Sign in to follow this  
strider

XP File Performance vs. default Program performance POST.

Recommended Posts

This will be my last post on this subject. I'll now be too busy discovering the fabulous world of FSX. Performance-Robbing FREE!With a lot of users saying that you will be putting your computer system at risk if you decide to change over your RAM processing from program orientation to file orientation.I can only say from hours of flying FSX under the RAM performance option that if you allow XP to run in this mode (with at least 3 gigs of RAM in your system) you will FINALLY get the flight sim performance that you up until now could only dream of and fervently wish for.Two others are currently using this option. In running with LargeSystemCache format, (the old NETWORK/SERVER option in Windows 98) I no longer have the following issues when running FSX1. No land-texture blurring or slur of ANY kind. Clear textures right out to the horizon, whether in level flight, banking, in spot-view, it doesn't matter. I have never had this performance since 1984 up until today.2. Fluid animation, and not dependant upon plane movements and or viewpoint. IF you decide to fly at ground level---the CLEAR, BLUR-FREE scenery blitzes past your cockpit. Before this, unheard of!3. Taxing...no stutters or pauses. Let me repeat that...no stutters or pauses, same as in the air. It does not matter whether you are in some back-swamp airport, or KSEA. Smooth animation4. All of this is happening at around 14 FPS and up. I even had a drop over Seattle to 6 FPS for a second, but yet...fluid animation. Unheard of!I don't get paid any compensation to try to convince my fellow flight sim users that this ONE option within XP will ERADICATE EVERY, EVERY rendering and performance critique any of us, you, myself have ever had in this edition and past edition.Through hours of R and R, I plainly see that FSX clearly needs file performance enhancement via the O.S. rather than the O.S. running FSX with PROGRAMS as its main hinge point.You all please do what you wish with this information I have provided. If you trust that I am no scattered brain fool that would recklessly put my computer system in jeopardy, then for one time, give yourself a break, and place your computer in FILE performance (server) mode and run FSX for yourselves. You then decide how you wish to see your FSX or FS9 flight and program experience!Like myself, you most likely will NEVER be able to run any flight simulation on an XP based system again other than in FILE performance mode. It is that dramatic..and problem-fixing complete. All our beefs go away with XP running the show in this mode.You MUST have at least 50 percent or greater RAM using XP ,3/4 gigs to have an optimal experience as I describe.I'm not too worried about any possible flack(flames) as a result of this post. I only have to go back to a permanently fixed and trouble-free FSX experience. I can ONLY imagine what performance any of you lucky dogs who have the DUO Core systems with faster RAM than my PC4300 (533 MHz) will see with this XP feature enabled.As a final note, I have always set my O.S. '95, '98 as a NETWORK computer (another name for SERVER) and as most of you who have also, have NEVER had an issue with a destroyed or non-bootable system. Just shut down XP after closing all open programs. If anybody REALLY sweats over this, then they could merely turn on FILE preferance, (you need to reboot to enable)fly their sim, and then before turning off the computer, go back to PROGRAM pref, for any other computer usage. The next time you boot..XP comes up as the default PROGRAM setting.To all, take this post as your ticket to FSX heaven, or shake your head, smile a bit...and move onto another thread...totally the reader's choice. But remember one thing...the next time you might #### about FSX performance, stutters, bleary textures, jerky animation, low FPS issues,....there is a choice in this. I found that out! I take my chances for the ultimate flight simulation experience. That is why I own this computer....Cheers, one and all!Mitch R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Hey Mitch, did you say somewhere that this Cache is only effective if you have 3 or 4 gigs?ThanksBob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Bob,I read somewhere in my wanderings over this subject today that you need equal and/or greater than 50 percent of the MAX 4 available to XP. It is the spare and 'seemingly' unused RAM that allows XP to flex its muscle.You see, instead of closing out files and placing them back to the drive, and then having to get them all over again when needed, XP in this mode uses your physical RAM that is left unused by the program(s) running to have them for instantaneous access. You could try it out with lets say two gigs, but no way in the WORLD would I try this mode out on a 1 gig system. That is where the possible snafus could arise and have been reported in the past.My opinion, just not an expert one, :) But then again, who ever IS really an 'expert'...and claims total knowledge upon a subject. I haven't seen one verbatim. :)Mitch'er

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch,I have 2 gigs of DDR2-667 RAM (PC2-5300)Think it would be safe with only 2GB?Thanks,Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to say, "yes", glen, but being that in this mode I was almost using a full 2 gigs of memory running FSX..I'd say not. There is not enough head-room ( I THINK) with only 2.BUT...You could try it for a few moments and see how your system runs. If you don't CTD, then I guess you will hover around the 1.78 gig's I was having reported via memstatus.This is just my opinion, of course. Put another way, I would say it is a go with 3 and or 4 for sure. I've been running my system as of early this morning pretty much non-stop in FILE mode, with no ill effects. The system is yawning at me...lolMitch R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you've 'always' used that setting since '95, then why are you just telling us now that FSX is running awsome for you? If you truely used that setting all this time you would never have had issues with FSX and no reason to jump around creating three threads on the same subject.I'm not trying to knock you, or discredit you in any way. All I am trying to do is try to make you understand just how severe a problem could be using 'File' mode. I don't think you fully grasp it, especially when you mention that you've ran it like this for hours with no ill effects. It can take days, weeks, months for something to go wrong, and usually will be caused by a random crash, after which the user finds things missing, corrupt, or whatever.Please think about other users for a second. If you are going to claim that this has solved your problems then please don't lie about having always used this setting, when it's evident that you didn't have a clue about it until a few nights ago. Please don't try to convince people that it must be safe because you've ran your machine for mere hours without a hitch.Again, I'm not trying to knock you, I just want to make sure that your aware that you're handing out poisonous pills to people who may or may not know any better. At this time, most people would try anything to get better framerates, and chances are that a whole lot of people would jump on this. You may have gotten through a night or so at this setting, but I assure you that your next system crash won't be as pleasant as any other crash you've ever seen.... it won't just be a matter of rebooting to get back to stability, you'll find missing data or corrupt data all over the place.On the positive side of things. If you really think that this tweak is somehow working, I encourage you to experiment. I encourage you to define what is happening, and why FSX is seeing a performance increase. Use this knowledge, along with your friend, Google, and see if there is an alternative method of achieving what you need. I only encourage you because I know that your box is dedicated to FSX, and that no personal data is at risk. Other people may not be so lucky, this is why we, tinkerers, have to be careful when telling others to try something potentially explosive.I hope I come across properly here. I'm not dissing you Mitch, I believe maybe you could be on to something, but the way in which you've achieved it needs to be studied and a better solution found.Personally though, I had zero perormance increase. In fact, I have to report that with that setting turned on, I went from using 1.3GB steady to only 7-800MB. I can't explain it, I don't know why it decreased my 'allowance'... but it did. To add to that, turning the setting off has not brought me back up to 1.3GB.... I'm still at 800megs max. (This is one ill effect already...)TO ANYONE who does want to try this tweak without worrying about losing any data, you can. Make sure that from the time you reboot to enable the setting to the time you switch it back, do not make any file changes. This means don't check email, don't load up your browser or start any programs except for FSX. Run it for a while, a good long while, hour or two. When your done, put the setting back and reboot immediately when asked to. This should minimize the chance that any corruption take place. If your FSX is prone to BSOD's or system halts, please refrain from using this tweak... it'll only cause you more problems. Please report in this thread what your max memory usage was for FSX, and whether it seemed to help performance at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch,This is the silliest part in all your posts...."4. All of this is happening at around 14 FPS and up. I even had a drop over Seattle to 6 FPS for a second, but yet...fluid animation. Unheard of!" If your seeing such fluid animation at between 6 and upwards of 14 fps, I have some real estate for you to look at Mitch. I am getting really tired of the "smooth frame rate" crowd somehow believing that 15 is as good in FSX as 30 is in anything else. Anything below the upper 20's is NOT an enjoyable flight sim experience. I daresay most would consider 15 stuttering, and can't tell the difference between microstutters and slower frame rates near this number. I wish more folks would quit accepting such crappy frame rates. Making claims that frame rate in a sim is different than the same frame rate in another is just ludicrous. It also detracts from any credibility in your posts.Does not compute.Glad your having such a great time Mitch! Hornit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Making claims that frame rate in a sim is different>than the same frame rate in another is just ludicrous. It also>detracts from any credibility in your posts.>I disagreemost civilly, of courseRhettAMD 3700+ (@2.5 ghz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (94.47), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Fred said in the other post I too have been running this with only 1 gig of memory for the last 1 to 2 years. I actually did not realise it but I went in to change it and it was already there. It must have been one of the tweaks I applied for XP a long time ago. It does work and I have had no issues with it. But as others have said it is like all other tweaks perform at your own risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mitch can you post some screen shots of your FSX and some screen shots of your memory use thanks.Edit never mind Mitch I reread the whole post. So XP is using memory kind of like in stealth mode then now I get it.:-) Got to try it I just wish they were not gouging us on memory prices this days.:-mad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only have 2 gigs of dram, and I have had my computer set to the system cache settings for several days, with no problems, so you can take this as 1 yeah.I can't vouch for whether it will work for you. I run XP Home, with SP2, 2 gigs of mem on a 2.8 P4. I only have the pc2100 memory, so this is not the high test variety, but I have never had a problem with this setting. I first read about it in a PC Pilot I think, and posted what I read, which prompted someone to give it a go, and they posted that it screwed their computer all to....Thinking about grabbing another meg of mem, just to see how it does though, because I don't plan on buying another computer any time soon.Good fortune to you if you give it a go!Regards,Den

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now difference for me with just the setting(don't know if it would be different if I had more than 2 gigs of ram). Tested it with the same settings in the same area. Flew out of Mccarran (Vegas) in the Bell helo flying about 70 knots. 12fps on the ground 15 once I got out of the Strip area and 20 near the suburbs with autogen at dense. Same result with file cashing enabled. Maybe the extra gig or two would make it different. Still doesn't feel smooth for me until I get far from the main strip area in the suburbs(where I get 20fps which on my system seems where it becomes smooth)with either file cashing or programs.Carlos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what do you mean by "You MUST have at least 50 percent or greater RAM using XP"50% of what ?I changed the DPageExecutive (or whatever it is) setting last night,restarted, which resulted in smoother panning, though this wasnt reflected in the frame rate count.Changed the LargeSystemCache to 1,restarted,more sluggish. Again no change in frame rate count (that i could tell)Athlon 64 4000+2x 7800GT3GB ramnot sure what type the ram is. CPUZ said the speed was ~166MHZ..could this be a bit slow, and why i am not seeing any benefit from LargeSystemCache=1 ?disappointed it hasnt worked, for me...yet. But did enjoy reading your rather enthusiastic posts :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is simple to answer. On W95 and W98 it was called either HOME or NETWORK. I didn't exactly understand it was FILE CACHIING when putting your comp over to NETWORK. I just knew it gave me better system performance let alone when running FS98, etc...I did NOT have XP running other than program---until yesterday. NOW...I have 'NETWORK' running hot and straight. In XP parlance, File Mode.Why three? Because this single one setting with my 3 gigs of PC-4300 RAM has eradicated every and all performance issues with FSX.Even the acceleration down the runway is quite thrilling to behold. I now FEEL the movement within the cockpit as well as feel I am moving forward, ever faster. Before FILE MODE? Nothing of the kind.I have never had an issue with using FILE CACHING in three platforms of computers. I am typing right now in FILE MODE, and the only thing I do, is to close all programs manually, as well as let the O.S. do its thing at the end. The only other thing to safeguard data that you might be writing to, etc. is to merely do a save every five minutes. That will duplicate the low 4 MEG alternative. It's that easy.Mitch R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When first firing up the first DEMO, I immediately saw that you got GREATER, not ULTIMATE,....animation and smoothness IF compared to FS2002 or FS2004.I would love to have 30 fps, but now at 14-18 that my system puts out, I am getting GREAT (as compared to out of the box and tweaks before going to FILE MODE) animation, no stutters, no hesitation. I can only imagine what 30 will give me. When I say smoothness, you have to understand that because there are no longer any update jerkiness, it APPEARS smoother to the eye. With 30 FPS, you will get FASTER animation. But, at 14-18 on FSX, it gives you also, SMOOTHER animation.I can wait for the hardware to render 30 fps, because I am now satisfied to be patient.Being patient isn't the same as accepting. If I truly accepted only 14-18 as my goal, I would not be thinking beyond another system.FILE MODE makes FSX truly very PLAYABLE, as in contrast to B*TCH City that has been the case since having come out. Try it...you'll like the result as long as you have 3 to 4 gigs of memory. I say that because I am posting these results with having USED FSX with my 3 gigs of physical RAM.Hope this helps,Mitch R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you! I know that anybody that tries this with enough RAM for XP to work with and store data, is going to reap unbelievable results, UNTIL hardware is here that can render with XP in default mode, if with enough system RAM that is even necessary.I never lie..and I despise those that B.S.Whatever I publish within posts is the result usually of just coming off a flight with something else that has improved my experience, and compels me to wish to share 'the good news' with others on AVSIM.Nothing else.Enjoy FSXMitch R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crucial's memory is coming down per week. I bought 2 gigs (2X 1 GIG PC-4300 533Mhz) for $157.99 USD.I just checked the same 'kit' and it is now $7.00 less.You'll love FSX (until we get 30 fps from systems as the median) It is now working like FS9, with your settings as they were when running XP in PROGRAM mode and not FILE (NETWORKING) mode.Cheers!Mitch'er

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have to try and find where I read that for FILE caching (NETWORKING on prior O.S. releases), you need at least 50 percent of the total RAM capacity that your O.S. recognises. This is for Windows O.S.'s.... I read that a while ago. At that time I had that and more in my Pent 200, Celeron 1.4, etc....That would be a MINIMUM of 2 GIGS with XP.The optimum I read is 75 percent of that: 3 GIGS.That's why I ordered 2 in the kit, going from one.It has certainly paid off for me, big time!Mitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please think about other users for a second. If you are going to claim that this has solved your problems then please don't lie about having always used this setting, when it's evident that you didn't have a clue about it until a few nights ago. Please don't try to convince people that it must be safe because you've ran your machine for mere hours without a hitch.-------------------------------------------I guess you misunderstood, or I did not communicate very well.I have always used NETWORK in W95 and W98. I did not see this in XP when setting it up, and did NOT (yes, you are right) know about the memory setting in the advanced pull-down.When I saw what it did, by reading about it yesterday, I realized that I had been using this setting FILE CACHING for YEARS...with NEVER a crash, whatsoever. In prior O.S. releases, it was called either the HOME setting, or the NETWORK(Server) setting. I hope this helps,Mitch R.Lie? I don't think so.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bob,I read somewhere that for the most of the NETWORK (older W95 and W98) setting, you should have at least 50 percent of the total physical RAM that the O.S. recognizes.I also read in that article, that the OPTIMUM would be to give your system 75 percent capacity when looking at a cost/performance peak.I just read where somebody with 2 gigs is having a blast, right now!:)Because File Mode HOLDS data within memory for instant access and then later writes it to disk, having MORE certainly is a safety net.Again, I have used this 'NETWORK/SERVER' since buying my first Pentium, and have NEVER had to reinstall my O.S. as a result. With all the hoof law over this setting, I guess I was blindly and blissfully ignorant of it all...and enjoyed the performance boost for years....(smile). Mitch R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this