K.(The cooling is ok for the 2600k, they already run pretty cool.)

Thanks Paul, I'll give those a shot. As for OC'ing, my PSU is still under watch. I tried another minor overclock on the weekend and while running fsx it would just shut down. While researching my unit I came across some comments arguing that it was just a 400w power supply in disguise.

... and what is your power supply? With the 560 and an o'c proc (which is almost a necessity with FSX) I think you will need somewhere in the 7-800 watt range for stability.

... and what is your power supply? With the 560 and an o'c proc (which is almost a necessity with FSX) I think you will need somewhere in the 7-800 watt range for stability.

Its a Raidmax 730W. But from what I'm hearing, this particular model will not even give 500W. So I don't know. Lots of talk about the raidmax 730W PSU over at overclockers.net. Still deciding what to do. I don't want to go out and start buying all new parts. But the shutdowns are a little odd, and the bad things I'm hearing about this company are not reassuring

Interesting... I followed up on your remark above, and you're right. No - you don't have to "go out and start buying new parts" - you need a more robust power suppy. Note - they were recommending 600 - 650 as being adequate for that rig. I think my $130 Thermaltake 750 is very stable and reliable, voltages not dropping under load, etc.., but there are also a goodly number of psu's that are in the 'under $100' price range made by top name-brand manufacturers.. OCZ - Corsair - Antec, etc.. that will suite your purpose. If she shuts down (I assume you mean the pc literally 'shuts down' or reboots) - even with a minor overclock, like 3.8 gig - when loaded, i.e. running fsx - then it's very likely the power supply. http://ncix.com/prod...ir&promoid=1373 http://ncix.com/prod...gy&promoid=1373 http://www.newegg.ca...=Power-Supplies At a stock 3.4 gig you are getting the performance of a Core2Duo, and until you get above 4 gig (with some decent graphic settings) you are going to get stutters at many airports and cities. Seattle brought my 950 to it's knees even running at 4 gig. Here's a note from another user, re the 560:-

Other Thoughts: -when system is at idle the total wattage is 150W -when system is at load the total wattage is 550W-580W -3dmark2011 drew the most load at 596W just for a bit (my 650W 52A single rail psu is just enough, if i overvolt anymore, overclock my cards anymore. 607W wall rading the system hard resets ) i2500k asus sli mobo 4.5Ghz @1.4V8GB of ram110gb OCZ Raid-0 pci-e 4X SSD 500MB read 600MB Write 7.9 windows index with 1TB 6gbs seagate drive for storage

So - thar ya go! Borrow one, steal one, do what you have to do, Drew, because you'll never be happy until fsx runs properly, as it can with the 2600k proc.

Hey Drew.. yes that might not work too well.... You have lots of memory with 8Gig - right? so use a PoolSize of 8 MB, (allows lots of graphics - but you need to push that 2600k or better - up to 4.5 gig to actually get lots of graphics) and, because you have a 560 (pretty hot card) - use a threshold of, let's say 256K, so - 256000 x 1.024 = 262144, so the RT number is 262144. If you don't get flashing or spiking, then drop it down to 128K.(The cooling is ok for the 2600k, they already run pretty cool.)

I use 490000000 too based on the recommendations of Nick N. in his article on setting up FSX and tuning it. His suggestions are way different than yours - http://www.simforums.com/Forums/topic29041.html . Look at the FSX.cfg section. So far I have had no issues with this setting and FSX runs very smoothly. He does not recommend this setting for cards less than 512MB. Just saying... Best regards,Jim

Yes they are way different, Jim: 490 MB - 1/2 gig RAM is wasting memory. 6 - 10 Meg is more than enough - one barely needs it with our systems! (yours and mine). If our 4.8 gig procs can feed the 580's without first pushing graphics data into a buffer - why have a buffer at all?Our systems can both run with zero BP. Why on earth would one devote half a gig of valuable memory to sit there doing nothing?? Note:-Microsoft suggests 4 - 10 MB

Bufferpools added to the fsx.cfg file can cause scenery 'spikes' even if the card has enough video memory.

BufferPools... what size, how configured, what system. Scenery Complexity at Extremely Dense, Road Traffic at 100% can cause stuttering.... uh..... yes.

This edit to the configuration file works for some and does not work for others. If you see strange graphics errors that do not clear up by visually panning around the outside of the aircraft then you should REMOVE the bufferpool entry from your config file.

uh... no.. simply set the reject threshold higher and/or make the pool bigger - but not to 490 MB. One has to take a holistic approach when building or configuring an FSX PC. There's a guy who will work on client pc's in this hobby and I'm darned if I can remember his name, (FGS or something like that) - but he has been saying this for years.Regarding 512MB cards - they are almost all 1st-gen 'modern' cards and cannot handle instant input from the system proc - this is what I, (and *******) mean when I say a 'balanced' system. The 2600K is perfect for a 580 or better - especially with adequate fast ram and a 64-bit OS.

Paul,Like I said I was just playing with the "tweak" and I plan on removing it from my FSX.cfg. This is certainly confusing though. You seem to be an expert in these matters and Nick N. is definitely an expert and well respected in the FS community. So far I have found no problems and smooth flying with the 490MB setting but I personally would like to stay away from tweaking my FSX.cfg as much as I can. Best regards,Jim

Yeah, I know, Jim; it's ok - just remember - Nick's 'BufferPools' post is 2-3/4 years old - before Win7/64 and before the 2600K-GTX5xx series hardware. Some of the other info is still valid, but there's lots there which has been superseded with later knowledge. In the modern system - graphics processing has been moved off the system proc and pushed to gpu's like our 580's. Enormous power! Hence the gains in FSX performance. "You seem to be an expert in these matters" - thanks, but no, not with the Windows operating systems; I've just retired from (initially) an avionics career, my own electronics company, and latterly some 20-odd years in IT, the last 15 as a Senior Systems Admin responsible for a bunch of Sun Microsystems servers, running Solaris 6, 8, 9, and 10 Unix os's. Nothing wrong with 'tweaks, Jim - they have their place. Almost every iteration of an Oracle database has a ton of 'tweaks' that must be done. Same with a large disk array, same with a network running data and VOIP. The difference we feel, Jim - is that we hobbyists/users of the flight sim have little knowledge of the application itself, nor of the OS, nor of the hardware! So we grope around: it's not until a developer or someone like Nick or ******* gets really involved - that we get some direction. Unfortunately - it's often changed as the technology advances. What was the case - is often now, not the case. (if that makes sense)

Are we saying that for those of us running 25/2600k, overclocked to 4ghz+, paired with a GTX5** cards, there is no benefit in having a Bufferpools entry?

Are we saying that for those of us running 25/2600k, overclocked to 4ghz+, paired with a GTX5** cards, there is no benefit in having a Bufferpools entry?

I find that the BP=0 entry increases performance and decreases stutters. Therefore, in my case, it's a necessary entry. Without a BP I have stutters, especially in the FTX world.