85=01010101, your system reads these from the right to the left as next; core/ HT/ core/ HT/ core/ HT/ core/ HT/ so you can see that with 85 as AM you are using all 4 cores equal which is the same as no AM so nothing to do with AM, I don't know about DX10 only then that there are a lot of misunderstandings about what the DX10 fixer does like improving frame rates and other placebo effects, it only corrects textures to be correctly shown in FSX with the DX10 preview on, nothing less, nothing more.

If you have bluries then you should use your NVidia inspector and in game settings correctly;

http://www.simforums.com/Forums/drivers-nv-inspector-fsxcfg-complete-guide_topic36586.html

Follow every step here and I'm sure your bluries have gone.

Herman

1 minute ago, electricman said:

85=01010101, your system reads these from the right to the left as next; core/ HT/ core/ HT/ core/ HT/ core/ HT/ so you can see that with 85 as AM you are using all 4 cores equal which is the same as no AM so nothing to do with AM, I don't know about DX10 only then that there are a lot of misunderstandings about what the DX10 fixer does like improving frame rates and other placebo effects, it only corrects textures to be correctly shown in FSX with the DX10 preview on, nothing less, nothing more.

If you have bluries then you should use your NVidia inspector and in game settings correctly;

http://www.simforums.com/Forums/drivers-nv-inspector-fsxcfg-complete-guide_topic36586.html

Follow every step here and I'm sure your bluries have gone.

Herman

Hmm, mysterious.  To be clear, everything in my Sim set correctly including Nvidia inspector and runs very well on high settings. So, not touching anything. I'm not the OP. Just added my 2 cents to the discussion and I'm curious about how things work.

☺️

André  

I understand you, FSX works sometimes in mysterious ways and the big problem is that testing something in FSX isn't easy, you can only test  and compare tweaks if you use exactly the same scenery, location, airplane and set up, in game settings and even ( and that is the hardest ) the weather, one cloud more or less can already give a difference in frames so the only advice I can give here is if you have it running smooth and without blurries and are happy with the performance without getting focused on frame rate, then leave the settings alone and enjoy it,

Herman

1 hour ago, electricman said:

85=01010101, your system reads these from the right to the left as next; core/ HT/ core/ HT/ core/ HT/ core/ HT/ so you can see that with 85 as AM you are using all 4 cores equal which is the same as no AM so nothing to do with AM....

Herman

One more time... 85 is not the same as no AM.

85 uses 4 cores, "no AM" uses up to 8.

But, yes, 85 is a good choice for a quad core i7 with Hyperthreading ON.

If you use Active Sky, it reminds you when you fire it up that bad things will happen (freeze) if you DON'T install Affinity Mask.  It does it for you automatically.  Should I say YES to that or just ignore it?

 

Stan

Your choice 

You can switch the notion of in the options menu of AS16 if you don't have the freezes.

As to Bert, FSX isn't designed to use hyperthreading, P3D is so for FSX AM 85 is the same as no AM

Herman

10 hours ago, electricman said:

As to Bert, FSX isn't designed to use hyperthreading, P3D is so for FSX AM 85 is the same as no AM

Herman

I believe you are mistaken.

Hyperthreading is handled by Windows, as best I know.

Easy enough to check - just look at load distribution across the eight (2X4) cores with HT = on.

according to some googling I did in order for a program to be able to use hyperthreading it has to be parallel program coded for it and FSX wasn't coded that way but some add ons may be and for those HT may help. Most people running only FSX that did test the HT AM didn't see any benefit from that at all.

So Bert, since we have been discussing this already for some time now, here and in the F1 forum, let 's just agree to disagree on this item and let everybody decide for them selves.

The most important thing is that people don't get confused to much about what number they should use for AM and I'm afraid that that has already happened, so if somebody could explain it in a good way then feel welcome to explain it here.

Herman

I am not saying that HT would be of benefit to FSX.. exactly the opposite.

As you stated, FSX was not coded for HT and gets no benefit from it.

With HT, Windows will use all 8 (real and virtual) cores to schedule work, and FSX is actually better off running on the four real cores only.

Hence, limiting the cores by using an AM of 84 or 85 simulates turning off HT, and is of benefit to FSX.

 

6 hours ago, electricman said:

according to some googling I did in order for a program to be able to use hyperthreading it has to be parallel program coded for it and FSX wasn't coded that way but some add ons may be and for those HT may help.

FSX was updated to run Multicore in either SP1 or SP2.  That comes directly from the ACES Team.

Best wishes!

 

33 minutes ago, DaveCT2003 said:

FSX was updated to run Multicore in either SP1 or SP2.  That comes directly from the ACES Team.

+1

FSX was indeed updated for multicore use ( 4 to be exact ) but there is a big difference between multi core and hyperthreading, the last is not a core, it is only some programming that lets the system think that there are more cores and the bogus( let's call it that ) core ( read HTcore) only works if the main core is at rest and if your program ( in this case FSX since you put the AM in the FSX.cfg and not in Windows ) isn't coded for HT then it won't work, don't confuse people even more or nobody sees the trees in the forest anymore,

Herman

7 hours ago, electricman said:

...it is only some programming that lets the system think that there are more cores and the bogus( let's call it that ) core ( read HTcore) only works if the main core is at rest and if your program ( in this case FSX since you put the AM in the FSX.cfg and not in Windows ) isn't coded for HT...

I run FSX Accel on my 4790K with HT on and an AM of 212 (in fsx.cfg).  Cores 6 (physical) and 7 (logical, or what you call "HTcore") are both working simultaneously just fine.

Regards,

Greg

Well then you have superb eyes since the resting periods of the physical core are in the order of milliseconds and that you can't see in taskmanager

or do you claim that a quad core with HT on is the same as an octo core? then maybe you should take this discussion on to Intel and their engineers.

regards, Herman