Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest D17S

Best tips for curing blurries?

Recommended Posts

<"then Mr Skorna had to show up"> ???????Mr. 53-post "SillyEagle" - there's absolutely nothing wrong with Jim's post #5. He merely states his experiences - which echo mine and probably hundreds, if not thousands of us - and to publicly refer to him as "noob" - is insulting to all of us. Jim Skorna has helped more folks on this site than anyone else, perhaps with the exception of Bill Leaming. ..and YOU might want to put your ego on the shelf before voicing a "must have a quad-core" opinion on what another "must" have. Some folks simply can't afford the latest and greatest with all the bells and whistles.To STUART H:-I had blurries with a few of the early ATI products, but in the last few years and particularly since switching to my existing system with the 8900gtx - have no blurries whatsoever, and very often do (RA Spit, ASA warbirds, etc.,) tree-top runs down the valleys from KPAE, popping up to land at Renton. I have NO blurries. That's Seattle area, with most things - except water and traffic - middle to high - autogen full, 2500 houses, 1200 trees - set up per Nick N's recommendations and using nHancer... and the magic, slightly outdated, C2D. My beast is now 20 months old (the 8900gtx was bought when it came out). If you look around you can probably pick up a 6600 and the bits to modify your rig to at least as good as mine for less than a grand nowadays. You don't "need" a quad.OK - I'm done.We love ya Jimmy! (in a brotherly way, of course..) :-lol ;-)("some kind of belittling remark" indeed. mutter, mutter, mutter..)



i7 4790K@4.8GHz | 32GB RAM | EVGA RTX 3080Ti | Maximus Hero VII | 512GB 860 Pro | 512GB 850 Pro | 256GB 840 Pro | 2TB 860 QVO | 1TB 870 EVO | Seagate 3TB Cloud | EVGA 1000 GQ | Win10 Pro | EK Custom water cooling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Hardware:ASUS motherboard, AMD 2.4 Athlon single processor,7200 rpm hard disk,2 gbytes DDR Ram,GForce XFX 7600GT graphics - 256 mb RAM"That is your problem. I used to have an Athlon64 3500+ and X800XT videocard, and I still was unable to play FSX SP1 or SP2.. Even with autogen and most sliders turned down (framerate of 20 to 30+), the scenery was still extremely blurry. On my current dual-core system, scenery stays sharp even when the framerate creeps below 20.FSX RTM doesn't have this problem, but SP1 and SP2 are designed for dual-core systems and are simply not plyable on single-core machines. Go back to FSX RTM (no service pack) and turn down autogen to imrpvoe the ridiculously low framerate of the RTM version... Or switch to FS9 - it will actually look *better* than FSX on your system, because you'll be able to play it at much higher detail settings.If your motherboard is a Socket 939 board, and supports X2 CPUs, you could try to find a used X2.. while your framerate won't be much better, the blurries should be almost cured and it's a very cheap upgrade. A better option is to build an entirely new system, ideally a quad-core one.


Asus Prime X370 Pro / Ryzen 7 3800X / 32 GB DDR4 3600 MHz / Gainward Ghost RTX 3060 Ti
MSFS / XP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding of the multithreading capability of FSX is that it is quite limited. I would be very interested in MEASURED performance data that demonstrates the ability of FSX to schedule more than two threads for simultaneous processing.Can you please show us the CPU utilization per processor and per FSX thread while "flying at 300knots at tree top level " on a quad core machine. A copy of the output from something like ProcessExplorer or xperf would certainly settle the question about the ability of FSX to schedule four threads SIMULTANEOUSLY. I would like to see processor activity sampled at a slow rate (once per 5 seconds) but measured over a minute or so. A slow sample rate will not skew the results due to sampling driving a core and a long sample period will demonstrate the ability to keep four processors running on a regular basis for a significant period. I am interested in your results because I am thinking of upgrading my processor and need some MEASURED data to compare fast clocks to multiple processors. Multiple processors are of little value if FSX can not schedule threads to them on a regular and significant basis. My system is an E6600/4GB / 8800GTS(175.19) /Vista32/SP1 / FSX/Accel/SP2 - when flying (PC-7 300 knots @1000') from McChord AFB to SEA with all settings to almost their max values and using GEX scenery upgrades: one processor is at 95%+ all the time and the other processor spikes at about 97% for a second or so and then drops to 50% or so for many seconds. I see only two active threads fsx.exe (90% cpu) and API.DLL!Ordinal307.. which averages about 45% CPU and never exceeds 75% for even short periods. I see an occasional burst of activity from other threads but nothing more than one or two percent CPU.AND - NO BLURRIES! I get framerates of 31 or so in the VC and 25 - 28 from outside behind and above the plane. I have AI traffic down to 20% and no road trafffic and boat/ferry traffic below 30%. Real life data would be very helpful.


i7-9700K @4.9 GHz  / Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Pro Mobo / 32 GB DDR4 / RTX 3060 Ti 8GB GPU / AORUS FO48U 4k display
 SSD for Drive C and another SSD dedicate to Flight Sim / 1 GB Comcast Xfinity Internet connection / HP Reverb G2 / Tobii 5 Head & Eye Tracking

read about me and my sailing adventures at www.svmirador.net/WebsiteOne/ or at Flickr TacomaSailor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.. and my understanding from various sources/heresay/intel/gossip docs over the last year - and I may be behind the times and therefore quite wrong here - is that the two C2D's from which the quad is constructed - spend more time discussing and deciding backplane management priority issues - than they do processing, and, as FSX only utilizes a second core - not four - there's little to be gained. I wouldn't necessarily promote that argument, though, because almost every iteration of the Intel chip is an improvement over the previous. As well - whereas Mr. SillyEagle may be correct concerning the performance of his quad with his setup-up, I will bet there's an equal number of folks with blurries and unexpectedly poor performance using that same quad, and we would find something else in their system that is different: bios; graphics; FSX settings, sound, drivers, power supply, cooling, etc.. Even ten identical systems will often display differing performance figures. No two systems are alike, and no two users feel the same way about their simulator. Stuart H - I had a quick thought - why don't you give Michael Greenblatt a call at www.fs-gs.com. This fellow knows more about setting up a pc than the Chinese know about rice.:-beerchug



i7 4790K@4.8GHz | 32GB RAM | EVGA RTX 3080Ti | Maximus Hero VII | 512GB 860 Pro | 512GB 850 Pro | 256GB 840 Pro | 2TB 860 QVO | 1TB 870 EVO | Seagate 3TB Cloud | EVGA 1000 GQ | Win10 Pro | EK Custom water cooling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest D17S

I sure wouldn't recommend an owner of a mid to hi end dual dropping $300 on a quad. Those additional 2 cores will only help scenery load more quickly. The result is that higher scenery resolutions will be displayed closer to the airplane. "Blurries" are simply scenery resolutions that have not loaded to their highest resolutions. This is where multicores help FSIf any system can maintain the highest scenery resolutions (AG, et al) at 300kts and 1500 feet . . . don't touch nothin'. You have arrived. That is every bit of scenery performance FSX has to provide. That is as good as it will Ever get with FSX. If a user went for a dual, that user is just stuck with it. An upgrade will almost certainly be required sooner than for a quad core owner . . . but since FS is being observed at a 100% performance level, at least a user's perceptions and (therefore) experience won't suffer! FPS and AI are another story entirely. That's about clock speed on a single core. Those performance factors have Nothing to do with the number of cores in use.Any quad core user can testify that their 4 cores are always engaged during FSX ops. The thicker the scenery gets, the more they work. However I really can't conceive of a tangible benchmark that would define this usage. However (still) even if it WaS possible, unless an observer is willing to acknowledge that FS's (then defined) usage of these additional cores Must specify increased scenery loading performance, any test would not move the discussion forward.

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  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...