Ok, I am in the process of doing the texture convert right now but I see the files being replaced with files that are of 1025 KB's in size? I am sure I did everything correctly.duttonhttp://dutton.fsblogger.com/

i had the lock up problem. i eventually reinstalled and did this tweak first and now all is well. This tweak was a magic bb for me, and i have dual 7800gtx 256 cards.as for size-ithink thats normal blogger

I had exactly the same problem, Dutton. Did you find the solution?

Hey Archtx - yea - I let it run longer - finish running that is and all was fine. I wrote that post while it was converting them.duttonhttp://dutton.fsblogger.com/

>Hey Archtx - yea - I let it run longer - finish running that>is and all was fine. I wrote that post while it was converting>them.>>dutton>http://dutton.fsblogger.com/That makes sense. The bat file runs in two passes. The first pass reduces the resolution of all the images. The second pass converts them all to DXT1 and adds mip maps.Matt

I care more about graphics and it looks awful>when I look down at the ground. The ground looks all blurred>almost like it's a zoomed in satellite photo. That can happen if the AGP aperature size is too small. On FS9, I didn't see a dastic difference, although it effectedthe quality of landing lights, etc.. But on my box, the AGPaperature needed to be cranked up to avoid the "blurries" etc on FSX.I cranked it to 128, and pretty much cured it. I then cranked itto 256, and maybe a slight bit mo better.. So I left it at 256for now. Also, overloading the video memory can lead to the blurs in bad cases. By that time, the VC view switching would be jerky too. Might look at that in your setup and make sure it's not set to too small a number. MK

>>but of course Id prefer less orange cities at night, some>white and occasional colors would be nice.>>allenI agree. I've never really been a great fan of the "smolderingembers" type of night lights. Some textures look ok at low alt's,as you can see shopping center lighting, etc, but I agree on the need for white lights dotting the view also. Not all night lightslook orange/yellow. Sometimes I consider making a version of "lightbulbs" for FSX, and I also considered that for FS9, but I'm too lazy these days to get after it. And the sheer numbers of night textures for FSX would make for a long tedious job. But... I bet I could rig up some pretty dazzly night lights if I put my mind to it. The last version of those I did was for FS2000 I think. On those I added quite a few whiter lights of varying magnitude, and also freeway car lights, etc. IE: lots of bright white headlights, and also many red dots to fake tail lights. Of course, they didn't move like FSX cars, but it gave definition to the freeways so theystood out a bit. I haven't actually checked to see if the FSX carshave lights or not at night. I'll have to check that later. It probably could be added to them also if they don't have em. Maybe they do... All they need is psuedo landing/taxi lights in the model to fake the head/tail lights. One thing I don't like is the lack of much lights out in the country side. The country is not as dark as MSFS thinks it is.. Maybe in the desert yes, but say take aflight from Dallas to Houston on a 737 in the real world. You seelights galore the whole trip. Even the boonies show quite a few lightsfrom houses, street lights, cars, stores, barns, etc... Of course, in lightbulbs, I made the country lighting a bit more dense than stock on some areas. MK

I decided to finally give in and try this. With traffic 2005 and world of ai packages my frame rates have gone down and my scenery loading has gone up. I tested this tweak on my older computer and it worked fine. Now I think I want to run it on the newer computer. My question is that if it doesn't work on the main computer can I easily take it out, like for example just remove the temp texture folder and then eveything goes back to normal. It seems like a great tweak but I don't want anything to go bad because fsx is one sensitive little game. I now have many "things" loaded and I don't want to start all over again if this doesn't work. Thanks for all that can help.

>Matt go for 512MB of higher FSX will use it :-)>I really wonder about that statement. I have a 7600/512 and have run the Memstatus program while flying FSX and I've never exceeded 256M graphic memory use. I have most sliders near the top except autogen is sparse and AI & Nboats, etc are set to 5%. Water is at 2High.System is P4 3.4/2G ram 7600/512.I also run Radar Contact, TrackIR & ASV6.Even with those running in bad weather, I do not get above 256 video ram or 1.5M system.Of course, that assumes that the Memstatus program is correct. :)Just MHO,VicVisit the Virtual Pilot's Centerwww.flightadventures.comhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/

It IS a great tweak, ff; I've been using this since Matt first published it way back when. I have a "warm" system, as you can see, but Matt's tweaks plus some of the other fsx.cfg adds have really made the sim very acceptable. Graphics are good; frame rates are good - better than fs9 on my old hardware, and the flight model is really excellent. You won't regret this - just copy all the original files to another spot and don't worry about it. It's fine.Unfortunately there are no addons - yet - that I want - and no signs of any being released anytime soon, so I've been back with FS9 since the holiday, and because of all the addons that I NOW have (Christmas!) - and with the new hardware - fs9 is magnificent! Everything is maxed; frame rates are locked at 28 and I've never had so much interesting and varied flying.

>For anyone thinking of resizing their generic ground>textures, I created a batch file to do this automatically. >There are about 6,700 of them in FSX and each is 1024x1024. >This batch file will reduce them down to 512x512 using>ImageTool and Nconvert. Entire process will probably take an>hour or two. This would probably be a good mod for anyone>with 128 meg video card. Not sure how much help it would be>for 256 or 512 meg cards. The other thing this will do is>help with load times.>>Don't forget to backup your files before doing this. Let me>know if there are any problems with it. If someone has a>better way of doing this, please do.>>Detailed instructions on how to do this can be found here>>http://www.fox-fam.com/wordpress/?page_id=41>>I did this last year but then finally went back to 1024 x 1024. It made no noticeable difference in fps with higher memory 79** cards. It also started to confound FSX with some curious texture contrasts in my case.Re WOZ

thank you for the info. I had just thought of something else to trouble me for the moment. Does this tweak do anything to the cloud9 landclass files. I have them all and i love those and don't want that to be messed up either. I am going to try it out tonight. thanks again

No, it doesn't affect landclass files. If it includes any custom ground texture files those will be resized as well.Hope this helps,--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

great, thank you for the info. I installed last night and all seems to be fine but I haven't noticed much of a difference, but it's still nice and I thank you for your help.

Everyone,I need to chime in here. This just turns my stomach to think that ACES spent 3 YEARS developing FSX. Why wasn't the reduced resolutions part of the original installation, based on user choice or detection of video memory??? This has been a practice in FS9. ACES, no excuse for missing this one. Is it arrogance on the part of ACES to assume that all of us would be upgrading our hardware, and not deal with the day or two required to assemble and test a texture resolution conversion as part of the installation? I just don't get it. It is not like ACES had no idea there would be performance issues, since it has been a factor, probably since FS 2000. Which bTW, the whole development team was fired for that debotchery.I have been reading and following the performance based threads and it really makes me sick to think of the 10s if not 100's of thousands of hours of effort the flight sim community is spending tweaking, discussing, researching, posting, and NOT FLYING. I can't think of any other game / simulation where sooooooooo much time is wasted getting acceptable performance.This would have been avoided if ACES would have written and OPTIMIZED FSX for the XBOX 360. I have seen some of the games on this platform and I must say I am blown away. Then for less than $500, we would all be flying now and AVSIM would have tons of hard drive space not taken up by these threads.This is an appalling shame in my eyes. Does anyone else feel this way?Think about how much time you are spending on AVSIM.... Maybe some just in the beginning, but still... It is like buying a new car and having to take the engine apart and tweaking it, so it can do 55 on the expressway. Is it just ME? Am I the only one who has observed this? Just my 2 cents worth!Barry