XP File Performance vs. default Program performance POST.

[Guest shockboy2000]

i'll try it with the LargeSystemCache=1 in isolation tonight.Yes i restarted after doing the other change, and again after this change.None of the Autogen tweaks (reduce variety of trees etc), resizing textures, remove fast food restaraunts, population per cell etc did anything to performance either. They just resulted in progressively degrading quality of scenery. They've all been reversed.

[Guest tmilton]

>>> 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.>>I've gotta disagree with you there Hornit. I've found 15 FPS>to be >quite fine in FSX for some reason..whereas that framerate>wouldn't >satisfy me in other games. I'm using the internal framerate>counter >in FSX though and haven't looked at the FPS using FRAPS or>something >else..so maybe what FSX is reporting is below what it actually>is. >That is the only way I could explain away 15 FPS as being>acceptable. >But whatever the case, it is acceptable. >>Regards..>BeachAV8RI would have to agree with BeachAV8R on this one, and a FPS of 15 is actually quite flyable. To me, the point at which the sim becomes unflyable is when the FPS goes below 10. Of course, for the smoothest visual experience, I would like at least a 25, but I was talking about what's actually flyable, and 15 does make the cut.

[Guest bdg]

AllI tried the casche and did notice a little improvement on smoothness but did not gain any frames. To gain or not to gain is the question and the gain may very well be system dependent to some degree.I already have a fast system so that may be why I did not see much of an improvement, but I did this with 2 gig of ram. Here are my specs.AMD FX-57 oc'd 10%(2) 7800GTX in SLI Antialiasing Mode oc'd 12%(2) 10k rpm sata drives in Raid(0)Maybe someone with a lower end system would benefit more from this proposed configuration.RegardsBob

[Cruachan 705]

Hi,I am in no doubt whatsoever that this tweak is working for you Mitch. However, having now read the following article, I feel the rest of us should exercise some caution before experimenting:http://support.microsoft.com/kb/895932What we could do, I suppose, is first ensure that you have a fall-back position by either creating a full system backup or a restore point or, indeed, both. It is perhaps reassuring to know that, as the article states, if your system fails to boot then choosing 'Last Known Good Configuration' will eliminate the tweak and get you back up and running in the pre-tweak state. This, I presume, assumes that random file corruption has not occurred across your HD during the days/weeks/months while the tweak was operating.I think that if I was going to give it a whirl I would be choosing to perform a full system backup before proceeding down this road.Good luck, Mitch! (And I DO mean it)Meantime I am reluctant, but feeling tempted nonetheless ;)Regards, Mike

[JerryG 1]

I also agree. For some reason, lower FPS values in FSX do not equate to the same values in FS9. In other words, flying in the high teens on FSX is smooth - quite smooth.JerryG

[Guest Ozzie]

>Hi>>Would you care to elaborate on these great risks that you are>telling about ?>>TeroWell I will try to - even though things have changed since I was workingBack when I was working - servers were ALWAYS astronomically more expensive than desktops - that was for a reason - THEY WERE MADE OUT OF BETTER QUALITY COMPONENTS being the simple answerFile cacheing WILL give you better (faster) results - BUT at potentially dangerous consequenses IF anything goes wrong - with File cacheing - it does exactly what it says - it caches the file in RAM for rapid access - in the case of FS - that is a bonus because the CPU does not have to use a program to go and "look for" it on the disk therefore increasing the perceived "speed" of the machine (or program) That is absolutely fantastic and correct - AS LONG AS NOTHING GOES WRONG - eventually the CPU will have a little bit of "idle time" and be able to write the files "back to" the disk - once again - nothing wrong with that provided that whatever application is being used does have some sort of a "lull" in it to give the CPU time to do this - SERVERS (at least PROPER servers) have all sorts of "safety features" built into them e.g. EEC RAM used to be one (4 times the price for 50% better quatity AND the ability to have a "checksum" (in case of an error)I could go on & on - but the simple answer is that an aweful LOT of machines that we all use today DO NOT necessarily have quality components in them - irrespective of what brand name they have or what price we have to pay for themLet me give a small scenarioI am having a fantastic time flying around Seattle or wherever and after an hour or so I decide that I would like to check my email - I put FS on pause - open up my email and check it - I hava message - great - I then answer that message and CLOSE my emailGreat - I can now go back to flyingDuring my little discourse into another program (in this case chosen Email system - plus of course incoming Email - plus of course the fact that I actually replied) - ALL that additional information is NOW stered in Cache - It has NOT yet been written to the disk - hopefully the files that were already in Cache have been correctly written back to disk - Last used - 1st kicked back outSo far - so good - BUT what happens IF we just have a couple of little tiny power fluctuations - you know - the ones where the lights just dim for a second - they ARE power spikes (either UP or DOWN - unless you are running on a GOOD UPS) and THEY can quite easily just "FLIP" one or more bits in the RAM - that is called a corruption (potentially) - sometimes the OS can take care of single bit errors - sometimes it cannotThere is therefore the potential for a file that is sitting in cache to have a 1 or 2 or 3 bit corruption if or when it gets written back to the disk on the basis of "last used first out"Now I know that this is starting to become a wee tad long but I hope at least some of you are absorbing it and realising the potential consequenses - I will try and speed up the processLets just say that texture 100098700.BMP (or whatever) is a VERY common texture and over the days/weeks/months/years it has sloooowly accumulated enough bit errors to become corrupted FS will at some point NOT be able to read it and will "SPIT THE DUMMY" - that is called a "CRASH" - what happen in the event of a CRASH - WELL!!! depending on the OS the files in Cache are then "SPLATTERED ALL OVER THE DISK" And THAT my friends is possibly the last time you see your data unless the writers of the OS have cleaned up their act since I last worked - in fairness - the writers of SERVER OS SOFTWARE probably have - but I for one am not sure about consumer type OS'sIF you ONLY have FS and an OS on you computer and are happy enough to deal with any consequences AND you are totally confident that you have TO QUALITY components (not necessarily expensive) in your machine - THEN this is a good suggestion - (Mind you - I would not trust my system THAT much)- otherwise I tend to suggest caution - especially IF you have all sorts of other garbage or your machine other than JUST FS and an OSTuppence from an ol'f@rt

[Guest Rayed]

>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>I never do this type of post, but quoted for agreement.Anything below really high 20 FPS is a piece of unplayable crap and should be never released (assuming (not broken) recommended system spec taken from the box cannot achieve this frame rate 99% of time). No matter if you play FPS, flight sim, RPG or whatever. It looks awful, you can't perform any precise flying and if someone really thinks 15 fps or below is "fluid" - pay visit to your doctor (eye check) or I have really good property to sell you here (really nice swamp near me). Fluid my arse. Not only that, but it can possibly make you dizzy, tired after very short time etc. and you can even puke. My another favorite quote is "we render whole world and there is so much going on in FS, you can't compare it to any other game" Like in other games there isn't so much going on... at 30-70 FPS. give me a break from this BS :) (or at least 90% of it)And yes VISTA and DirectX 10 will make FSX perform at least 500% faster, yarr!:)Vent mode off!

[Guest BOPrey]

Works great for me. Thanks.

[robert young 2,897]

I'm a bit confused Mitch, about the precise tweaks necessary for this performance increase. There appears to be a registry tweak for the file chaching bit of this, but I am confused about the newtwork server bit too.In My Computer/Properties you can change your XP system to that of a network machine, as opposed to personal computer. Is this one of the tweaks, or is the tweak ONLY to change LargeSystemCache format in the registry?Come to think of it, I see hundreds of posts about this subject but cannot find a single post which takes one STEP BY STEP, move by move through this tweak.Would you (or someone) please be kind enough to take us through EXACTLY the right steps. That would be much appreciated.Thanks,Rob Young

[Guest Ozzie]

>And yes VISTA and DirectX 10 will make FSX perform at least>500% faster, yarr!Sorry too much - almost everything that I have read indicates that Vista will produce a 20% DROP in performance

[Guest BOPrey]

Control Panel/System/Advanced/Settings(under Performance)/Advance/Memory usage

[BrzI 26]

I think a short warning is needed here:You need ECC memory AND a BIOS that supports ECC memory.Otherwise you are risking file corruption.Thanks

[robert young 2,897]

Thanks, but if that is all this tweak is I have already had this one in place ever since this computer was first booted! So I must have been seeing the performance increase since day one. Certainly doesn't look particularly fast. Is this what all the fuss is about?Rob Young

[Reset XPDR 1,372]

How many times must you post this in this forum when you know it always ends up in the hardware forum. Don't you read the stickies or the progress of your own threads?Gary

[BeachAV8R 9]

> It looks awful, you can't perform any>precise flying and if someone really thinks 15 fps or below is>"fluid" - pay visit to your doctor (eye check) or I have>really good property to sell you here (really nice swamp near>me). Fluid my arse. :) You can't perform any precise flying at 15FPS? Hmm...you might want to visit the doctor and get a coordination check.. Just a suggestion.. :) Your post..and the confrontational tone..drain 95% of the meaning out of your words. I'm getting used to that on the 'net though...such a shame..Good luck..BeachAV8R