I thought this thread would be usfeful...so....I have set it to 2.0 and have experienced a decrease in fps from 15 (fixed) to 6.5 (fixed at 15)I also noticed a trippling of loading FSX timeThis thread is in response to a posting which I copy here>>>>_______________________________________" cbuchner1 Wed May-09-07 04:36 PM Member since Oct 24th 2006 269 posts #396178, "RE: Tile Proxy thread #2?"In response to Reply # 0 Attention! These are several important service announcements (unrelated to each other)* Vista 64 bit support works! See the other thread in the forum. A download is available from there as well.* Set your FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION setting in your fsx.cfg to 2.0 - Believe it or not, you may be able to fly 150 knots without loading issues but it sacrifices some frame rate. I just tried the Beechcraft Baron over Tangri-La Airport, Utah and it worked amazingly well. Kept up with loading nicely."______________________________________________ al

Using TileProxy?Edit: Ah, I see now. Did you edit the post after I posted?

IMHO, you could just as well set it to 1.0. It is supposed to be a percentage (0.33 = 33% of the processor dedicated to loading textures).If you bring it to 100% (or higher) all priority is supposed to go to the loading of the textures, nothing to AI, cars, weather system etc.This explains the decrease of the framerates : I am sure ACES programmed a minimum value for each : you must have a very powerfull machine to keep the simulation running at all, or did you turn everything else off ?Jan

>Using TileProxy?>>Edit: Ah, I see now. Did you edit the post after I posted?WHO ME ??Of coursealBTW I find the fps significantly diminished with this new suggestion, which I believe originated from the developer of tileproxy?And I am not getting a better "loading" of tiles it seems about the same with the setting at 0.4 instead of 2? Anybody try this yet?al

I tried to change the setting from 0.40 to 2.0. Sounds strange, especially with the fact(?) in mind that the value means a percentage of the processor time used for loading scenery, but:it works.Tile Proxy now loads ground textures faster and I can fly with about 120 knots without blurring. Frame rates vary between 15 and 25 in the swiss alps and no clouds.

If at least a majority of the texture loading will occur on a seperate core as Phil has mentioned, I have to imagine this setting won't apply at all to the second core. (ie, SP1 will max out core 2 with texture loading if necessary) But I wonder if this setting will have any meaning for the first core on a dual core machine? Is there still some of the loading work that core 1 must be involved in? Or does this setting become completely meaningless on a dual-core machine?

I suspect that 2.0 might be forcing load on second core ( I have a misery 3.2-2-256). Textures do load faster on my system but the cost in fps is drastic (slideshow).

Don't think that's possible-- the ability to process textures on the 2nd core will be new to SP1. Actually, I posed my Q to Phil on his blog and he responded to it there:http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007...d.aspx#comments

Work still occurs on the main core, core 0, in SP1, even in terrain.Its just the terrain texture synthesis that happens on cores 1-n in SP1. So the fiber system still needs time. Loading photo-textures is a different path than the default terrain textures and the 9-layer synthesis that occurs, so trying to map what happens for the default terrain scenery onto photo-scenery is probably where the confusion lies. How much time, and what impact on that tweak the fact that the texture synthesis will be on the other cores - as I said in that comment reply, I need to doublecheck with Adam on that. And on whether photo-scenery gets any benefit from the multi-core work. And on what setting a 0-100 percent value to >100 means. My instinct is 1 is the same as 2, but I need to double-check that.

I was about to release a minor performance update for TileProxy on the sourceforge site, but I think I will hold off on that till tomorrow.In particular, I moved the World folder on level up in the directory hierarchy. FSX loads much faster then because it won't recursively scan through this folder anymore (which takes minutes if you have hundreds of thousands of tiles in there).The second change is that DisablePreload in fsx.cfg is now REALLY set to 1 instead of 0 (which happened by accident). Meaning FSX will load up faster.And I had intended to make the Fiber time setting of 2.0 the default. But with the mixed feedback that I am getting here I will likely give the user a choice during the installation.Also I provide an uninstallation feature.Expect the minor update tomorrow or on Saturday then.

I tried 1.0 and 2.0 with different results. With fiber frame rate at 2.0 the frame rates became much slower (from about 35 to about 18) and the tile proxy generated scenery loaded much more in advance so I could really fly faster, up to 130 knots.With 1.0 I did not have that effect and was not able to fly faster than 60 knots without blurring.Strange thing though.

I believe 18 frames is still very flyable.But those users who barely got 15 frames before the change would then only experience 7 or 8 frames per second. And that is close to unflyable, respectively un-landable.So the 2.0 setting is not for everyone - just for the fast fliers with tuned rigs. Hehe.

I got no different on my single core ht machine.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>>I believe 18 frames is still very flyable.>>But those users who barely got 15 frames before the change>would then only experience 7 or 8 frames per second. And that>is close to unflyable, respectively un-landable.>>So the 2.0 setting is not for everyone - just for the fast>fliers with tuned rigs. Hehe.>Its not that it becomes unflyable, as my fps did pick up to 12 but that it becomes unamusing... It is my "taste for eye candy" that is interrupted...not FSX's ability to hold altitude and aprroach paths, etc.. which was not the case in FS2002 (and before) in which when you had bad fps you could actually crash.I consider smoothness of fps candy, and without candy I dont wanna play.... so there (naihhh !)al

Well, 18FPS with clear skies and no traffic ;-) I only have an Athlon 3800+ single core, so I have to decide if I want clouds OR traffic OR autogen...A bit of street traffic is fun though and at many places it matches ok with the satellite image.