4.5 ghz Intel i7, But low FPS in FSX....

[bonchie 2,305]

So you are internally limiting your frames at 27? Any particular reason you use that over 30. Would I do better lowering it even more?

 

After swearing I'd never limit frames again because it cost some much FPS, I've applied some of your specified tweaks (lowering TBM to 3, FFTF to .15, etc.) in conjunction with the internal limiter at 30, I'm stunned to see that I'm maintaining 22-26 FPS (bump to the limit oof 30 if I look away from downtown) over KSEA with Orbx and a million other FPS intensive addons and it's silky smooth.

 

I was getting those same exact FPS with unlimited frames but it was a stuttery mess. This has changed everything. Got rid of Vsync as well and now it's not even needed IMO.

 

Moral of the story, don't be married to how you used to do things. Thanks.

[Paul J 349]

For me, Bonchie - every day is a new larnin' day!! Larnin' ta keep my mouth shut would be good!

 

:LMAO: :LMAO:

 

This was the one, Word Not Allowed:

 

http://www.sim-outho...-specifications

 

and

 

http://forum.avsim.n...85#entry1605085 post #6

[Kosta 122]

OK thanks.

Preliminary test shows a great improvement in side smoothness. It's mostly noticable on buildings in my stutter-test in KSEA.

 

I think this greatly improved these side-stutters someone was talking about recently.

 

I will go deeper into this and try to put this into my FAQ I'm assembling.

[Paul J 349]

Good! Excellent. Great idea! I'd like to see an FAQ here (I assume for here?) - I reckon that would save a lot of time and effort, and get rid of a lot of old information that's floating around. Thank You!

[Kosta 122]

Also I can't find any posts on the other forum concerning the calculations you wrote.

What Nick Needham wrote I know that post.

The SOH post refers to RAM speeds.

 

What about the GPU setting? It's still all very inconclusive.

 

Btw. I discovered while getting smoother ride with some calculations, the stutters only appeared more far away from each other. My setting of default TBM 40 wasn't stuttering at all, but only microstuttering, but very very little.

I guess it all comes down to the correct TBM setting. I'll be testing this.

 

Good! Excellent. Great idea! I'd like to see an FAQ here (I assume for here?) - I reckon that would save a lot of time and effort, and get rid of a lot of old information that's floating around. Thank You!

 

Yes, it's gonna take quite a lot of work, because I'm implementing quite a few people (when I get a rough version).

See my prev post though.

[Paul J 349]

I know you will! :LMAO:

[Kosta 122]

I know you will! :LMAO:

 

Damn you. :diablo: :diablo:

[SKEWR 364]

I've been lurking in this thread and applying tweaks suggested.

Relevant parts are here:

 

[bufferPools]

Usepools=0

[DISPLAY.Device.NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580.0]

Mode=1920x1080x32

TriLinear=1

[GRAPHICS]

HIGHMEMFIX=1

TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=4096

TEXTURE_QUALITY=3

[TrafficManager]

AIRPORT_SCENERY_DENSITY=3

AirlineDensity=34

FreewayDensity=10

GADensity=10

IFROnly=0

LeisureBoatsDensity=34

ShipsAndFerriesDensity=35

[Main]

FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.15

ProcSpeed=9622

PerfBucket=7

[Display]

TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=40

TextureMaxLoad=30

TransitionTime=4.000000

UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=0

WideViewAspect=True

[JOBSCHEDULER]

AffinityMask=84

[TERRAIN]

AUTOGEN_DENSITY=3

DETAIL_TEXTURE=1

LOD_RADIUS=4.500000

MESH_COMPLEXITY=75

MESH_RESOLUTION=20

SWAP_WAIT_TIMEOUT=2

TEXTURE_RESOLUTION=25

WATER_EFFECTS=6

[sCENERY]

DAWN_DUSK_SMOOTHING=1

IMAGE_COMPLEXITY=4

LENSFLARE=1

MAX_ASYNC_BATCHING_JOBS=3

SmallPartRejectRadius=4.0

 

 

For my tests I used a frame hungry area (Who cares if you can get 187 frames in cruise!?) and the results are below:

 

At default KEWR, Unlimited NSpector, Unlimited FSX Frames, Weather set to Fair on Runway 11 (looking at NYC), Daytime, 4xS, in the 737 NGX I'm seeing frames from 17-26 in the VC

At default KEWR, 30 Frames Limited in NSpector, Unlimited FSX Frames, Weather set to Fair on Runway 11 (looking at NYC), Daytime, 4xS, in the 737 NGX I'm seeing frames from 12-18 in the VC

At default KEWR, Unlimited NSpector, 30 FPS limit in FSX Frames, Weather set to Fair on Runway 11 (looking at NYC), Daytime, 4xS, in the 737 NGX I'm seeing frames from 12-17 in the VC

 

I tried to follow the equation and use the formula presented in the thread, but if I have unlimited frames, then the formula falls apart. Else i'm in worse mental shape than I thought! With the FSX config in this post, what numbers should I be using?

 

Not sure if it is a placebo affect, but the FFTF did seem to help.

 

Thanks to Word Not Allowed and Paul J for trying to help the community!

Thanks for any help you can provide.

[joostdewit 0]

Iam following this topic with much interest. I have been able to run FS a lot smoother with the tweaks from Word Not Allowed (and others). Thanks for that!

My FR is now a 20 FPS at aerosofts EHAM with and most of the stuttering is gone.

 

Iam wondering. There is only talk about Nvdia and its inspector. Iam sure there are many users who dont use their cards. Are there any tweaks specific for AMD (HD5770) video cards ?

 

Regards Joost de Wit

[Boeing or not going 578]

3000' over Vancouver Plus, with PNW, "Building Storms"

 

Silk...

 

[Graphics]

TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=1024

 

[bufferPools]

PoolSize=0

 

[JOBSCHEDULER]

AffinityMask=14

 

[Display]

TextureMaxLoad=6

UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=27

TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=87

 

[Main]

FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.12

 

[TERRAIN]

AUTOGEN_DENSITY=5

DETAIL_TEXTURE=1

LOD_RADIUS=4.500000

MAX_DETAIL_TEXTURE_LEVEL=21

MESH_COMPLEXITY=100

MESH_RESOLUTION=22

MIN_DETAIL_TEXTURE_LEVEL=21

SWAP_WAIT_TIMEOUT=2

TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=907

TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=1376

TEXTURE_RESOLUTION=28

WATER_EFFECTS=6

 

[TrafficManager]

AIRPORT_SCENERY_DENSITY=1

AirlineDensity=29

ChangeTime=4.000000

FreewayDensity=14

GADensity=29

IFROnly=0

LeisureBoatsDensity=17

ShipsAndFerriesDensity=12

TransitionTime=4.000000

 

[sCENERY]

DAWN_DUSK_SMOOTHING=1

IMAGE_COMPLEXITY=5

LENSFLARE=0

MAX_ASYNC_BATCHING_JOBS=3

 

 

[DISPLAY.Device.NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580.0]

Mode=3840x1024x32

TriLinear=1

 

This is really making my sim smooth, but not helping with framerates or texture loading. texture loading is really slow. Changing views or panning in the vc, scenery and ai aircraft textures are blank for a few seconds before finally loading. How can I fix that? By lowering or raising some of those numbers? fft raise it? or tbm? im using 4096 textures and frame rate in the sim at 30

[Paul J 349]

@Lurker Cory!

What is your cpu clocked at, Cory? It looks like you're testing the right way, but I think you could do better with some attention paid to overclocking. For some reason your ProcSpeed looks wrong at 9622, as all the i7 2600K's (I think) are around 15505. It seems to me that we need a minimum of 4.7gigs to get to that Nirvana of smooth and stutter-free without any other bad 'stuff' happening. In your cfg - leisure boats and ships jump out at 35. I'd pull those back, also I would limit fsx inside the program, as I've always found it to be too 'jumpy' (if that's the right word": I always get random hesitations that I can not get rid of with it set that way. With the fps at 27, and T_Max_Load at 2048 the calc comes out with a TBM=87, which is where mine sits at this moment.

 

@Joost: Great! Every day I come across something that I like to try, just in case it works! You know - it's possible (in the back of my mind) that this is the actual hobby - and fsx is just something we all have in common and like to talk about! :LMAO:

 

@GearUp: Good Morning! The cfg you posted (mine) has one error - the TML should read 2048 - sorry.

Can you post your system specs, GU? "texture loading is really slow." and "aircraft textures are blank for a few seconds" Here you might have issues with your individual hardware - memory speed and timings, hard drive speed, maybe needs defragging? Does it share with the OS? I found also that the lower your Nvidia settings are, (Ryan's 'low' example - here ), the better your frame rates are when in heavy populated areas. I do think that it's more important to get smoothness over frame rates, as frame rates are so subjective as to be unreliable as a measure of how good the sim is running. 4096 clouds are a no-no on my beast (and maybe this is the issue here) as with lots of road traffic and any aircraft traffic over about 30%. Word Not Allowed's FFTF=.1 works for me, too, with no blurries evident. Get it smooth with slight reduced settings, then 'up' them once you've got 'smooth'. The figures we've been playing with should allow you to correctly change the TBM when you move the frame rate and the texture load up or down, and not have to 'guess' what it should be.

[Kosta 122]

Paul,

 

After almost a day of testing and going through different configurations, and all that in the controlled space, I even made myself videos to compare, I can confirm there is absolutely no usable difference between the configs.

 

Why do I say usable is because both configs stutter, both have problems when you load an area full of autogen, and while the mathematical setting might be slightly better, it tends to stutter when it comes to a high load, same as the non-calculated setting does.

 

The big downside of this mathematical setting is you can't possibly bring it out to the masses.

This is how my setting is looking right now:

 

[DISPLAY]

MAX_TEXTURE_DATA=1509

TextureMaxLoad=3

TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=147

UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=35

 

And I see some, but in general no big difference to:

 

[DISPLAY]

TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=40

UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=35

 

I wish you all the best with your setup and I'm glad you are currently satisfied by it.

 

In the end, I'll try implementing it into the FAQ, if there are users out there who might be interested into going the extra mile, but the fact is that the difference is almost negligible on my system between the two configs.

[GSalden 4,655]

Paul,

 

After almost a day of testing and going through different configurations, and all that in the controlled space, I even made myself videos to compare, I can confirm there is absolutely no usable difference between the configs.

 

Why do I say usable is because both configs stutter, both have problems when you load an area full of autogen, and while the mathematical setting might be slightly better, it tends to stutter when it comes to a high load, same as the non-calculated setting does.

 

The big downside of this mathematical setting is you can't possibly bring it out to the masses.

This is how my setting is looking right now:

 

[DISPLAY]

MAX_TEXTURE_DATA=1509

TextureMaxLoad=3

TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=147

UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=35

 

And I see some, but in general no big difference to:

 

[DISPLAY]

TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=40

UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=35

 

I wish you all the best with your setup and I'm glad you are currently satisfied by it.

 

In the end, I'll try implementing it into the FAQ, if there are users out there who might be interested into going the extra mile, but the fact is that the difference is almost negligible on my system between the two configs.

 

And if you try a flight with a locked fps of 25 and 30.

Perhaps 35 is to much for area with lots of autogen and other detail.

 

My test area is always AS EHAM ( taxes the system to the fullest ) and then Amsterdam with lots of canals , water, autogen and other detail.

 

If I am satisfied I turn on NL2000v4 photo scenery.

In this way I can fly anywhere.

 

My fps is locked at 25 for IFR and 30 for VFR.

I had to set the lod to 5.0 as with 5.5 sometimes my system ran out of memory....LOL

 

 

FSX :

- runs perfectly at 30 fps

- buying extra detailed scenery/aircraft

- FSX looses framerate and starts to stutter

- starting to tune and buying new hardware

- runs perfectly at 30 fps

- buying extra detailed scenery/aircraft

- FSX looses framerate and starts to stutter

- starting to tune and buying new hardware

etc

[Paul J 349]

Word Not Allowed - I know it's not a magic bullet - I never said it was - and it was never meant to be: what it does do is take the "guesswork" out of the TML variable. That's all. If you you take - as we used to do - a limit of 30, a TML of 4096, a tml of 30 - you will end up with an outlandish graphics load that you have no idea what caused the stuttering: 'maybe your frames are set too high". Instead of "80" and "30" and "1024" for every pc - you can now set an accurate the TML and then concentrate on tweaking the other settings with different "guessing" - the same as we currently do for a BufferPool size, traffic, water or the FFTF.

 

These parameters can now be set per the GPU's memory frequency and bandwidth (notwithstanding the other GPU's special abilities), and what's important is that we may now be able to push other parameters to higher settings, knowing that - at least - there is some scientific methodolgy applied to fixing these five or so parameters.

Done.

 

Gerard:

That's great to hear, Gerard! Thanks for the post. I hope it inspires others, too. ...( and WOW! 5.0 gig! :Drooling: )

[Kosta 122]

And if you try a flight with a locked fps of 25 and 30.

Perhaps 35 is to much for area with lots of autogen and other detail.

 

Pretty much the same result. My computer is maintaining 35fps without a problem. If I push FPS to locked 100, I get well over 50fps in those areas, I checked.

 

what it does do is take the "guesswork" out of the TML variable

 

Alright, for that it's good. But at the end of the day, while taking the guesswork out, it doesn't really change anything, the question is if there should be any guesswork. You know what I mean?

Why searching for tweaking variables, which are questionably changing something.

 

Besides, these calculations, which are presented here:

http://www.simforums.com/forums/fsx-tweaks-demystified_topic37948.html

 

Are they only a guesswork or are they confirmed by Microsoft or Phil Taylor?