What was LM's thought process on the TBM config entry of 30? Just curious the logic and if anyone has had a chance to experiment with it?

I would assume most remember the discussion concerning TBM with FSX 

 

Regards

Bob 

This isn't FSX.

This isn't FSX.

That didn't answer the question.

No, because I think only Lockheed-Martin could explain how TBM is used in the current sim.  After all, they did just rewrite the rendering code... a tad.  Right?

in some quick trips - I see no difference between 30 and 120 visually or in fps. I didn't do any accurate testing.

 

Vic

I have tried values from 10 to 400 which was the range FSX used, and I see no change at all. For something that sounds like it should make a huge impact, with the extra texture throughput from using big numbers, its odd to detect nothing [texture loading, stutters etc, etc.] ...almost as if the parameter is redundant.

Yea, I did try some changes yesterday. The reason I asked about this is that I believe the default entry for this in FSX was 40. So when I saw 30, I thought maybe LM had something going on.

 

Thanks all

 

Bob

Tried a number of different TBM entries with no real perceptible difference...TML on the other hand... B)

This isn't FSX.

 

Brilliant observation! 

 

 

TML on the other hand... B)

 

Interesting, as I don't see any difference with this parameter either... I was in the mood for a bit of tweaking yesterday [you know how that happens sometimes ] and ran through some values from 0 to a silly 3000... although I have no idea of the range. Starting low 3, 6, 9, 18 and then some bigger numbers 72 and upwards, running the same saved flight with no discernible change, to textures load, performance or anything else. I would be nice to see some affect, even if it was negative, just to know its doing something ^_^

 

What do you find with this parameter?

OH NO, I think I started another black hole. Maybe post this on their forum? Maybe they have a Myth Busters page.

 

Bob

 

 

the default entry for this in FSX was 40. So when I saw 30, I thought maybe LM had something going on.

 

I too have done a range of tests regarding this with no noticeable difference as well.

 

However, if I recall correctly, I remember either Phil or one of his team saying that increasing TBM would decrease texture load time at the expense of stuttering. I see LM has gone the other way.

Someone was playing with GROUND_SHADOW_TEXTURE_SIZE= in a recent post, does anyone remember the thread? I wanted to re-read this person's conclusion. Last night I loaded up a heavy Wx scenario at NZMF and was seeing 15-16 locked at 33. I changed the value from 2048 to 1024 and re-loaded the same scenario. Everything else being equal I was now seeing 32.9 locked at 33. I didn't say the shadows were pretty, lol but if you're doing a flight from the VC you don't really pay close attention to the ground shadows anyway, right? :smile:

Someone was playing with GROUND_SHADOW_TEXTURE_SIZE= in a recent post, does anyone remember the thread? I wanted to re-read this person's conclusion. Last night I loaded up a heavy Wx scenario at NZMF and was seeing 15-16 locked at 33. I changed the value from 2048 to 1024 and re-loaded the same scenario. Everything else being equal I was now seeing 32.9 locked at 33. I didn't say the shadows were pretty, lol but if you're doing a flight from the VC you don't really pay close attention to the ground shadows anyway, right? :smile:

Could you be thinking of Rob's post in the beta-mega-marathon-thread?

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/447638-p3d-v23-beta-2-testing/?p=3047814

 

Haven't tested it myself, now you made me curious, lol ... :smile:

I have never seen any impact of TBM in P3d2 and I've played around with it a bit. I think that it's a "deprecated" feature as the computer gurus are apt to say:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprecation

 

Or maybe it's just ignored altogether.