August 20, 201213 yr I just read about this "new" stability hotfix.If you try it report back please. link: http://www.enigmasim.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1065
August 20, 201213 yr Commercial Member This is what it adds to your cfg file [bufferPools] UsePools=0 [GRAPHICS] STALE_BUFFER_THRESHOLD=2147483647 HIGHMEMFIX=1 TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=4096 TextureMaxLoad=30 [DISPLAY] TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=400 Clive Joy
August 20, 201213 yr Commercial Member In before the avalanche of critics! LOL Gonna give it a ride and see how it performs... Thanks for sharing... Regards, Efrain RuizLiveDISPATCH @ http://www.livedispatch.org (CLOSED) ☹️
August 20, 201213 yr Commercial Member Please have a look at the Word Not Allowed's Guide, if you are not sure what these do http://forum.avsim.net/topic/370594-read-before-posting-software-hardware-guide-for-fsx/ Clive Joy
August 20, 201213 yr I have never heard of this before. STALE_BUFFER_THRESHOLD=2147483647 What the heck does this do? All the rest are known tweaks. Bryan Wallis aka "fltsimguy" Maple Bay, British Columbia Near CAM3
August 20, 201213 yr It's a bit odd to 'release' a 'hotfix' which is nothing else but a bunch of known tweaks, isn't it...? Besides, TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=400...? I think most cfg-guru's will agree that number is way too high! They simply should have linked to Word Not Allowed's guide. :wink: BTW Afaik the STALE_BUFFER_THRESHOLD tweak doesn't do much: I can't remember anyone using that and getting a clear difference in performance. It's an odd and rather random mix of tweaks, that hotfix.
August 20, 201213 yr I think it's just a collection of tweaks for those who don't use a tweaked cfg. But that TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=400 is totaly wrong.
August 20, 201213 yr I think it's just a collection of tweaks for those who don't use a tweaked cfg. But that TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=400 is totaly wrong. Yeah that sounds a bit... unlikely. But I've seen stranger things.
August 20, 201213 yr TBM 400 And man, again a "patch" that doesn't cover water 2.x high but using bp=0, or using it with any hardware, or with too slow GPU vs fast CPU... Nothing about that mentioned there. Let's observe the problem-cases starting to flow in...
August 20, 201213 yr Yup this just seems to be weird. Bryan Wallis aka "fltsimguy" Maple Bay, British Columbia Near CAM3
August 20, 201213 yr TBM 400 And man, again a "patch" that doesn't cover water 2.x high but using bp=0, or using it with any hardware, or with too slow GPU vs fast CPU... Nothing about that mentioned there. The fact that I completely understand everything you're talking about makes me realise how much I've learnt from you (and others). Thanks once again :)
August 21, 201213 yr TBM 400 And man, again a "patch" that doesn't cover water 2.x high but using bp=0, or using it with any hardware, or with too slow GPU vs fast CPU... Nothing about that mentioned there. Let's observe the problem-cases starting to flow in... I already know that you need to use High 2.x water with UsePools=0, but I'm wondering, why that?
August 21, 201213 yr but I'm wondering, why that? It seems to negate the artifacts that may occur when using BP=0 DIMITRI
August 21, 201213 yr Why would anyone in their "right FSX mind" run 2 extra shader passes with water set to high, just to get rid of flashes and glitches from BP=0, when you can get even better performance by doing like Nick: http://www.simforums.com/forums/different-scenarios-different-settings-thats-how_topic41798.html Yep, I know, he´s maybe outdated with all the new stuff around, and he´s grumpy and arrogant, an old, maybe, I guess, not really hip, right??
August 21, 201213 yr Why would anyone in their "right FSX mind" run 2 extra shader passes with water set to high, just to get rid of flashes and glitches from BP=0, when you can get even better performance by doing like Nick: That is a fair statement,however the performance enhancement with the (BP tweak=0), has proven to be an outastanding tweak for many users,including me. DIMITRI
Create an account or sign in to comment