fsx-ms Bufferpools... What do you guys use?

[ray123 1]

I am reading about it for a long time and EVERYWHERE I look is a different answer...

No I'm using:

 

[bUFFERPOOLS]

Poolsize=0

 

But I also read a lot about Reject Threshold... I just don't get it anymore  

What do you guys use and why? 

[jcomm 5,890]

Since my processor although old ( i5 2500 no HT ) starting being "helped" by a GTX 960 4GB GDDR5 ASUS graphics card, I disabled bufferpools  setting it as you post above.

 

The better the graphics card, and processor, the more it reinforces this option, since you can easily pass the graphics burden to the graphics card - IF - you're on DX10 ( I am, using Steve's Fixer ) or DX11 in P3D...

 

For DX9 the reality can be different ( I'm not sure though... )

[lodestar 186]

This is my favorite tweak(usepools=0 or poolsize=0). I'm using it becouse it gives me a great perfomance boost. No other fixed BP size / RejectThreshold combination works so good for me. There are many controversies about it, so here are some important things about:

 

- It works great in DX9. It gives a big FPS boost, but also artifacts on autogen loading. The artifacts can be completely avoided if water slider is set to high 2x(or higher) or autogen is disabled(slider all the way to the left). Since FSX doesn't look nice without autogen, i prefer water at High 2X. This will kill great amount of gained FPS, but performance is still better on my system.

 

 - It doesn't works this way in DX10, this is the main reason for different opinions. In DX10, there's no FPS boost, also no artifacts, all i could observe was steadier FPS with this tweak. 

 

For more tehnical explanation, see post on Steve's DX10 blog:

 

https://stevesfsxanalysis.wordpress.com/category/bufferpools/

[ArjenVdv 190]

Definitely OFF if you have a good graphics card. I am not entirely sure, but BP=0 will make sure everything is sent directly to the GPU. If you have a bad GPU, that cannot handle that, you'll likely get artifacting. Bufferpools ON will give you better stability, which is recommended for weaker GPUs. 

 

Switching it off will increase performance by 25-50%. If you get artifacting and flashing, setting water to HIGH 2x should help with that.

 

RejectThreshold is useless if BufferPools are off. So don't worry about that. Your current setting is the one you want.

[ray123 1]

Ok Thanks. Then I will stick with this.

 

I forget to mention my system by the way... 

 

AMD Phenom X4 955 @ 3.84Ghz

AMD Radeon R200 / HD7900 3GB

[Bjoern 1,153]

I use the default settings (i.e. no entry whatsoever) on FSXSE with DX10 and a GTX1060 and get better and more stable frame rates in high stress situations (Default JFK with 690 AI objects in the bubble) than with Usepools=0.

[ThomasAH 61]

I had this for some time, but for me it caused late loading of textures, so e.g. black boxes for some seconds when approaching airports.
Then I switched to

[BufferPools]
RejectThreshold=131072

for about two years, which was already better.

 

But in May 2016 I completely removed the [bufferPools] section and started using an external FPS limiter instead of the one built into FSX (boxed here) and now everything runs much smoother.

 

Intel Core2Duo at 3.16GHz, GTX260 until Christmas, GTX1050Ti since then.

[magnetite 38]

When I was using FSX Gold, I used PoolSize=0 and it seemed to work well. If I did get artifacting, I lowered my settings.

[Rocky_53 1,566]

I found that BP worked a treat in FSX and gave me a stunning 30% boost to performance. But unless you adjust the water sliders as Zeljko mentioned earlier, you can end up with graphical anomolies. By doing this, the gain in performance takes a hit, but while there is still a small benefit in performance I found it helped a lot with smoothness. However, I found it didn't work in FSX-SE, or in fact in P3D v3.4, which is a shame.

[jcomm 5,890]

I found that BP worked a treat in FSX and gave me a stunning 30% boost to performance. But unless you adjust the water sliders as Zeljko mentioned earlier, you can end up with graphical anomolies. By doing this, the gain in performance takes a hit, but while there is still a small benefit in performance I found it helped a lot with smoothness. However, I found it didn't work in FSX-SE, or in fact in P3D v3.4, which is a shame.

 

You mean, BP=0 didn't work for you with FSX:SE, even in DX10 "Fixed" mode ?

[Rocky_53 1,566]

You mean, BP=0 didn't work for you with FSX:SE, even in DX10 "Fixed" mode ?

Nope. Although I couldn't run DX10 in fairness. Can't remember the reason, oh sure, it was Vsync seemed to be broken, also I couldn't drag panels across to a second monitor while in fullscreen mode. So it may work in DX10 mode. But to be fair, everyone's system is different. I hear about guys who can use the BP tweak in P3D, but I can't. In fact virtually no tweaks work for me in P3D v3.4.

[magnetite 38]

Here is the patch notes from version 62608 of FSX-SE for BufferPools:

 

Graphics: Improved vertex and index buffer handling defaults and a few other things to give up to 10% framerate improvement (as long as vsync is not enabled/forced).

[mwa05 108]

This is definitely a YMMV question.

 

On my last computer (i7-3770, GTX 970, Windows 7 Ultimate, 16GB RAM) the BP=0 did not work and caused instability. I used the reject threshold method and it worked well, was smooth, and stable. DX10SF did not work well either so I ran it on DX9.

 

On my new computer (and I still use FSX Legacy [Acceleration]) with DX10SF, BP=0 is by far the best method and I don't need to set water at 2x High to avoid artefacts - I just don't get any with an i7-6700K, GTX1080, Windows 10 Pro and 16GB RAM. I use a HDMI cable from the GTX1080 to the 4K monitor.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

[honanhal 1,420]

As an FYI: be aware that installing (or probably also updating, including GSX) any FSDreamteam product will take out the usepools=0 line from your fsx.cfg entirely. I was completely unaware that for probably the last 3 months my setup had been missing that line until I read that they do this on their forums yesterday. Sure enough, on checking my fsx.cfg, nothing there.

 

While I understand why they do it (Umberto says the tweak causes crashes that people wrongly attribute to his products that he's called on to fix), not giving any notice to their customers on install is not good practice, IMHO. I actually stumbled onto this fact when trying to find what config files Drzewiecki changes without telling you on install, so I know it's not only FSDT that does this kind of thing. Wish no one would!

 

James

[lodestar 186]

As an FYI: be aware that installing (or probably also updating, including GSX) any FSDreamteam product will take out the usepools=0 line from your fsx.cfg entirely. I was completely unaware that for probably the last 3 months my setup had been missing that line until I read that they do this on their forums yesterday. Sure enough, on checking my fsx.cfg, nothing there.

 

While I understand why they do it (Umberto says the tweak causes crashes that people wrongly attribute to his products that he's called on to fix), not giving any notice to their customers on install is not good practice, IMHO. I actually stumbled onto this fact when trying to find what config files Drzewiecki changes without telling you on install, so I know it's not only FSDT that does this kind of thing. Wish no one would!

 

James

 

This is something i realy hate. I'm ok with developers making a recomendation, but i know what i'm doing with those tweaks, so nobody should mess with my settings. This is why i have a fsx.CFG backup(and other cfg files), which i manualy copy back after i install something new. After new product installation i also check dll.xml and exe.xml, fsuipc version, C++ versions, uiautomationcore.dll version( :wink:  ) etc...

 

This is why i stopped buying(using)products which usually do such a things