FSX Fiber Accelerator?

[VeryBumpy 272]

Did I get this right... this software does NOT work when Refresh rate is set to 1/2 in nvidiaInspector?

 

Not sure if this is what you are after but might help. See av8tor98's post...

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/content.php?14992-FSPS-FSX-Fiber-Accelerator-Released

[TracyQ 2]

Concerning the Frooglesim video tests,  5 or 6 fps improvement may not sound like much,  but look at it %-wise!   From 13 to 20 is quite a jump, I would say.

 

Then again,  I am computer illiterate so maybe that is not a big deal?  

[BrzI 26]

Did I get this right... this software does NOT work when Refresh rate is set to 1/2 in nvidiaInspector?

I have Vertical Sync set to 1/2 refresh rate and it works for me. FSX limit 30 FPS, FA limit 24 FPS

 

Running FSX on three 4.6GHz cores....my other four cores run at 4.4 GHz.

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

Like others, I run unlimited in FSX (I run 58 in NI).  Very smooth for me.  I'm wondering, for folks that have changed to the internal limiter, what effect has it had?

[el_kab0ng 29]

I think the point I was trying to make is whether or not it's worth caring about. Most of us are just fringe hobbyists who enjoy an occasional flight and don't really get wound up over such a small improvement. I'm not trying to crap on anyone about the investments they make, just trying to play the devil's advocate for those of us who want a bigger bang for our hard earned buck. BTW, current exchange rate for the 28 Euro cost is roughly $38 for those of us in the States, so my $40 estimation was based on the site list price, not on potential sales.

[soundrats 2]

 

 

I'm not sure my CFG file will be so useful. Every PC system I've had has optimised at different settings in many areas.

 

Thnx anyway Pete, I just wanted to compare the cfg in some entries.

Tom

[elee 46]

I've always had some doubts with the use of my 3 monitors, the refresh rate of ½ Nvidia Inspector and the parameters that have to be used in the FSX.CFG (ForceFullScreenVSync, WideViewAspect).
I bought the FA because in some tests I did I think it works well but I'm sure I'm still not well enough to have all the improvements offered by the FA.

What I experience is that for example at airports where normally I have 30FPS (My limit is 30FPS in FSX), when I enable the FA reduces the lower limit me I put into the FA. (18 or 24FPS)
Because FA reduces to enable me FPS where before working at 30FPS?

I do not expect you to tell me everything that I do in my FSX.CFG file but let me some recommendations to try to see if my problem is easy.

I have 3 monitors AOC 23 "(60Mhz) (3 online as VGA)
Total resolution of 5700x1080
Nvidia GTX 780
Nvidia Inspector with ½ Refresh Rate (ON)
ForceFullScreenVsync = (1) in FSX.CFG
WideViewAspect = (TRUE) in FSX.CFG
UsePools = (0) in FSX.CFG

And my FSX flight in full display with Shift + enter

Please can you give me advice to improve my experience with the FA?

Which are not the best options with these characteristics
Please help. :unsure:

[Dirk98 354]

Thnx Pete and Andy, now it works but

RUNFL1 is Linda

RUNFL2 is FA

my error was to write 2 times RUNFL1

Kind Regards Tom

 

What is RUNFL* ???

 

Dirk.

[voodoo101 21]

Thought I would share my results on here:

 

I tried a hard running test by putting the PMDG 777 on the runway at Aerosofts EGLL. I am running GEX, UTX and FEX. My settings was;

Level of detail: Medium

Mesh complexity:76

Mesh resolution: 10m

Texture resolution: 30cm

Water effects: Low 2x

Scenery complexity: Very dense

Autogen density: Normal.

 

30% airline traffic and road traffic at 20%. My weather was set in FSX as Rainy and Grey. I measure my frames with Fraps.

 

My frame rates without Fibre Accelerator with my target frame rate set to unlimited frames - between 22FPS and 16FPS.

 

I then set my frame rate to 40, loaded the aircraft and set Fibre Accelerator running. My frame rates - between 22FPS and 16FPS. I also lost all my GEX and UTX ground textures.

 

I stopped Fibre Accelerator and my frame rates - between 17FPS and 12FPS.

 

My conclusion: Fibre Accelerator made my system worse. It did not give me anymore frames and made my visuals worse. When I decided not to use it then it held my system to ransom.

 

After uninstalling I am now back to being between 22FPS and 16FPS with my ground textures.

[Andydigital 93]

What is RUNFL* ???

 

Dirk.

It's a typo, it should say RunIF i.e. run this program if it's not already running.

[VeryBumpy 272]

voodoo101, you can't normally run at ~19fps and expect to magically jump up to 40fps without reducing LOTS of detail. You should set Fiber to 24 or so instead.

[KelB 0]

I tried the demo and had mixed results, bought it anyway and still have mix results. It certainly does increase frames in certain situations, but like others have said, at the cost of blurries. There is a middle ground that you have find for yourself and the flying style that you partake in.  In my case and after much tooling around, I generally have equal to or better performance setting to unlimited internally without the Fiber Accel.  I can see however, that this program would be most useful for those flying tubeliners that require a stable fps on approach, particularly at heavy hitters like EGLL and EHAM.

 

I run FSX dx10 set the unlimited internally and typically have great performance with my current fsx.cfg in most circumstances, so the benefits in my case are less obvious, particularly since I fly mostly GA and visual quality is paramount.

 

I get similar results to SolRayz

 

Tried FA at 3 different locations using:

 

OrbX England, Rex4, TrackIR, 2560x1440 monitor for FSX with 16080x1050 monitor for PlanG.

I use DX10 Fixer and I have carefully tuned my system for optimum graphics/performance balance. I don’t use buffer pools, LOD is around 6 and I normally run with unlimited frames in FSX and use NI to limit the frames to around 40 fps. I use Windows 7 OS, have an Intel I7 3.4GHz processor, 8 GB of RAM and a Nvidia GTX780 graphics card.

 

I removed the NI frame limit and set the FSX limit to 40. I got the following results:

 

At the worst airfield (EGLC) I set the slider to the point where FA stopped permanently showing unlimited frames and the graphs came up a little from the extreme left position.

 

OrbX Goodwood (EGHR) without FA = 22 fps, with FA = 18 fps

OrbX Shoreham (EGKA) without FA = 11 fps, with FA = 15 fps

UK2000 London City (EGLC) without FA 11 fps with FA = 13 fps

 

Returning my settings back to unlimited frames in FSX, NI limiter set to 40, and not using FA

 

OrbX Goodwood 27 fps

OrbX Shoreham 18 fps

UK2000 London City 15 fps

 

Although FA gives an advantage over limiting the frames in FSX it does not seem to be as good as my optimised settings which have been tweaked little by little over a long period.

 

Kelvin

[Dirk98 354]

 

 

I'm not sure my CFG file will be so useful. Every PC system I've had has optimised at different settings in many areas. However, here it is:

 

[BufferPools]
UsePools=0 ;######################
;POOLSIZE=200000000
RejectThreshold=126976

 

Pete

 

 

Does 'RejectThreshold=126976' have any bearing if "UsePools=0" is used?

 

Thanks,

Dirk.

[voodoo101 21]

@VeryBumpy: Why should I set my frame rates to 24. I can run without the rain at 30FPS going to 60FPS when in cruise. If I wanted to lock my frames lower then I could do that via NVidia inspector, FSX or a free frame rate limiter. So what your saying is that if I lower my frame rates, a paid program can give me lower frame rates and worse textures. I could understand if I lost my ground textures and higher frame rates, but I had lower frame rates. 

[Pete Dowson 558]

Does 'RejectThreshold=126976' have any bearing if "UsePools=0" is used?

 

No, it is simply the value i used when I had Poolsize=20000000. I used to try with and without Pools to see which I preferred -- without I get better performance at the price of some flashing so I eventually settled on without. I just tend to leave some things, sometimes commented out with ';' if necessary,  in in case i want to change back.

 

Pete