I have just re-installed FSX and Acceleration fresh to recover from a corrupted install. I had been using DX10 exclusively with what I think may have been the best results possible. Of course, one can always hope to do better. I'm hoping starting from scratch may help.

 

Question: Is there any benefit in applying the tweaks provided by 'Bojote's Tweaking Tool' or those discussed in detail at here? Or will I get the same satisfaction with just concentrating my efforts with Paul J.'s "How To" to optimize my DX setup?

 

I am running FSX in windowed mode spanned across 3 23" monitors using an Nvidia 660ti card. Deciding whether there is any noticeable enhancement running the "preferred" 5760x1080 resolution, or the Nvidia bezel corrected resolution of 6056x1080.

 

Thank you in advance.

I think they are adequate.  I have my fsx.cfg and display driver (NI settings) set to the default for FSX.  I did change the LOD_Radius from 4.5 to 6.5 and the Texture_Max_Load setting from 1024 to 2048 though.  Otherwise, no tweaks.

 

I strongly recommend staying away from Bojote's Tweaking Tool.  IMHO, those were tweaks for the older computer systems.  This is probably why PaulJ slimmed down the How To guide to modern computer users.  You can be assured that Paul is using all the best tweaks available.

 

Best regards,

Jim

Well, I try to, Jim: we both do a heck of a lot of experimentation for DX10 - probably six hours a day, but - it's a free world, eh?

 

Nick is producing a "bible" now, so maybe we should just link to that and we can close this forum and take a vacation  :yahoo: 

 

hmmmmm   :Thinking: 

I think we need both guides as both work but not "perfectly" for everyone.  I don't think there's a possibility of having perfect settings within FSX.  It all comes down to the eye of the beholder.  I get fantastic fps and rendering with default settings with minor tweaks to two settings as posted above.  But I fly almost exclusively in photoscenery.  If I flew in Aerosoft's Manhattan or London, I would probably need completely different tweaks and settings as my fps would plummet into the 20's. I know I wouldn't be using an LOD_Radius of 6.5!!  That's what a guide is all about though.  It's just a guide and not anything set to perfection.  FSX is an old program that was meant to work well with a Pentium 4 and a GeForce 8800 GTX video card with at least 4GB's of RAM.  Those specs have nearly tripled in today's modern systems when overclocked.  Do we really need all of these tweaks?  I have tried some of them like the Bufferpools and AffinityMask tweaks and they actually tried to bring down my system.  I also work the AVSIM CTD Forum regularly and I see a lot of crashes based on bad tweaks where just rebuilding the fsx.cfg will fix the problem(s).  But we live in this type of world where everyone wants that "holy grail" tweak that will make fsx perform flawlessly.... all of the time!  Uh.... I don't think so.....

 

I for one Paul definitely appreciate the hard work that you put into this guide (and, well, with the hard work in this forum responding to questions).  If members followed your guide, it would fix many of their problems with FSX and that's a good thing!

 

Best regards,

Jim

Well, all of the other guides - Nick's, Word Not Allowed's, Tabs (graphics)  (are there more?) all steer clear of DX10, either by omission, or are right up front, like Nick, here:-

 

The Real Issues and the Goal:

The ultimate goal is to: establish a stable, functioning, smooth flying simulation in DX9 mode and then backup a good running simulator install.

 

Or like Tabs, here:-

DX10 WARNING - AA does NOT work in FSX's DX10 preview mode, it never has. You should not run in DX10 mode basically ever - it is slower and buggy.

 

...and no-one was using DX10 when ******* Altuve came along, so his auto-tweak is also geared toward DX9 and much older hardware..

 

Enough said - my ultimate goal is to help as many flyers as possible to  establish a stable, functioning, smooth flying simulation in DX10 mode, and I figure, if most folks understand DX10, and are successful in this endeavour - they already know about backing up!

 

There is some cross-over in tuning/tweaking DX9 to DX10, there has to be, but our guide and this forum, is based upon the advice of an expert High-Level Shader Language programmer and developer, and is being backed up by some folks who have spent many hours, with modern hardware, and modern tweaking knowledge, that is passed along into the guide and this forum on a daily basis. We try not to "guess" at fixes, we don't "guess" at what might be wrong, as you see on so many other forums.. I want to see your fsx.cfg, and your Inspector, and your hardware and overclock, so that the advice you receive is anything but a guess at what's wrong. I/we don't always know the answer, but we make one heck of an effort to answer each and every help request.

 

@ RKillins... Does that answer your question?  :Talking Ear Off:   :lol: 

 

All the Best,

 

peej

Hi Paul,

 

please, just keep going on to do your excellent work for the community.

 

DX9 or DX10 what does it matter at all? :rolleyes:

 

Everybody should know what to use but it's not a religion where each side condemn the others. I don't need the Messiah together with his bible in which an outstanding developer is lambasted in an ugly way. I understand the frustration which is the base of this bible but I'm able to make my own conclusions and need no ranting Messiah. I'll read the bible and pick out what I think it's useful for me - that's it.

 

I use DX10 because I like to play with the system itself maybe much more then flying. That's the reason why like to figure out what a tweak is doing and if it's bad for me then let it be. The world still keeps spinning.

 

Paul, I really appreciate your effort on the DX10 matter and I hope I can rely on much longer.

 

Best regards

Spirit

Thank you Paul Jim...

 

I appreciate all the effort that went into making DX10 possible with FSX, the R&D and the user friendly support to bring it all home,  and I'd like to see the efforts continue. I hope we can say we haven't heard all there is to about DX10.

 

I am not a tinkerer by any definition of the term. When I tinker, things go down hill very fast. If I play not knowing what I'm playing with ... things go down hill very fast. This is why many of us need forums like this, and the patient guidance from those that are comfortable with experimentation. If, like those here in this forum, I had a remote understanding of the technical aspects between making hardware and software play well together to make this older simulation work in the newer generation, I might. Until then, I will take the simple advice to just honour the DX10 how-to guide. I think this (hopefully) is all I need to know to be satisfied.

 

Thank you all.

I know I can speak for Jim here, and just say that (almost!) every day we do our level best to make sure that any issues get addressed asap, and that the latest news from Steve gets published here the minute we're aware of it. It's not only us two that puts it all together, though; much of the info comes from you, the DX10 flyer because no two systems are the same, and no two people are the same, and the more posts that we get, the stronger becomes the database!

 

Anyway - 'nuff said, it's a great hobby, and we all enjoy every minute of it!

 

All the Best,

 

peej

 

 

The Real Issues and the Goal:

The ultimate goal is to: establish a stable, functioning, smooth flying simulation in DX9 mode and then backup a good running simulator install.

Or like Tabs, here:-

DX10 WARNING - AA does NOT work in FSX's DX10 preview mode, it never has. You should not run in DX10 mode basically ever - it is slower and buggy.

...and no-one was using DX10 when ******* Altuve came along, so his auto-tweak is also geared toward DX9 and much older hardware..

 

You're mainly talking about things that were said before Steve's DX10 Shader Fix(es).  I sent you a link some time ago where Nick seems to like what's going on with these fixes.  Don't know about Tabs but the PMDG stuff is pretty much compatible with FSX in any case (we already know he is wrong and it's a shame he made the comment).  I think the greatest speaker for DX10 came from Virtuali who develops FS Dreamteam products.  His statements are definitive proof that DX10 is much better and contradicts anything Tabs stated.  He is definitely a strong supporter.  Progress has been made in the DX10 arena and it could eventually get much better but the initial rendition by Microsoft really messed things up.  You and Steve are trying to clean the mess up.

 

Best regards,

Jim

Well lucky for us that FS Dreamteam makes really beautiful airports, they are my personal favorite!

 

I really think with all the stir up around FTX Global not being fully DX10 compatible and the popping up of DX10 in most threads in forums about performance nowadays that the DX10 community is growing faster and faster.

When Steve releases his latest work there will be another wave of new DX10 users, no doubt about that. This will wake up other developers as well, like it probably woke up the guys at Orbx too.

It will benefit them also with more sales probably, but also with more room for them to work with, performance wise.

 

The new Manhatten release by Drzewiecki Design wold have gone 'smoother' (pun intended) as well, if they would advocate using DX10 now that it's become more than just 'DX10 light/not  really working'. I bet a big chunk of those OOM's wouldn't occur if more people would use DX10.

 

So far it's been a hard choice for everyone: Do I really want to tweak again to try something that might be a bit smoother, probably has better memory handling and has nicer water, and am I willing to except some quirky stuff and some annoyances a long the way (DX10), or do I stay with my proven stable simulator, but with a bigger chance of getting an OOM and most likely a less smooth experience, but with all-on's working guaranteed (DX9).

 

If Steve's app breaks down the last cons that people still have to switching (and most already are with the fixed shaders) and if it eliminates the mights and probably's in peoples heads, it will undeniably be a jump that a lot more people are willing to make. A lot of them will be reading the reviews and comments on forums to really understand what it is, does and does not, and what the current state of DX10 in FSX really is. People just want to know what they are getting in too, not everybody likes the tweaking and trying out new stuff, specially with well known prophets advising against it. But that will change  ^_^