Sign in to follow this  
McCrash

A Tweak That Helped My Frame Rates

Recommended Posts

I dont know if this will work for everyone but it worked for me. I got much less stuttering when I turned pagefile OFF. you heard right. I have 3Gig Ram so I tried just turning OFF the pagefile/swapfile in windows and it drasticly changed my FPS and Stuttering!Hope this helps!Gary Trammell

Share this post


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

>I dont know if this will work for everyone but it worked for>me. I got much less stuttering when I turned pagefile OFF. you>heard right. I have 3Gig Ram so I tried just turning OFF the>pagefile/swapfile in windows and it drasticly changed my FPS>and Stuttering!>>Hope this helps!>>Gary TrammellHow much difference in frame rate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi HowardRight click on my computer then properties, advanced tab, performance settings, advanced, then virtual memory, change, then select no page file and set. No warranty given.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would have to reinstall FSX on the ram disk every time you want to run it. have fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't find a great framerate difference but it sure makes my panning smoother. So far so good with 2Gig of RAM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I should have worded it idfferent ,, Not really Frame Rate but much less stutter when panning?!*Smile*Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting that, Gary. It just might be the tweak that makes the difference for many of us. It certainly can't hurt to try it.Robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is is because instead of using a hard drive for the extra memory FS needs it is strictly using your much faster ram to read from. It works well if you have more than 1 gig of ram. Performance (Slow loading from hard drive) does at points directly affects FPS but even if one's FPS are low the stuttering will pretty much cease reading from ram..Best,Randy J. Smith<<>>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>You would have to reinstall FSX on the ram disk every time>you want to run it. have fun!heh. A person would use up their free activations really fast that way. haha.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I don't find a great framerate difference but it sure makes>my panning smoother. So far so good with 2Gig of RAM.What are your hard drive specs?RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I guess I should have worded it idfferent ,, Not really Frame>Rate but much less stutter when panning?!>>>*Smile*>>GaryGary have you experimented with BufferPools and TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT settings?Those two can really effect panning smoothness, too...RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>> Is is because instead of using a hard drive for the extra>memory FS needs it is strictly using your much faster ram to>read from. It works well if you have more than 1 gig of ram.>Performance (Slow loading from hard drive) does at points>directly affects FPS but even if one's FPS are low the>stuttering will pretty much cease reading from ram..>Yes and in a related vein, I am wondering Windows Vista's ReadyBoost feature, will help here.After all, flash ram is faster than HD.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is similar to a question I posed a few months ago. I ended up purchasing a 10,000 rpm drive. I put 2 partitions on it. 1 that is small for page file, 1 that is large for FSX. I have nothing else on this drive. I also added rem to total what I have in my sig. With my modest specs, performance has been decent. I found this article to be VERY informative.http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=143&pgno=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Microsoft support page for FSX has now added doing a selective startup as an option for enhancing performance. I've tried it and it's easier to do than stopping programs one by one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>Wonder about the paging file on the USB Flash Drive?Well for that matter, how about a paging file on a ramdisk? It probably is not worth the ram cost to do that, though, especially for us FS'ers.I would think there may be issues with using a flash drive to hold the paging file though, since it would be just like having a temporary paging file, which is not as fast as a fixed (contiguous) page file.Also there is the issue of the size of available flash drives...4 gb+ would probably be ideal. So at present, using a flash drive as a cache is a more viable option for most people I guess.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Gary:I have 3GB of 400 memory on a Intel 3.2 CPU and a 6800XT-AGP-256Bit/512MB video card. Tried your suggestion and at least for the first time kinda enjoyed flying FSX. I had about given up without spending big bucks which I don't think I will do specifically and only for this version of FS unless massive improvement shows up as testified to by a significant number of witnesses. Your suggestion improved my outlook somewhat significantly at least.Having to be picky as to where one flys, in what they fly, and how little scenery options can be utilized was still defaulting back to FS9 where I had none of these problems. This is especially true when I hear that those with peak systems still cannot tackle high density areas very successfully. One really wonders about when the really great complex stuff hits the fan (Or at least I hope it does). Hopefully, in a few months hardware will be available that will meet the potential of FSX.I just flew from KLWB to KJYO in the Baron, flew around Washington, DC for a while, then flew in the Reginal Jet from KJYO to KBTR. Frame rates were normally in the teens to 20 in transit, but reasonably smooth, certainly flyable to me personally. Flying around DC was another matter, but the scenery is beautiful. One gripe I have with FSX is the fixation on terrain relative to the season (Nothing but snow North, nothing but gray South). Hopefully third party contribution will solve that bit and give us more realistic variation. My limitation setting is 20FPS anyway, as these tired old eyes have never been able to tell the difference with anything higher than that. Yea, I know, to you frame rate purest this is herasy, but it is a little like listening to a Sterio to me. I have never been able to tell the difference in the $2,000 rig there either, but my wife says I have retarded ears.I experimented extensively with settings. I used the Pentagon as my reference point. When I turned Scenery Complexity or Autogen below the listed settings, I lost the Pentagon along with other similar scenery. For what it might be worth to anyone, the following were my settings:Ansiotropic filtering = 8X (Video Card)Antialiasing Settings = 4X (Video Card)FSX>Options>Settings>Display>GraphicsTarget Frame Rate = 20Full Screen Resolution = 1280x960x32Global texture resolution = Very HighLens Flare = Unchecked OffLight Bloom = Unchecked OffAdvanced animations = Unchecked OffFiltering = TrileanerAnti-aliasing = Unchecked Off (Will try this rather than card later)FSX>Options>Settings>Display>AircraftGlobal Settings = Very LowDefault Cockpit View = 2D Instrument Panel (Bet I lost all you virtual cockpit purest huh)Show cockpit Tooltips = Unchecked OffHigh Resolution 3-D virtual cockpit: Checked On (Am I back in your good graces yet?)2 D panel transparency = Slider Full LeftAircraft Casts Shadows on the ground = Unchecked OffAircraft casts shadows on itself = Unchecked OffAircraft Landing Lights illuminate ground = Checked OnFSX>Options>Settings>Display>SceneryAll sliders are full right including Special effects except the following:Water effects = Low 2XScenery Complexity = NormalAutogen density = SparseGround Scenery Shadows = Unchecked OffLand detail textures = Checked OnFSX>Options>Settings>Display>WeatherGlobal Settings = Very LowCloud draw distance = 60 MilesThermal visualization = NoneCloud detail = Simple CloudsCloud coverage density = LowDownload winds aloft = Off UncheckedDisable turbulence and thermal effects = Unchecked OffRate at which weather changes = MediumNote: I did use the Jep. undated online weather every 15 mins. during my flights.FSX>Options>Settings>Display>TrafficGlobal Settings = CustomAirline traffic = 23%General Aviation Trafic = 24%Airport Vehicle Density = MediumAll aircraft labels were Checked On except User Aircraft and tail No.Label color = RedCyclke rate = 1 Sec.Road Vehicles = 17%Ships and Ferries = 19%Lesiure Boats = 22%I did see significant vehicles on the road, and at the airport. Kind of neat to have utility vehicles run up to my bird as soon as I killed the engines.The thing that has worried me most is that even with Vista and DX10, to my limited knowledge what it sounds like to me from what I read is that FSX is ALMOST purely dependant upon greater CPU's but utilizes multicore very little. Making this more complex is that the CPU manufactures have chosen to increase their greatness PRIMARILY by multicore implementation. If this turned out to be true, appears to me that three years from now we will be right where we are now as far as performance is concerned and we still will not be able to open the FSX bag to get all the goodies. In my ignorance, I sure hope this concern has no credibility at all. We may get there yet in spite of my apprehension.Happy flying and thanks again Gary:RTH1585368CFI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with turning off the pagefile is that one your RAM is full, you will receive an Out of Memory error and FSX will crash. There are other options, e.g. reducing the amount of files that are paged, clearing the pagefiles etc. See this and other articles there http://www.speedguide.net/read_articles.php?id=1404

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgot to add that in Windows XP you actually cannot disable Virtual Memory. Even if you disable the pagefile, the OS will page to the HD if necessary. Run FSX and press Ctrl Alt Del then check PF Usage ... :)That said, I do see some FPS gains when disabling the pagefile, don't know if it will be stable though. More to read on the issue: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000422.html

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