Phil's Blog - New TBM and BufferPools Info

[jordanal 70]

Phil's blog'd about some revealing (post SP1) information regarding the Texture_Bandwidth_Multi and BufferPools tweaks. Quite enlighting...http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007...-week-or-2.aspx

[virtualstuff 758]

>Phil's blog'd about some revealing (post SP1) information>regarding the Texture_Bandwidth_Multi and BufferPools tweaks. >Quite enlighting...>>http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007...-week-or-2.aspxThats why I have mine at 40 :-)Andr

[jordanal 70]

Right now I'm running locked 20FPS with a TBM of 40 for 40/20=2x texture bandwidth. Very interesting that 40 is max with a perfbucket of 7 (my rig included) when all the time through FS9 years we've been running 100 to 400. Now it's 10 to 40 is the offical theory. I also attempted the BufferPools=10000000 (10M) with my 640MB GPU to try and solve my blurry building textures when panning around the Maddog-2006 while sitting on the tarmac at Miami while ASX is pumping weather. I can still generate the texture loss there even though I have no texture loss with the Baron on a 2 hours flight into KDFW.

[macwino 14]

Now I'm totally confused. I would swear that just a week or so ago Phil said that with the upgrade to SP1 the BufferPool setting was irrelevant if you have a dual core processor. Unfortunately, I can no longer locate this post. But I think I am correct. Why I can't locate it any more I don't know.In any event, if Phil's latest post to which you refer is for single core processors, at least insofar as it relates to the BufferPool tweak, then I can understand it. But it just makes no sense to me in the context of a dual core machine if I am correct about what Phil said previously.Indeed, in my own case - where I run an E6700 - when I upgraded to SP1 after a clean install of FSX, I didn't even get a BufferPool parameter in the FSX.cfg file created on the first launch. Of course, the 4000000 that he refers to may be a default setting that's hidden and you have to actually enter the line in the cfg only if you want to modify the default.But none of this is clear to me. Can anyone set the record straight? Phil, perhaps?Thanks,Robert

[MartijnPleines 0]

>Phil said that with the upgrade to SP1 the BufferPool>setting was irrelevant if you have a dual core processor.I think he was actually referring to FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION there.Martijn

[slashed2 53]

Yes, it was the fiber frame tweak which Phil was referring to with dual core processors.As far as the bufferpools entry, it does default to 4mb post sp1 according to phil. It is also one of the hidden tweaks that needs to be manually entered into the fsx.cfg.Ian.

[slashed2 53]

On the case of the bufferpools, I'm wondering if upping it to 4mb may have caused some of the stuttering problems or maybe they compensated for this with other changes? I know pre sp1 I upped the bufferpools and got microstutters, removing it and allowing the default value of 1mb eliminated that problem.Anyone know what would be the best setting for a 256mb video card or is this just a trial and error value?Ian.

[macwino 14]

>>Phil said that with the upgrade to SP1 the BufferPool>>setting was irrelevant if you have a dual core processor.>>I think he was actually referring to FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION>there.>>MartijnMartijn, right you are. My faulty memory. Thanks for setting me straight.Robert