This is what i use. All in windowed mode.

 

1. Primary 22" connect to gpu

2. Overhead 19" connect to gpu

3. FMC 19" connect to igpu

 

I try to understand why it not work with DX10. Whats the reason it turn to black and crash FSX.

 

Is this something that Steve can fix?

 

 

Correct, Bob. "Insight?" Huh? Sometimes a fix is unexpected, but I've not really been involved with lights, other than the PNW lights and what 's been tested/fixed for JohnV.

 

Thanks Paul for that "insight" and I appreciate the work that you are doing with Steve. I can hardly wait for the product to be available. :clapping:

I think its really phenomenal that a all around dx10 fix is coming from Steve. Certainly not an easy task especially since MS ditched it half way. That said I don't think it wise to make demands to Paul or Steve or anyone else about what's fixed. Nothing is about having it all but there is always compromise whether that be dx9 or 10, and OOMs or graphic anomalies. But the work done and the info to bring it all together so far really has revived FSX in my opinion. So grateful for all that are working hard to make this happen.

 

And wait till we get P3D with dx11. Exciting stuff.

 

 

I think its really phenomenal that a all around dx10 fix is coming from Steve. Certainly not an easy task especially since MS ditched it half way. That said I don't think it wise to make demands to Paul or Steve or anyone else about what's fixed. Nothing is about having it all but there is always compromise whether that be dx9 or 10, and OOMs or graphic anomalies. But the work done and the info to bring it all together so far really has revived FSX in my opinion. So grateful for all that are working hard to make this happen.

 

:yahoo:  :good:

" That said I don't think it wise to make demands"

 

I'm not seeing this, this thread pretty much seems like people would like to know what they are going to get in the payware version.

1. Can you run Nvidia surround ie: 3 x monitors DX-10? 2. With Triple head, can you run 3 X 1080? I have Triple head but never hooked up. Would that be better FPS vs Nvidia surround? All advise welcomed as I desire to go DX-10 and get 3 x 40" LED 1080P TV's. 

I too get the shimmering on the water, which is happening just as Paul mentioned; at lower altitudes and at certain distances from the land being reflected.  The further away the land is, the worse the shimmering is.  This is happening with the higher water settings.  I have basically learned to live with it but it would definitely be nice if I could find a way to smooth it down.

 

 

TERRAIN]
LOD_RADIUS=6.500000
MESH_COMPLEXITY=100
MESH_RESOLUTION=23
TEXTURE_RESOLUTION=28
AUTOGEN_DENSITY=4
DETAIL_TEXTURE=1
WATER_EFFECTS=6
TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=907
TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=1376
SWAP_WAIT_TIMEOUT=3

Hi Paul,

Have been getting little micro stutters in fsx, quite annoying, but have put up with it.

The I read your post and noticed I did not have

 

TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=907
TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=1376
SWAP_WAIT_TIMEOUT=3

 

in my fsx.cfg. So just tested now and the micro stutters are gone. Thanks Paul

1. Can you run Nvidia surround ie: 3 x monitors DX-10? 2. With Triple head, can you run 3 X 1080? I have Triple head but never hooked up. Would that be better FPS vs Nvidia surround? All advise welcomed as I desire to go DX-10 and get 3 x 40" LED 1080P TV's. 

1). Yes, you can - no problem at all.

2). Yes, you can, no problem at all.

 

3 x 40" will be a bit much for a single 580, Drums, and so I would get a second one in SLI mode and run Nvidia Surround - not TH2Go.  

 

TH2Go might work with a single 780 at that size - but, as the 580's should be coming down in price (I just sold mine for just over $200) you could get a bargain. Les Hesley runs 3 x 27" montors this way, and it works fine.

A pair of perhaps a pair of 660's would probably work also, but 2 x 580's for best performance, bigger if money's no object.

 

@ Julian! Great! I've never noticed the lowered trees/buildings, as "missing", and I've often played with the SwapWait Timeout. Glad you found something that's useful!

 

All the Best,

 

pj

Hmm I have never used the SwapWaitTimeout entry. It's hard to find any info about it too, only some NickN posts on SimForums.

Can someone explain to me what effects this entry has?

Hmm I have never used the SwapWaitTimeout entry. It's hard to find any info about it too, only some NickN posts on SimForums.

Can someone explain to me what effects this entry has?

 

Here you go, from the man himself

PTaylor's WebLog

Good find, Ramon, just keep in mind Phil is fully referring to SP1, not 2 or Acceleration.

 

Swap_Wait_Timeout:

 

You can easily do some tests in heavy graphics areas, and with SWT=0, you will immediately see those black squares I mentioned earlier. Moving it to "1", reduces them, and then "2" gets rid of them entirely. So - any of our GPU's is/are far faster than anything Phil had to play with, and so 2, 3, maybe 4 will work in almost every case. 

 

My only comment/semi-important note:- Vsync:-

Covered in the How-To. Don't use Phil's FullScreen setting, as it will cost you 4 or 5 frames. Use the ATI or Nvidia settings to do this, and just remember to add the "DisablePreload=1 under [Main]

Ah ok, thanks to both!

 

@Paul, in the How-to it says this:

 

---

Blue squares:

While fixed with Patch 3.2.1, there are still occasional black squares popping up, particularly over water,

and Simon (Avsim member flying_w) noticed a line in the cfg left over from DX9 was

SWAP_WAIT_TIMEOUT=2, so he removed it, and in doing so found another fix.

---

 

its a left over from DX9 and you should remove it?

 

I still don't fully understand what the SWT entry does. Phil doesn't really explain what it does and what the effects are by lowering it or making it higher. He does say default value is 30. That makes your advice harder to understand when you say with the modern GPU's of this we can maybe get it up to 3 or 4, if the default value is much higher than that, if it is indeed 30. 

I will test this entry soon for sure though.

 

Edit: Tested it briefly at KLAX in Mega Scenery SoCal and it looked like it helped with loading textures.

Without the entry I noticed an AI plane with black wings (until I got closer to it) and with the entry (SWT=2) I didn't see that happening at all.

But it was hardly a serious test, will have to repeat it more often.

 

I wonder why I never heard about this entry a lot, with all the tweaking and testing I've done so far :blink:

For 

robains

Rob, Thanks for putting all that info together. I have dropped back to DX9 for now - and suffering the decrease in frame rates, but my tweaking was getting out of hand and taking up too much time. I would do one thing then something negative would happen. Fix that, then something else happens,. I haven't explored the locked frames aspect from within FSX but only from within NVinspector where I set the frames at 30.  I will leave this for now and reconsider perhaps when I have more time on my hands to fiddle about

 

Thanks again

I use SWAP_WAIT_TIMEOUT=2, I believe if you remove the entry FSX will default to a value of 30 regardless.  As always the value is relative to one's system performance .

 

Phil's blog: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ptaylor/archive/2007/05/15/new-tweaks-in-sp1.aspx

 

I don't see any mention of it being removed for SP2?

 

Another Phil post: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ptaylor/archive/2008/01/04/four-points-about-fsx-blurries-and-service-packs.aspx

 

The second blog is a VERY good read -- FSX doesn't like A LOT of scenery files.

 

 

If aerial photography is being used to replace a large area with detailed imagery, involving the division of the target area into a large number of bgl files, there can be a significant increase in scenery load times. This can be due to an excessive amount of transparency within cells at one or more LOD level. Use the tmfViewer tool to examine the bgl files produced by the Resample tool, and note that transparent areas are shown in medium gray (see the image below).

 

If there is transparency within a cell at any LOD level, the terrain system has to load in multiple files to piece together the terrain texture for each cell. With a large amount of transparency, and a large number of bgl files containing images, this piecing together can become very time consuming. Minimize transparency within each LOD cell by preparing .inf files that target specific LOD levels. The default Destination parameter LOD=Auto should be changed to provide a minimum and maximum level, or simply one level, that minimizes transparency for the particular LOD settings. This will involve having several .inf files for each section of source data.

 

and

 

 

This thread seems to indicate that the approach TileProxy uses is so vastly different from what Gen-X uses that TP and its authoring style contributes to the blurry problem, I quote:

"Using TileProxy, you would end up with 144,979 files in the TileProxy UK folders on your local drive compared with 1855 files in Gen-X folder.

"

The fact that Gen-X seems to not suffer these to the same degree that TP does would indicate that the authoring time change suggested by the Accel/SP2 SDK is an important piece of information. I have had discussions with Horizon that confirms this.

 

Let’s face it, 144,979 files is a lot. An extreme amount by any metric. Using a 4x4 technique to group the textures together would reduce that by a factor of 16 to in the 9-10k range. That would probably work. So using a 1:1 style authoring technique where there is one result texture for each source texture just isn’t going to work anymore. Yes, that is a consequence of the changes in SP1, but those changes are not inherently bad. I would say that having 144,979 files is bad and FSX hid that before SP1.

 

I had started another thread recently that sorta confirmed the problem with FSX (hence only enable what you need for scenery) ... my thread is here: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/414988-profiling-fsx-via-process-monitor/page-3