Hey guys,

 

I've noticed people saying to put this value between 1 and 4. Mine is/was 232 before i made changes to my fs9.cfg file. So why is mine so drastically different and how can I change it?

 

Thanks

Another question:

 

I am running GEP, UT-USA, REX+Textures, FS Global 2010, MyTraffic 2006

 

I run all sliders maxed out and run every add-on at maximum capability as well.

 

Running from just the cockpit view on any plane I get around 60 fps flying over manhattan into JFK at night.

 

When I am in the caravan that came with the game, I'm getting around 40 FPS flying the same approach with the exterior view. (night seems to be my worst FPS due to UTX night lighting)

 

In the FeelThere ERJ135, I only seem to get around 30 FPS flying the same approach in the Virtual Cockpit and 25 in Exterior View. Also, whenever i switch from the 2d cockpit to VC, it stutters for a second and/or sometimes the frames drop to 7 or so for a couple seconds until the VC comes alive.

 

Is this normal? Also, i realize that the FPS is good most of the time, but it seems my machine should be capable of better performance more consistently.

 

Thanks again

 

EDIT: fps adjustment

Hey guys,

 

I've noticed people saying to put this value between 1 and 4. Mine is/was 232 before i made changes to my fs9.cfg file. So why is mine so drastically different and how can I change it?

 

Thanks

 

Anything >4 is defaulted to 0. If you are seeing that it reads 232 then you are looking at where to change it. FS9.cfg - edit with notepad change 'TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=232' to =4 and save (not save as) *** note *** I am not familiar with W8, so you will need to make certain you have the correct permissions and security setting (if anything like W7) for the changes to be accepted and properly work for you.

 

Frame  rates = the Holy Grail of Flight Simulators. There are things you can check that may or may not be affecting performance. One is check to be certain that all textures that have or should have a alpha channel have them. Missing alphas can cause a resource drain. Next is, if you are running with MIPS enabled, that all scenery textures have them. If a texture has no MIPS then your system has to create them on the fly, no pun intended, which is also a resource killer.

 

See this topic for much more info on this:

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/382519-a-huge-fps-increase/

 

Lastly; unfortunately high spec hardware, out of the box so to speak, does not always perform as expected and may take some fine tuning of FS9 settings and driver setting to get the most. All and all what you are getting currently isn't that bad as long as you are not getting stutters or blurred textures.

 

Hope this helps and best regards,

Mel

Frame rates = the Holy Grail of Flight Simulators. There are things you can check that may or may not be affecting performance. One is check to be certain that all textures that have or should have a alpha channel have them. Missing alphas can cause a resource drain. Next is, if you are running with MIPS enabled, that all scenery textures have them. If a texture has no MIPS then your system has to create them on the fly, no pun intended, which is also a resource killer.

 

Hey Mel,

 

I just completed the alpha process for FSX and FS9. Although the frame rate increase seemed minor, transitions between views were much smoother. The MIPS process, however, baffles me greatly. Is there a readme or another program that could explain this in greater detail?

 

Thanks for the help

 

NOTE: I "upgraded" my OS to Windows 7 Pro but never changed the setting on My PC

 

Is there a readme or another program that could explain this in greater detail?

 

Not that I am aware of except for the discussions here in the forums. One other point that I failed to mention previously is that 32 bit bitmaps although looking great, they are not what the code for FS9 was written for. I suppose that means that I would recommend only using them on your user flyable aircraft, not on AI or scenery objects unless it is done very sparingly. As far as the mip map issue is concerned, I think it depends a great deal on a individuals system. A slower cpu and an older less powerful graphics card would benefit the most from the lower resolution textures that are progressively used as distance from a object increases - lowers the work load a lot = better performance. On the higher end or newer cpu and graphic card combination that are much more powerful the benefit is still there, but the difference is much less evident because of the better texture processing speeds.

 

 

 

Change what you like in the fs9.cfg, makes no difference. I've put for fun completely random extreme numbers....nothing happens.

 

With all due respect, . . . . . . . .

 

The fact that you state that you have used random numbers and see no positive results ( Compared to what? A carefully and properly tweaked FS9.cfg?) is evidence of exactly what has been stated. When FS9 encounters a setting in the FS9.cfg that is outside the range that is allowed is uses the default setting - the same numbers you would get if you delete the FS9.cfg file and cause FS9 to create a new one. Keeping the numbers for the different settings inside their high / low range and tuning them to your own PC system is what 'tweaking' the FS9.cfg is all about.

 

Best regards to all,

Mel

Hi,

interesting enough, there is a document explaining all these settings: It's the Landclass and Terrain Documentation by Joachim Buhre alias Jobia. Unfortunately, it's available only in German, and even for a German native speaker it is quite hard to understand. In the case that anyone is interested though, here is the link:
http://www.germany-vfr.de/jobia/lcdokupdf/lcdokupdf.zip

 

I have learned much from this document, for instance to let FPS be unlimited for faster texture loading to minimize blurries on fast PC systems. I'm almost suspect that the recommendation to limit FPS to 30 is the cause of blurried textures on many fast systems (at least it may be worth a test).

 

Some words to the original topic according to the informations I have taken from the German landclass and terrain documentation. The three fs9.cfg entries
TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=
TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=
TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=
interfere with each other, so that certain entries at TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS may be without effect indeed, if the other entries don't fit. Furthermore, the document says that values higher than the maximal working entry will be taken as the maximal working value by FS2004, that means inserting 232 will let FS2004 work as if the entry is 4.

 

Unfortunately, it is not possible to translate this document completely because of its language and depth. One had to translate 30 or more sites due many repetitions and references within the document (if you want to read the original paragraphes about the said parameters, go to page 267; the conclusions are around page 300). I have translated only these conclusions (original text by Jobia 2006, translation by google translator with some edition by me to have at least a little better English grammar):

 

"[...] The TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS changes the areal coverage of all individual
MIP levels in normal landclass texture / photo texture area.
The TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS has an identical behavior. It is, however, coupled with the requirements of TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS in addition.
The TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS defines the number of MIP level (starting at MIP level 0) which are to react to TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS.

 

As a result, a combination of setting the three parameters becomes possible.
Example:
A lower value for TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS, for instance 3. That would mean that all MIP levels have a radius of three quadrants. Furthermore, we set TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS = 4 and TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS = 2. This would mean that in addition only the first two MIP Level will be expanded to radius four.

 

This fact means that there are a number of tips in the forums, which are absolutely absurd [sic!] from the perspective of the constellation of these 3 parameters alone. If you set radius values ​​above 4, then they have no effect compared to the value of 4 (since the value of 4 is the functional limit). If the TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS is set to 4 or more, all MIP levels are already stretched to maximum distance.

A combination of TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS = 4 and TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS = 4 will be ineffective and have no optical effect. This is easy understandable, as the maximum extension of MIP levels has already been reached.

 

[...]"

 

[End of translated citation.]

 

As I understand, the entries will have the following effects:
TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS defines how wide the different LOD quadrants are shown around the user view point (in most cases the aircraft itself; in spot mode the point of view) with the different LOD values (mesh) and MIP levels (textures). By the way, Jobia writes that the default value is 2, any value below 2 will FS2004 let use this default value. Changing the value to 3 or 4 will extend the areas around the point of view; any value above 4 will FS2004 let use the value 4.

TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS does the same, but gives the possibility to define how many MIP/LOD levels are shown with this value. If the value is below 4, the levels above this value will be defined by TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS.

TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS defines the number of MIP/LOD levels which will be shown as TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS defines.

 

Now, if anyone has set TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=4 this would be explain why a change of TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS has no effect. Nevertheless, I have all values set to 4 although it seems that this is useless. Settting TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=4 already defines the utmost range of higher MIP/LOD levels. So setting all values to 4 seem to be redundant but to do no harm anyway.

 

Another fact: On weaker systems, these settings may have contrary effects. FS2004 then tries to load and display a wider range of textures and/or mesh data in good quality/resolution. This may result in a FPS drop and subsequently FS2004 reducing the quality according to the LOD_TARGET_FPS parameter, which is 70 % of UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT (FPS limitation). So setting these parameters seems to me like "juggling with many balls" especially on slower PC systems. With my system, which is in no way a high-end system (see specifications in the profile), FS2004 behaves satisfying with the most values set high or very high. Currently I experiment with unlimited FPS and it seems that textures are loaded a little faster in high quality. I will observe if there are negative effects of now 100 or more FPS at higher altitudes and/or with stock scenery, though. I particularly did not observe problems with sounds etc. so far.

 

Regards
Harald

 

interesting enough, there is a document explaining all these settings: It's the Landclass and Terrain Documentation by Joachim Buhre alias Jobia. Unfortunately, it's available only in German, and even for a German native speaker it is quite hard to understand. In the case that anyone is interested though, here is the link:
http://www.germany-v...f/lcdokupdf.zip

 

Thanks Harald. Very good post. That reinforces the idea that it is easy for one to shoot oneself in the foot while attempting to tweak FS9, sometimes repeatedly and then claim is just doesn't work or just as often see a difference or improvement where none exists.

 

I would appreciate it if you could keep me up to date on anything you discover - PM me if you would care to, thanks.

 

Regards,

Mel

Hi.

 

Harald, thanks very much for posting this information. It's good to have a straight forward guide to setting correct values for variables in the config file. I hope you take the following as an addition to your post rather than a criticism!

 

Steve Lacey, onetime MSFS developer disagrees with what you found about unlimited framerates:

 

 

I have learned much from this document, for instance to let FPS be unlimited for faster texture loading to minimize blurries on fast PC systems. I'm almost suspect that the recommendation to limit FPS to 30 is the cause of blurried textures on many fast systems (at least it may be worth a test).

 

I can't open his blog today (http://www.steve-lacey.com/blogarchives/2005/11/the_stutters.shtml) but in it he suggested the following. The complete blog entry is quoted here: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/382519-a-huge-fps-increase/page-7

 

 

Before I get into this I want you to understand that if you believe 40+ frames are necessary for smooth flight and great scenery – or- you believe running ‘unlimited’ on the frame lock and nothing else… this tweak is not for you and there is probably nothing I can do to convince you that your 7900GTX does not need to be locked @ or above 38-45FPS. (Note: the unlimited frame trick does work but NOT for most systems)

 

 

Still, it is a very old blog, and strictly his remarks apply to TextureMaxLoad, and they may not apply to ultra-modern PCs. I have a very slow motherboard and a good graphics card. By following his advice I had a minor increase in performance when flying over simple scenery, and doubled the framerate at complex airports. Also, following his advice has made a big improvement to the time taken for scenery textures to reach the highest LOD while flying over open country.

 

Best regards,

Dave
 

Hi,

 

 

I hope you take the following as an addition to your post rather than a criticism!

I welcome any addition towards this topic as I am still testing if the recommendation to unlock FPS is really usefull. Even if it was a criticism, as objective criticism moves a topic forwards B).

 

Let me cite again from the above mentioned document (see copyrights and citing/translating method in my post #8):

 

"The achieved frame rate is thus a major reason for maintaining high MIP levels displayed. Below there is a chart which shows the achieved values on my 3.4 GHz system. Since the curve on the left side is steeper, it can be seen that with 90 FPS not better loading times of texture MIP levels can be achieved anymore.  The right side part of this curve is even more important. If we limit the frame rate to 10 FPS, the load time for textures was about 280 seconds to the highest MIP level. With 20 FPS it took only 130 seconds. With 30 FPS it took only about 90 seconds. The higher the frame, the less likely we encounter blurry textures. Therefore, it's recommended to unlimit the frame rate at powerful computer systems. [...] However, all others with weaker PC system will not benefit from this.

 

Because of addon airports or permanent changes in clouds the frame rate can vary widely when set unlimited. These fluctuations cause, of course, changes to the problem of blurry ground textures. We see from the graph that someone who sets his FS2004 below 20 frames will propably experience blurred textures quite often due to the
long texture loading times if he flies fast."

[End of citation]

 

Here is the graph mentioned; the vertical axis shows the frame rate, while the horizontal axis shows texture loading time in seconds.

 

 

The author then did research on the TEXTURE_BANDWITH_MULT and TextureMaxLoad. Here I cite again:

"Whether window or full screen mode was used in both PCs, a change in the load times by changing TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT was not detectable. I changed TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT from 40 to 200 or 400, had no relevant effect. When I, for example, enforced long texture loading times of about 1.5 minutes by setting the [a low] frame rate, differences [by changing TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT] in loading times were 1-2 seconds.
As you can see, with the test method "coordinate jump" I can achieve no effect. In real operation, I could certainly see nothing.
The only thing I can confirm regarding loading times is the major influence of the frame rate. This is also explained in detail above."

 

[End of citation]

 

I have to admit that these explanations sound logical, nevertheless it's not a holy book for me. I'd like to have the opposite proven. In the meantime I can only observe what effect I achieve on my system. I ran my FS2004 for years with FPS locked at 30 FPS, although I didn't comprehensive testing with TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT and TextureMaxLoad. Unlimiting frame rates gave me slightly shorter texture loading times, but a remarkable reduction in microstutters when flying low and slow. I will test further by flying high and fast with a well simulated plane into a busy airport (Svanidze UGTB to FlyTampa OMDB with DF727 today). Will be some days away frome home then, will report as soon as I'm back. At the end, it may be proved that every PC system requires it's own setting. In no way I want to proselytize anybody who is satisfied with his/her settings, while I'm satisfied with mine.

 

Happy Easter to you all mates!

Harald

Hi again.

 

Happy Easter to you too.

 

 

The higher the frame, the less likely we encounter blurry textures. Therefore, it's recommended to unlimit the frame rate at powerful computer systems. [...] However, all others with weaker PC system will not benefit from this.

 

Without experimenting on a different (better?) PC, I feel I agree with this: I'm sure higher-spec PCs will benefit from unlocked framerates as the whole system will then have fewer tasks to process.

 

My PC has an Asrock P4i65G motherboard (very very slow) with a 2.8 MHz single-core processor (also slow), and a GeForce 7950 GT card. Using Nvidia Inspector, and the standard Windows task manager performance monitor I find that for FS9 my CPU runs at 100% constantly while the GPU load has never exceeded 40%...

 

Certainly for me, limiting the framerate improves texture loading times; I spent a number of evenings experimenting with Steve Lacey's suggestions. I also found that setting the number of pre-rendered frames to zero gave a further improvement. That is not at all intuitive and goes against all the advice I've ever seen, but I suppose the CPU deals with pre-rendering and the GPU delivers the picture, so anything that reduces the CPU tasks and shunts them off to the (underutilised) GPU will help my feeble motherboard. Doing that also reduced, but hasn't eliminated, stutters as the CPU doesn't so often hold things up while it tries to catch up.

 

Anyone with a low-spec PC would surely benefit by seeing how much of a load is carried by each component before deciding what tweaks to apply. Your point about every PC requiring its own setting is probably the most intelligent comment I've seen concerning tweaks!

 

I'm away to my home now, and out to play in the snow tomorrow.

 

Best regards,

D

I need to make a correction to a portion of my post #3.

 

I wrote "Anything >4 is defaulted to 0". That is not correct! Anything greater than 4 is defaulted to 4. I apologize for the error!

 

Regards,

Mel

out to play in the snow tomorrow

 

Have fun!

I'm out to play my trombone at sunday!

 

By the way, Dave, there are CPUs up to 3.4 GHz for your MoBo, if you overclock it...

http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/P4i65G/?cat=CPU

 

I made a quick test now with the tweaks recommended in the thread linked by Dave. Textures were definitely not loaded faster than before, rather slower, when I set limit to 30 fps and use the recommended values for TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT and TextureMaxLoad. FPS were the same. Seems that I have optimized my FS9.cfg as much as I can. Will fly now away and be happy with what I have.

 

Regards to all

Harald

Despite my "high tech" system, it seems that I get the best results with the frame rate locked at 40. Thank you all for your help.