XP File Performance vs. default Program performance POST.

[Geofa 108]

Makes a big difference on my rig....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest thedoggg]

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

[Guest shockboy2000]

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 :)

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

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.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

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.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

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.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

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

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

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

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

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.....

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

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.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

I would only change the LargeSystemCache to 1. I'd leave everything else at default.I see you have a Athlon, but that should make no difference.Did you reboot before you fired up FSX?You have to reboot before the system sees the change.Mitch

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Hi Carlos,Did you REBOOT after you changed from PROGRAM to FILE?You need to.Mitch

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

It made ALL the difference on mine. No other tweak accomplished what this did...OR...in COMBINATION with all the other great findings from the guys and gals, this one brought them all---home.Glad it is working for you, Geofa!Mitch

[teropa 4]

HiWould you care to elaborate on these great risks that you are telling about ?Tero

[BeachAV8R 9]

> 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..BeachAV8R