I have read that people don't use TextureMaxLoad anymore. I have found setting it to 30 gets rid of slow texture loading when changing views. Is there a reason this line isn't good to use now?

I think it just fell out of favor since by it's definition it should only work with a locked framerate, which worked very well in FS9 but not so much in FSX and beyond., and not because there is anything "wrong" with using it.

TextureMaxLoad=6 is the default for FSX and for FS9 it was/is TextureMaxLoad=3.  This is without the entry in the cfg.  It is recommended by FSX configuration experts to leave this setting out of your cfg.  Raising it higher than 6 will use a lot of resources (some Internet searches indicate it can be raised to 9 or 12).  According to one of the developers at Microsoft (Steve Lacey), the value of TextureMaxLoad (6) is multiplied by the Texture_Bandwidth_Mult configuration variable (most use 40 but some use 120) and divided by the target frame rate only in the case where you have a target frame rate set. With 'unlimited', the variable will have no effect. So, you can see that the value is a multiplier, rather than having any specific units.  The value equals the number of bytes per frame that will be rendered. 

 

I think the fact it doesn't do anything with FPS set to unlimited might be one reason why many leave it out.  It has never been near the top of the list for tweaks in your Fsx.cfg.

 

I think it is important that you understand what the variable does during your tweaking.  Many people just throw tweaks into their config's because John Doe did it.  If you have a powerful system with a decent video card, leave it out.  The Source of my info mainly came from posts made by ******* Bojote, NickN, and Steve Lacey.

 

Best regards,

Interesting. So if I have my frames locked at 30, and texture_max_load to 4096, 30 seems to work really well although yes it does eat up a lot of resources. My sim seems smooth even in low fps situations.

Texture_Max_Load has nothing to do with the parameter TextureMaxLoad.  Here's the formula:

 

Texture_Bandwidth_Multi=40

Times (X) TextureMaxLoad=6

Equals 240

 

240 divided by fps 30 equals 8 bytes per frame that will be rendered. 

 

Best regards,

Edited January 18, 201412 yr by firehawk44
Fixed TextureMaxLoad parameter

 

 

According to one of the developers at Microsoft (Steve Lacey)

 

I think its just worth noting out of respect for those who dont know, the late Steve Lacey, he was tragically killed some time back by a DUI driver 

Texture_Max_Load has nothing to do with the parameter TextureMaxLoad.  Here's the formula:

 

Texture_Bandwidth_Multi=40

Times (X) Texture_Max_Load=6

Equals 240

 

240 divided by fps 30 equals 8 bytes per frame that will be rendered. 

 

Best regards,

 

You are confusing me here. Texture_max_load should equal 1024 on a default fsx setup. I have it at 4096

 

Texture_b_m=40 and texturemaxload=30

 

So how does changing texturemaxload from default to 30 change the equation?

Sorry.  Fixed it.

 

 

 

So how does changing texturemaxload from default to 30 change the equation?

 

I don't know.  Can't multiply and divide that high.  Let's see, Texture_Bandwidth_Multi=40 times TextureMaxLoad=30 equals 1200 divided by 30 fps equals 40 bytes of textures will be rendered per frame.

 

Hopefully I have the parameters right this time.  Thanks for correcting. 

 

Best regards,

I think its just worth noting out of respect for those who dont know, the late Steve Lacey, he was tragically killed some time back by a DUI driver 

Agree.  Thanks for posting that.

 

Best regards,

Sorry.  Fixed it.

 

 

 

 

I don't know.  Can't multiply and divide that high.  Let's see, Texture_Bandwidth_Multi=40 times TextureMaxLoad=30 equals 1200 divided by 30 fps equals 40 bytes of textures will be rendered per frame.

 

Hopefully I have the parameters right this time.  Thanks for correcting. 

 

Best regards,

Agree.  Thanks for posting that.

 

Best regards,

 

Thank you. So now what does 40 bytes per frame mean. Is that okay? Is that not good enough or too much? I have no idea.

After testing that TextureMaxLoad=30 tweak X times so far, I've never noticed any difference, locked or unlimited frames, doesn't matter. So I guess you should'nt bother with it. BUFFERPOOLS section is very important, well at least for me to avoid nasty DPC latency.

Thank you. So now what does 40 bytes per frame mean. Is that okay? Is that not good enough or too much? I have no idea.

I have no idea.  Guess that's why the "tweak" is not very popular.

 

Best regards,

TextureMaxLoad=6 is the default for FSX and for FS9 it was/is TextureMaxLoad=3.  This is without the entry in the cfg.  It is recommended by FSX configuration experts to leave this setting out of your cfg.  Raising it higher than 6 will use a lot of resources (some Internet searches indicate it can be raised to 9 or 12).  According to one of the developers at Microsoft (Steve Lacey), the value of TextureMaxLoad (6) is multiplied by the Texture_Bandwidth_Mult configuration variable (most use 40 but some use 120) and divided by the target frame rate only in the case where you have a target frame rate set. With 'unlimited', the variable will have no effect. So, you can see that the value is a multiplier, rather than having any specific units.  The value equals the number of bytes per frame that will be rendered. 

 

I think the fact it doesn't do anything with FPS set to unlimited might be one reason why many leave it out.  It has never been near the top of the list for tweaks in your Fsx.cfg.

 

I think it is important that you understand what the variable does during your tweaking.  Many people just throw tweaks into their config's because John Doe did it.  If you have a powerful system with a decent video card, leave it out.  The Source of my info mainly came from posts made by ******* Bojote, NickN, and Steve Lacey.

 

Best regards,

 

 

Jim,

 

Excellent explanation of this setting!

After testing that TextureMaxLoad=30 tweak X times so far, I've never noticed any difference, locked or unlimited frames, doesn't matter. So I guess you should'nt bother with it. BUFFERPOOLS section is very important, well at least for me to avoid nasty DPC latency.

 

You must not be doing something right, where are you placing texturemaxload, it should be right below texture_band_multi line

 

If you don't notice faster texture loads especially when changing views then something is wrong. The downside to setting it to 30 is in lots of clouds and at an addon airport I sometimes get small stutters and lower (but smooth) frames.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ptaylor/archive/2007/06/01/fsx-tweak-of-the-week-or-2.aspx

 

In this article you can see how the multipliers work. Its about pushing more or less textures per frame based on the multiplier when compared to a baseline situation. As far as I am aware, 'bits' dont come into the equation.

 

texturemaxload isn't  directly referred to in the article but the info above about how it interacts with the locked frame rate and the TBM value is accurate.

I'll quote Phil from the link above:

 

 

The mysterious sounding TEXTURE_BANDWITH_MULT is our first target.  This is a setting in the [DISPLAY] section of the file, formatted like this:

[DISPLAY]

TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=n

 

Where n can range from 10 to some reasonable value that is related to your frame rate limit.

 

From Rafael Cintron, part of the FS Graphics and Terrain team, comes this description:

 

“

The TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT option in the Graphics section is the target frame rate use for calculating texture bandwidth.  The higher you set this value the more textures we will allocate and copy per frame to the graphics card.  The lower you set this value, the less we will allocate and copy up to a minimum limit.  As an example, the default rate in the “high” perf bucket setting is 40.  The lowest perf bucket setting is 10. 

 

----------------------

 

Wait, what? I didn't knew that you can add another TEXTURE_BANDWITH_MULT line in the GRAPHICS section. I'm completely confused now. Anybody undestood this?