Zippy1970

Sorry for the very late reply. Work got in the way of the fun stuff again. :)Anyway, I deleted the FSX.cfg file and let FSX create a new one. I tested my framerates and I got on average about 28 fps. One thing I forgot to mention is that I'm running a TripleHead setup, so after setting WideViewAspect=TrueI tested framerate again. Now I was getting only 20 fps. So this is what I did subsequently - measured framerates after the changes are in bold: Added HIGHMEMFIX=1 -> 20 fps Made all the recommended changes with NVidia Inspector -> 20 fps Set Filtering to Trilinear -> 20 fps Added AffinityMask=14 -> 20 fps Set Filtering to Anisotropic -> 20 fps Added [bufferPools] RejectThreshold=131072 -> 20 fps Set TextureMaxLoad=12 -> 20 fps As you can see, not a single change made any difference to the framerate.Is this what's to be expected from my system? Is FSX really such a resource hog?

Sorry for the late reply. Had some other things to do in the mean time (like work ;)).I wanted to know if the difference in FPS (between my friend's FSX and mine) was caused by the OS. He is running XP x86 while I am running Win7 x64. My system is dual boot (it's actually octuple boot, but that's another story) so I booted in XP and installed FSX there. I got much higher framerates. Where I got 8 fps in Win7, I got 20+ now. That pointed to the OS being the culprit but just to be sure, I copied FSX.cfg over from the XP partition to the Win7 partition and sure enough, now I got the same higher framerates in Win7 too. So apparently, something got messed up in my original FSX.cfg. I haven't compared the two yet so I don't know what the difference is yet but that will be the next step.Anyway, so I took the FSX.cfg and ran that through the Tweaking and Tuning tool. That gave me quite a big fps increase with my old FSX.cfg so I was expecting to see some increase here too.Nothing. None whatsoever. For some strange reason, the tweaked FSX.cfg did not give me any increase at all - which is pretty strange to say the least.So next step is to figure out what the difference is between my old FSX.cfg and the one created in XP. And why running it through the Tweaking and Tuning tool give me no increase in fps at all.

I had read the sticky before posting and this is not hardware/driver related. There's nothing wrong with my hardware, nor is there anything wrong with my drivers. Sure, the wrong drivers can give/take a few frames per second, but not cut it to 15% of what you should get.This thread is about tweaking FSX which is exactly what the sticky says this section is for. So yeah, I think we are supposed to be here. :) Yes, same location, same airplane, same settings. He gets 26+ fps, I get ~8 fps. I do have a second graphics card in my system (3 monitors), but when comparing his system with mine, I only use one monitor. So I actually disable the second graphics card and two monitors.

I'm struggling trying to get decent frame rates on my system with FSX. Oddly enough, a friend of mine who has almost identical hardware gets much higher frame rates than I do.But first things first.My system (the important bits): Windows 7 Pro x64 Core 2 Quad Q9550 (12M Cache, 2.83 GHz x 4, 1333 MHz FSB) 8GB 1066MHz DDR2 RAM eVGA GTX 570 My friend's system has the same processor, but 4GB RAM instead of 8GB and a (much) older NVidia card. I think it's a series 9 or even 7 card. Either way, not in the same ballparks as the GTX 570. Also, he's running XP x86 while I'm running Win7 x64.He has his frame rate limited to 26fps and is actually getting 26 fps at all times. I on the other hand, get with the same settings (graphics, scenery, realism, traffic, etc) only 8 fps. Quite a big difference! When I use the Automated Tweaking and Tuning Tool My frame rate increases to about 18 fps. Although much better, still not even close to my friend's fps without any tweaks.So, anyone any ideas?

Ok, since this forum appears to be, ehm, not breathing, can anyone offer me suggestions for other places where I can ask my (TileProxy related) questions?Or is TileProxy simply too old? And if so, is there a (better) alternative for Europe scenery?Also, is TileProxy abandoned by the developer or is he still lurking somewhere?

By now I've read tons of forum posts, read the manual twice, and also read the tutorial a few times. And although they do explain the basics, they don't explain the inner workings of TileProxy much. As such, it's terribly difficult to troubleshoot problems since it's almost impossible to find out what's causing them.So please allow me to ask a few questions. Hopefully someone can answer them.At first I was terribly confused about the difference of "LOD" and "LEVEL". Stuff like "max_lod", "preload_min_lod", "preload_max_lod", "max_level", and "min_level".But as I understand it: LOD (Level of Detail) is what Flight Simulator uses internally. It ranges from 8 to 17. 8 Being the lowest level of detail and 17 being the highest. Acoording to the TileProxy manual, the LODs are: LOD 8 = 304 m/p (meters per pixel)LOD 9 = 152 m/pLOD 10 = 76 m/pLOD 11 = 19 m/pLOD 12 = 9.5 m/pLOD 13 = 4.7 m/pLOD 14 = 2.4 m/pLOD 15 = 1.1 m/pLOD 16 = 0.6 m/pLOD 17 = 0.3 m/p First of all, I don't think this is correct, but I will get back to this later.LEVEL refers to zoom levels on the map servers. Officially, they range from 1 to 19. Again, according to the manual, LOD 8 to LOD 17 corresponds to LEVEL 10 to LEVEL 19. So to be specific: LOD 8 = LEVEL 10 = 304 m/p (meters per pixel)LOD 9 = LEVEL 11 = 152 m/pLOD 10 = LEVEL 12 = 76 m/pLOD 11 = LEVEL 13 = 19 m/pLOD 12 = LEVEL 14 = 9.5 m/pLOD 13 = LEVEL 15 = 4.7 m/pLOD 14 = LEVEL 16 = 2.4 m/pLOD 15 = LEVEL 17 = 1.1 m/pLOD 16 = LEVEL 18 = 0.6 m/pLOD 17 = LEVEL 19 = 0.3 m/p Now the reason I think this is incorrect is because on map servers, an increase in level means a doubling of the resolution (because it splits the tiles in four). This means that LEVEL 12 (LOD 10) isn't 76 m/p, but 38 m/p and thus LEVEL 11 (LOD 9) is 76 m/p and LEVEL 10 (LOD 8) is 152 m/p. These zoom levels are confirmed by several documents on the internet. So if these levels truly are zoom levels, then the correct table is : LOD 8 = LEVEL 10 = 152 m/p (corrected)LOD 9 = LEVEL 11 = 76 m/p (corrected)LOD 10 = LEVEL 12 = 38 m/p (corrected)LOD 11 = LEVEL 13 = 19 m/pLOD 12 = LEVEL 14 = 9.5 m/pLOD 13 = LEVEL 15 = 4.7 m/pLOD 14 = LEVEL 16 = 2.4 m/pLOD 15 = LEVEL 17 = 1.1 m/pLOD 16 = LEVEL 18 = 0.6 m/pLOD 17 = LEVEL 19 = 0.3 m/p Anyway, this is just a side note since it has no impact whatsoever on how TileProxy works.Here are my real questions:Question 1: My first real question is about the different LOD related parameters. First the max_lod parameter. According to the manual, "max_lod is the highest LOD level for tiles that will be loaded generated". Yes, that's literally taken from the manual. So what exactly is it? The highest LOD level loaded, or the highest level generated? And loaded from where? From the internet? From the cache? What exactly does it limit? And what's the difference with preload_max_lod? So for instance, what happens if max_lod is set to 15, but preload_max_lod to 17? And what happens if we already have a higher LOD level in our cache? Will it ignore anything higher than max_lod?Question 2: How does TileProxy look for tiles? Does it first look in the bitmap folder (TileProxy PhotoReal World) to see if the tiles are already available? Or does it look in the cache folder (cache.serviceX) first and always regenerate the bitmaps? Or does it always do a HTTP request first (for instance, a HEAD request) to see if the tile has changed since the last time it was downloaded?The reason I'm asking is because since I've discovered TP about a week ago, I've been doing the same flight over and over again. I take off from the same airport, and make the same little 10 mile circle at the same speed and height. But when it starts preloading tiles after I first startup FSX (so before the flight has actually started), sometimes it loads very fast (up to 800 tps), while other times it's incredibly slow (less than 10 tps). If it's loading those tiles from the cache (which it should), it should always be very fast. Likewise, when I start flying, sometimes it can keep up easily (pre-) loading tiles (again, as it should since all those tiles are in the cache), while other times I need to pause and wait for several minutes for the tiles to catch up.I have quite a few more questions, but let's start with these two first. :(

But that's just it. FSX is running great with target framerate set to unlimited but just doesn't want to play nice with TP then... :(

No.

Ok, some progress. I figured out why I wasn't seeing any high resolution ground textures. I had set my target framerate in FSX to "unlimited". This gives me great framerates in FSX but apparently leaves no time for TileProxy to load the high res textures. When I set my target framerate to anything but unlimited, the textures get replaced by high res textures - eventually.But this presents a whole bunch of new problems. :(First of all, when I set my target framerate to "unlimited", I get great framerates: between 30-50fps all the time. This makes for very smooth flying. But like I said, TileProxy apparently never gets the change to update the textures.When I set frame rate to anything but unlimited (even one notch down at 99), framerate drastically drops to around 10 fps average, making flying incredibly unrealistic. And even so, I have to pauze the simulation over a certain area and wait for about 20 seconds before the textures get updated with high resolution ones (and when I restart FSX, I have to wait over the same area again for 20s to get the high res textures so apparently it isn't cached) So this isn't really a solution either.What could be wrong? My system should be up to the task:Win 7 x64Core 2 Quad 95508GB RAMGTX 570Internet download speed: 60 Mbit/s (confirmed with speedtest.net)

I just stumbled upon TileProxy a few days ago and just like everybody else got the "Error 0x80070002" at first.We all know what the problem is. Windows will not load TileProxy because it tries to load an unsigned driver and Windows will not let it. Yes, I know there are several "easy" fixes ike turning off UAC, or booting windows with "Driver signature enforcement" disabled, or using "Driver Signature Enforcement Overrider", or using "ReadyDriver Plus." But the problem with all these solutions is that it always requires extra steps to be taken, plus it really puts your system in an undesired state.Now seeing that TileProxy hasn't changed since 2008 (is it still being maintained at all?), I was wondering why we don't get it signed and get rid of the problem once and for all. I have some experience with code signing (I'm a software developer myself) so if driver signing is the same, it only costs about $400-$500. With such a big user base it shouldn't be all that difficult to get to that amount. I'm actually willing to set this up (and donate the first $20 to the cause).Of course I realize I'm just another stranger asking for money, so if there are any doubts about my intentions, one of the moderators can contact me through PM and I'll have him verify my identity (and integrity).Does this sound like a good plan?Edit: Forgot to add, the reason I can set this up is because individuals can't get a certificate while software companies can. And like I said, I'm a software developer myself so my company shoud be able to get a certificate without a problem.

[service Example 1]cache_folder=G:GamesTileProxyCachecache.service1network_module=libnettilemodule_config="conn=20|rate=2.0|verbose=0|server=http://a*.ortho.tiles.virtualearth.net|path=/tiles/a%s.jpeg?g=%v|quad=0123|balance=0123|useragent=Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)"min_level=9max_level=19map_version=330level_mapping=9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19color_hack=Yescolor_level=13bulk_extend=50 Thank you for your answer.

I just started playing with TileProxy yesterday. I followed the tutorial here to install TileProxy for FSX. I used Map Service #1 (Bing) because it has high res maps of the area I want to fly (Netherlands).However, I get very low resolution in FSX. This is what I see if I fly over Haarlem:And here is the same area on Bing:So why am I getting this low resolution?