Hello altogether.

 

After having bought a new computer, I wanted to return to the virtual skies and now I'm back to business :) For the first time I use FSX instead of FS9.

 

Here are my specs:

i7 3770k @3,5GHz (Turboboost up to 3,9GHz) with Coolermaster watercooling, 16GB RAM, GTX 680 2GB GPU, SSD for the OS and a WD Caviar black 1TB for the FSX.

 

I installed several basic addons such as UTX, Landclass and GEX and defragmented the HD after every installation with UltimateDefrag 4.

 

First I thought, that GEX would not be correctly installed as I saw no difference between default textures and GEX, but then I compared my sim to the screenshots of GEX and had to determine that all my ground textures look like a brown soup:

 

 

I tried several tweaks, for example LOD-Radius. When I increased this one to 8.50, the textures were better, but as soon as I changed my heading the sim was stuttering (locked at 50fps).

No mattet what I try, I can't get my system to look like the following screenshot:

 

As my system is rather high-end, I don't think it's a lack of performance.

Any help or hints are highly appreciated!!

 

Best regards from Switzerland

Go through Kostas guide in the hardware forum. Make a new cfg and follow his guide should make a world of difference.

Hi Randy

 

I have to admit that I'm completely overstrained with all those settings :( Back in FS9 I didn't have to change anything on my system and everything worked perfectly fine..

 

Do you mean this thread? http://forum.avsim.net/topic/369500-adaptive-vsync-30fps-new-levels-of-smoothness-in-fs9x/

He meant this one:

 

http://forum.avsim.n...-guide-for-fsx/

Try this one too:

 

http://www.venetubo.com/fsx.html

 

Ian

What the hell :lol:

 

I have no idea what I just did (well, I tweaked the fsx.cfg and the changed the setting in nVidia Inspector) and it looks just a 100 times better!

 

Thank you so much guys!

... just a suggestion.. move that proc from 3.9 up to the mid 4's. FSX only begins to look good at 4.5, and at 4.9 I can still make it stutter.

I wanted to overclock the CPU at first, but then I heared that this would drastically reduce the lifetime of all components. I will test a few weeks at the original clocking frequency.

I wanted to overclock the CPU at first, but then I heared that this would drastically reduce the lifetime of all components. I will test a few weeks at the original clocking frequency.

OC reduces life time for sure, but thinking that way is still a bit silly. If your CPU cilicon lasts, let's say 15 years on stock until it gradually degrades so that it isn't stable on stock anymore and after your OC it lasts let's say half of that i.e. 8 years, so who really cares? That processor is as effective as abacus (no pun intended) by that time in any case.

 

MB power supplying components, such as mosfets and capacitors are more sensitive to higher voltage levels, but we are still on the same ball park here. Your MB is outdated by the time it breaks and you won't get new processor for that socket anymore when that time comes. It is much more likely that your MB dies naturally sooner because of one defective component, than it is because of your overclocking. Practical life span of computer hardware is so short, only few years, that shorter life expectancy won't be a problem even when overclocking. Usually, when you keep voltages under maximum safe values rated by processor manufacturer, you are in safe waters.

 

Of course you can kill your rig using overkill voltages and not taking care of the temperatures in your system while overclocking. That's why you need to know what you are doing and stay away from all these automatic overclocking utilities, they are just rubbish and tend to overshoot all voltage related values. They may not use dangerous values, but are still nonethless inefficient.

 

I've overclocked every computer I've had since Pentium in -95 (Couldn't overcklock my 450MHz P2 because of locked multiplier :( ) and never ever have I broken (knock on wood) one single component prematurely because of that. I've had one broken up MB socket and failed bios flash, though :Whistle:

I guess that the major change you made in your settings was to set Anisotropic Filtering to Quality 16X.

 

LOD=5.5 is actually pretty nice, and has very little performance impact.

 

Anything above 6.5 is crazy (IMHO)

daniel roethlisberger

 

 

 

It won't drastically reduce the life,

It will reduce it a bit,

I've been running 4.8 since the 2500k came out,

You bought a K series (Ivy bridge).

that's what thier for, OC

Clocking the heck out of them.

Kostas guide is the best hands down IMHO

 

I've used LOD form 4.500 to 8500

6.500 is the best all around, Nice and crisp ( Per Kostas guide ).

Glad your fixed up there now!

 

This is at 8.500 Don't use this setting after 20 minutes you'll get an OM most times.

 

 

This is at 6.500 perfect setting from his guide ( Should be good for your high end system no problems )

I played around for over three weeks trying to solve my blurrie problems. Somehow, the AffinityMask parameter had gotten set to 224? I changed it back to 14 and this really helped with the blurries. Good luck and be patient. Sometimes these things need a lot of tweaking to get right.

I played around for over three weeks trying to solve my blurrie problems. Somehow, the AffinityMask parameter had gotten set to 224? I changed it back to 14 and this really helped with the blurries. Good luck and be patient. Sometimes these things need a lot of tweaking to get right.

 

This is a good example of how FSX can get a bad name.... There is no AffinityMask parameter in FSX, unless you go and add it....

So, without "a lot of tweaking", you would not have this problem.

This is a good example of how FSX can get a bad name.... There is no AffinityMask parameter in FSX, unless you go and add it....

So, without "a lot of tweaking", you would not have this problem.

So what you're saying Bert is what technicians the world over have said for years.... " If it aint fu...HRMMPPH! ..that's broken, don't fix it!" (politer but really screws up the alliteration )

 

Here's an analogy for you. 40 years ago I helped my buddy tune his (then old) family car up. We put a huge Weber carb, polished head, modified cam and special manifolds on it. When the cops stopped him they estimated he was doing 110mph. 40 years later my daughters 3 cylinder high m.p.g. runabout could nearly make 110 ...but driven more sensibly will give 60+ m.p.g..

 

I'm not against tweaking or tuning anything but technology advances and as with the car there's a speed curve versus a consumption curve? Top that off with long term reliability and then decide what you want to mess with?

 

Not trying to preach here. Just saying "don't lose sight of what you set out to improve".

 

geoff

I didn't realize I was giving FSX a bad name. That certainly wasn't my intent.

 

Since the first reply in this thread makes reference to Kostas guide in the hardware section, and since I think a lot of guys do go in and tweak their fsx.cfg file, that my response was fair. Also, there is a whole AVSIM forum about tips and tricks. Without some tweaking, I would think one can't get the real benefit and power of having FSX.

 

The purpose of my affinitymask remarks was just in case some other person fell into the same trap that I did, to alert them. I think this is the benefit of having these forums. I certainly have learned from other people's mistakes and comments in these forums.