Hi Tom,Where is the BufferPool line? My cfg file does not contain the line.Thanks,Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Development Team Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterHiFi Beta TeamRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/AirSource Member: http://www.air-source.us/FSEconomy Member:http://www.fseconomy.com/

A FYI for everyone Re: SP1. The performance increase target for FSX SP1 is 20%, +/- a bit depending on configuration.Lee

This is really confusing me. This is the facts as I thought they were to be:1) FSX was developed to run optimally with Windows Vista2) FSX was developed to be a DX10 capable game with unmatched visual graphics that were as close to photo-realistic that has been seen to date3) The DX10 patch for FSX was supposed to be released shortly after Windows Vista was released so you could achieve the results listed in #2This was the way I understood things to be back in October when FSX was released. We even talked then about how FSX may not run optimally with Windows XP since it was being designed around Windows Vista and DX10. Now, this is how I understand the current situation to be:1) ACES is spending bunches of time to release an SP1 patch that will mainly optimize FSX to run in Windows XP2) We have recently been informed that work on a DX10 patch will not begin until after the SP1 patch is released to help FSX run in Windows XP3) The DX10 patch will not be ready for months from now (I am guessing it won't be out until late this year or early next by the way it sounds)This really has my head spinning. What in the world are you wanting to do with FSX. Make it run on Vista? Make it run on XP? Make it run in DX9? Make it run on DX10? Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. They are also going to start work on a Train Simulator too. Wow, talk about multi-tasking.This is why I am frustrated with this whole affair, along with many other flight simmers (well over the majority), and the entire Add-On market as a whole. Nobody knows what to do right now. Maybe I was anticipating this DX10 stuff to be more than what it was. I mean, you all have seen that picture they have put out everywhere saying this is what DX10 will look like in FSX haven't you. Did you all not think FSX was going to look a whole lot better than what it does now.I know we can all go round and round about this stuff. The only reason I am so frustrated is because I am so disappointed that getting a DX10 capable FSX seems to be slipping away month by month and closer and closer to 2008. Most simmers are not converting over to FSX except for the few of you who seem to be happy with your FSX experience. Most of us are not. We did not get what we thought we were going to have by this time. I definitely was not thinking I was going to be getting flawless performance with FSX on a mediocre machine. I was planning on putting together a $3,800 machine about this time with all the great stuff out now to run DX10 games. I have completely shelved this plan for now until this Vista/DX10 stuff gets fully accepted in the gaming market and DX10 games that I want start showing up.Hey, I am glad you guys who are enjoying FSX are having fun with it. Some day I will be able to join you. FSX is going to be a great sim some day, I am not arguing that at all. It has lots of potential, and I do hope Add-On developers eventually feel comfortable putting great Add-Ons together for it (especially PMDG, and Level-D). Heck, I even think that Train Simulator game sounds interesting too, and I will probably be playing around with that some day too. I just made myself laugh with that little thought.

>Hi Tom,>>Where is the BufferPool line? My cfg file does not contain the>line.>>Thanks,>Jim>Actually now that I think of it, it was a recommended addition from the FSInsider website. I have found and many others posted the same, that after abot 20 min of flight frames would drop into the toilet, sometimes accompanied with graphic corruption. I think it's purpose, was to load autogen at greater distance. It's settings were suppose to be set according to how much video memory you had on your card between 1000000-10000000 but it didn't seem to work for me at any setting, and I have 512MB mem on both my cards!

The BUfferpool section should look like this at the end of your fsx.cfg. It's not there by default, you have to add it manually. {BufferPools}PoolSize=5000000The default value is 1'000'000. It has zilch to do with long-haul flights or loss of performance after a certain time (other than maybe a bad driver that can't clear the video buffer). It only places objects in the video buffer. Thus by definition it speeds up video display on the ground if you pan around and view the same things over and over again. Too high a value creates problems with any card. There is a visible difference if you have lots of AI traffic and pan: you can see the AI aircraft textures loading once and then never again. Removing it simply defaults the value to 1'000'000, meaning up to 1 MB of objects will be placed in the buffer. ==Marten:Weber==P-D920 3.3MHz 2GB RAM WinXP ATI X1900+1024MB 2xSATA250 2xVIEWSONIC 19"author of http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?FileName=bbgrfs.zipscreens on http://s141.photobucket.com/albums/r45/abulaafia/

As I said in an earlier post, I think the big problem is Psychological, that is "First impressions are lasting impressions." People initially got terrible performance out of the box, because settings at sliders full right made the sim a slideshow, add to that they continue to include the default.xml file, which was already a known problem for performance in FS2004 or atleast to fix it. Has given this sim a bad reputation, Aces has shot themselves in the foot by releasing it this way. I know the reason they said they did it this way was to support future hardware, but the average gamer isn't going to spend the time to configure the sim to run acceptably by editing config files like we do here. What they should have done, was to set the config files that the sim would run at higher performance out of the box at full right sliders at least on current highend systems. You could then increase the detail in the config files, when as hardware perf increased. They provided the fields in the file to do this, they just set them too high on initial release. By including or at least not fixing the default.xml file, only exasperated the situations. As my performance shows, it is possible to get acceptable performance and flying experience out of this sim, at least with non complex aircraft. I think that if they did these things, they would have significantly reduced the frustrations of not only us simmers, but also the general gaming population, as it is though they gave themselves a black eye, which is going to take a while to heal! . I do agree the sim is going to require a little more overhead to support a PMDG, or LDS detailed aircraft. Evidence of this is how the CS757 performs in the sim, which flew in similar performance levels of a PMDG or LDS in FS9. As for DX10, it is meant to enhance the visuals, but that will come at a cost of performance. That is why the new DX cards have such higher clockspeeds and memory, to try and deal with the extra overhead. Also with the greater efficiency of the DX code may help, but I wouldn't expect, as Aces warned us any great leaps in performance with it.BTW my settings are 19m mesh, 1m textures, water at 2x low, scenery at Extremely dense, Autogen at Dense, Weather is maxed, traffic is a large though modified with WOAI and Evolve AI aircaft UT traffic file at 100%, GA traffic and ground traffic is off. My config settings are .43 fiberframes, Texture_Bandwidth_mult at 400, Autogen cells at 2500 trees, and 800 buildings. Up til the other day though it was set to 800 also, but the new replacement tree textures, has allowed me to increase the level.

>As I said in an earlier post, I think the big problem is>Psychological, that is "First impressions are lasting>impressions." People initially got terrible performance out of>the box, because settings at sliders full right made the sim a>slideshow, add to that they continue to include the>default.xml file, which was already a known problem for>performance in FS2004 or atleast to fix it. Has given this sim>a bad reputation, Aces has shot themselves in the foot by>releasing it this way. I know the reason they said they did it>this way was to support future hardware, but the average gamer>isn't going to spend the time to configure the sim to run>acceptably by editing config files like we do here. What they>should have done, was to set the config files that the sim>would run at higher performance out of the box at full right>sliders at least on current highend systems. You could then>increase the detail in the config files, when as hardware perf>increased. They provided the fields in the file to do this,>they just set them too high on initial release. By including>or at least not fixing the default.xml file, only exasperated>the situations. As my performance shows, it is possible to get>acceptable performance and flying experience out of this sim,>at least with non complex aircraft. >I think that if they did these things, they would have>significantly reduced the frustrations of not only us simmers,>but also the general gaming population, as it is though they>gave themselves a black eye, which is going to take a while to>heal! . I do agree the sim is going to require a little more>overhead to support a PMDG, or LDS detailed aircraft. Evidence>of this is how the CS757 performs in the sim, which flew in>similar performance levels of a PMDG or LDS in FS9. >>As for DX10, it is meant to enhance the visuals, but that will>come at a cost of performance. That is why the new DX cards>have such higher clockspeeds and memory, to try and deal with>the extra overhead. Also with the greater efficiency of the DX>code may help, but I wouldn't expect, as Aces warned us any>great leaps in performance with it.>>BTW my settings are 19m mesh, 1m textures, water at 2x low,>scenery at Extremely dense, Autogen at Dense, Weather is>maxed, traffic is a large though modified with WOAI and Evolve>AI aircaft UT traffic file at 100%, GA traffic and ground>traffic is off. >>My config settings are .43 fiberframes, Texture_Bandwidth_mult>at 400, Autogen cells at 2500 trees, and 800 buildings. Up til>the other day though it was set to 800 also, but the new>replacement tree textures, has allowed me to increase the>level.Hopefully the Payware folks will get their act together and do the following:Adhere to the SDK.Offer aircraft with a choice of 2D,VC/2D and VC only asAeroworx, and PMDG do so the aircraft will run on a variety of systemsas well as work well for VC and 2D panel folks.By the way I the the Aeroworx King Air working fine in FSX with no FR hits I can see. On the other hand I never could get decent FR out of the CS 757 in either sim while the PMDG and Level D worked fine for me.Craig

>A FYI for everyone Re: SP1. The performance increase target>for FSX SP1 is 20%, +/- a bit depending on configuration.>>Lee That's nice; but I think that they should also remove the Frame rates indicator with the SP1. It will make life a lot easier for most guys here.Stelios

I think at the end of the day, this is all rather simple, and I believe that I am stating here all of the things that perhaps ACES would like to say, but in fact, cannot.As I have stated in a previous post, I have been a Microsoft OS beta tester since Windows 95. I found major flaws in Windows Vista, and quit testing after they made the error of posting an "open beta" - MSDN forum post literally jumped into the millions with stupid questions that most good computer support people would know off the top of their heads.Vista was touted as the next generation of OS; FSX was touted as THE sim to prove Vista. Vista was rushed out the door, and I believe FSX was as well for this reason and no other. Every day at work I get an email advising me of fixes that are to be incoroporated into Windows Vista SP1. There are over 70 major ones so far.This sim looks sweet in many ways, granted. But seeing as terrain and elevation data in the previous release of the sim was better, it can only indicate that the job was rushed. As I have stated before in these forums, I do not believe that every house etc needs to be displayed in a sim. However, well known landmarks should be potrayed correctly, there is no excuse for that.In FSX, where I used to fly out of England, there is a chasm that drops off the coast about 1000 feet BELOW sea level. I believe there is no excuse for this except for poor QA. I have the greatest respect for Phil and the ACES team, but, there was one other thing I noticed.Occasionally, I will play one well know military flight simulator, it's a few years old now, but it still looks good. Why is it I can hoon around in an SU27 at 700 knots, still get good frame rates, and excellent detail, and yet, in my 737 at TOD, at 240 knots, on my "mid range" system, I am getting stutters?I don't expect any answers from the above, these are just my views.Kindest regards,Andrew.

>>This sim looks sweet in many ways, granted. But seeing as>terrain and elevation data in the previous release of the sim>was better, it can only indicate that the job was rushed. As I>have stated before in these forums, I do not believe that>every house etc needs to be displayed in a sim. However, well>known landmarks should be potrayed correctly, there is no>excuse for that.>>In FSX, where I used to fly out of England, there is a chasm>that drops off the coast about 1000 feet BELOW sea level. I>believe there is no excuse for this except for poor QA. I have>the greatest respect for Phil and the ACES team, but, there>was one other thing I noticed.>Where you may have "lost" with terrain/elevation data in the U.K. area, I actually "gained" in the Mountain West area of the U.S.The new elevation data for FSX is obviously a tradeoff. I win, you loose, and as in the past, someone might hand program some specific area fixes. In my case, where I simulate flight, the topography database is improved along with the much clearer ground textures, when flying near the rising terrain. In this respect, I much prefer FSX. For other specialized scenario's, I'll use FS9.However, as it's been documented, and talked about numerous times. The FSX terrain database is different, and it is a case of some areas improving, while others suffer. No different than with past versions.L.Adamson

>>This DX10 being tied to Vista only is completely laughable.>>>>>By tying DX10 to Vista only does nothing but slow down the>>acceptance of DX10 as the next big thing to come to gaming. >>It will be at least two to three years until DX10 is>accepted>>as the gaming standard at the earliest is my bet. If DX10>was>>backward compatible to XP, this issue would be completely>>void. >>This has been discussed on these boards ad nauseum, with>members of the Aces team, principally Phil Taylor, providing>very specific explanations of why this was/is not feasible and>won't happen. Now if you choose to ignore those explanations>and ignore the details that have been place in front of you,>that's your business. Of course you may feel that you know>better, and that also would be your business. DX-10 also has the DX-9 API's. But, there are various advantages to using DX-10 interfaces -- even if it takes some time to master them. I read about Phil's background at his Blog. He has really been around, developing 3D and other apps for a long time. MS and Aces are lucky to have him. Ron

I've been saying from the get-go that I think it is a waste of time for them to be putting all this effort into SP1 for fsx since we all know it will give us no real performance increases. Even a BEST CASE (and i mean a REALLY best case) increase of 20% is nowhere near what many of you guys with mid range systems need to run this sim. They should have concentrated ALL efforts into the dx10 patch like they said they were going to do and it should have been out this month to tout the capabilities of vista. MS should have used fsx as a flagship dx10 game for the world to see what dx10 can do but instead they will be eclipsed by at least 3 other dx10 games by the time the fsx dx10 patch comes out. Bad decisions yet again imo.Every day it seems I find a new bug in fsx that shouldn't be there. I still love flying it now that I have a system that can run it but I do tire of the fact that there is no dx10 patch in site anywhere and that there is no really good scenery addon except for the hawaii package. The game has been out now for going on 5 months and if there are no addons yet then there must be a reason. SP1 better be the fix to this reason or I am going to be doubly mad that they wasted their time on sp1 and not a dx10 patch.

One would be hard-pressed to find off-the-shelf that was not licensed in the manner you describe, but tangentially-related but non-germaine keywords like GNU, Angband/Zangband, SourceForge came to mind earlier. But all of this mess is entirely NOT the point, which you seem to have bypassed in all of this...We were discussing (or at least I was attempting to discuss) the point that it seems rather strange for a home user to have to purchase two copies of software for two PC's. Most of todays licensing schemes operate that way. But in my opinion, this is rather draconian for the home user.In my corporate environment, we purchase site licenses for the apps we use. But that is the corporate environment. We are making money using their software. At home, I am not making money with my call-waiting program. And yet, if I want to install it on two PC's, I must purchase two copies. Same goes for most any software I "own" (haha).Therefore it is my opinion that licenses for home use should be relaxed to installs on 2 machines at least. That won't go with a program like FSX.Now, do you really want to discuss the definitions of "license" and "own", which is not the whole point of this sub-thread?I know aaallll about that as I deal with them fairly regularly at work. But when I casually say I "own" my call-waiting program, I don't really mean I own it. I didn't write it. I don't have the source. All I have is a CD and a license to use it on 1 PC. But I would casually say I own it.Yes I would.I would say I own it, because I can take the CD, let my dog chew on it, drive my car over it, and throw it across the room like a frisbee while yelling yee-hah. If I destroy or ruin it, I'd casually say, I don't "own" it anymore. I ruin-ated my disc. But of course I know I would still own it in the true sense of the word, and could order new media from the company if I wanted to.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

so what - 12 fps instead of 10? 20% isn't nearly enough to make hoi polloi happy :)==Marten:Weber==P-D920 3.3MHz 2GB RAM WinXP ATI X1900+1024MB 2xSATA250 2xVIEWSONIC 19"author of http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?FileName=bbgrfs.zipscreens on http://s141.photobucket.com/albums/r45/abulaafia/

So you're telling us that you only get 10fps with your machine??Craig ASUS A8N- nForce SLI Chipset SATA RAID Dual PCIe MOBOAMD ATHLON64 3500+ CPU w/ HT TechLG GWA-4161 DVD/CDSeagate ST3160811AS 160GB Barracuda 9 7200RPM 8MB SATA II 3Gb/s NCQSeagate ST3160811AS 250GB Barracuda 9 7200RPM 8MB SATA II 3Gb/s NCQEVGA 7950 GT KO PCIe 512mb nvodngov19147-[Guru3D.com] drivers SB Audigy 22G Corsair PC 3200 400MHZ Dual Channel DDR Super Alien 500W P/STrack IR3 w/vectorCH Yolk & RuddersFS Genesis Terrain MeshActive SkyRC4