44 replies to this topic

[Buziel-411_RED]

caaront, on May 26 2010, 01:46 PM, said:

Is this hijack a guys thread and forget about the original question week?  

Reread your original post. There was not a single question in it.

[audiohavoc]

Buziel-411_RED, on May 26 2010, 10:43 AM, said:

audiohavoc, on May 25 2010, 10:46 PM, said:

I am no longer using the bufferpools edit, but instead am using the vertex edit, with any calls larger than 256k being set directly to the GPU and a 2MB bufferpool.  This is the most stable setup, and I get the same fps as I did with no bufferpool.  You can find the info on this at the PMDG support forum at AVSIM.  There is a graphic error sticky thread in the PMDG general forum where you can find the info on this vertex edit.  Jesus and Ryan from PMDG are going to recommend this approach over not running a bufferpool because it provides the performance boost while maintaining stability.

Can you link me to it, please? I tried finding information on it in the thread, but the information appears to be scattered throughout the 17 pages.

See post 400 at this LINK

To set this value, replace the [BUFFERPOOLS] section with this:

[BUFFERPOOLS]
RejectThreshold=524288 //512Kb = 524288, 256Kb = 262144, 124Kb = 126976, 96Kb = 98304

The RejectThreshold is a cutoff.  Calls from the CPU that are above this amount bypass the bufferpool and are sent straight to the GPU.  With no bufferpool or threshold, all calls are sent directly to the GPU, which is the cause of instability.  Anything below the threshold amount is sent to the bufferpool.


You can still specify a bufferpool size, I use PoolSize=2097152 to set a 2MB pool.  Also, start with 512Kb for the RejectThreshold, and increment in steps until you get graphic glitches or a crash, than raise it back up one level.  I am at 256Kb right now, I am going to lower it ot 124Kb soon.  Do not go below 96Kb, at that point it is better to just set the PoolSize to 0, but this is unstable for many people, unless you have an ATI 5870, which is nearly impossible to crash in FSX.

Edited by audiohavoc, 26 May 2010 - 02:19 PM.

[Buziel-411_RED]

Thanks.   I'll try this out later.

By the way, why are you selling your GTX 470?

[audiohavoc]

Buziel-411_RED, on May 26 2010, 12:25 PM, said:

Thanks.   I'll try this out later.

By the way, why are you selling your GTX 470?

It was a holdover until I could get my GTX 480.  I wanted the 480 because with my i7 920 @ 4.4Ghz, Mushkin memory, Kingston solid state drives, and Windows 7 64, I finally feel that I have no weak links in my system, and I am pretty much at the leading edge of performance for FSX.  Yes I don't have an i7 980x (can't justify $1000 when my i7 920 is screaming fast already), and I didn't want to go through the  cost and trouble of a true water cooling setup.

Edited by audiohavoc, 26 May 2010 - 02:33 PM.

[Buziel-411_RED]

I tried out the 3.0 shader mod, and there is a huge difference. These pictures were taken at the same location, same altitude.

Without 3.0


With 3.0

[audiohavoc]

124Kb = 126976

I made a mistake in my post above, I should have put 128Kb = 131072

[Buziel-411_RED]

caaront, on May 26 2010, 04:02 PM, said:

HOLD THE REIGNS!!!

Is that on a quad core?

And I am really thankful for the tweak info as I plan to utilize the ones that work on quad cores.

Amazing!

I bet you were as happy as a kitten in a fish tank when you saw the difference.

Quad core i5 750 at 4.0GHz and GTX 275.  

The shader mod can be found as sm3_current_274662.zip on AVSIM.

Edited by Buziel-411_RED, 26 May 2010 - 04:46 PM.

[Peter797]

What altitude was that taken at?

Also what else does the mod enhance, and does it kill Frames?

[Buziel-411_RED]

1300ft.

All information on the mod can be found here: http://forums1.avsim...howtopic=283701

Just to note, I used the performance version of the mod. It is discussed on the last page.

Edited by Buziel-411_RED, 26 May 2010 - 08:01 PM.

[audiohavoc]

Peter797, on May 26 2010, 05:57 PM, said:

What altitude was that taken at?

Also what else does the mod enhance, and does it kill Frames?

For nvidia users, there is no fps loss/gain, for ATI users, there is a significant performance improvement.

[Peter797]

Yea I just tried it out. It's quite bad. "Sparkling" water theme atleast.

[Buziel-411_RED]

I have to agree. It looks good in the picture, but in motion it isn't that great. The waves are so small, they are badly affected by aliasing and shimmer. From a high altitude, it just looks like a bunch of flashing white dots...

[audiohavoc]

With water set to 2.x low or high, add the following lines to your fsx.cfg [TERRAIN] section:

MIN_DETAIL_TEXTURE_LEVEL=21
MAX_DETAIL_TEXTURE_LEVEL=21

These will eliminate or reduce the shimmer, while also helping to sharpen ground textures.

[Peter797]

I donno I like my 2.0 shaders.

[_BD6_]

Peter797, on May 27 2010, 07:06 AM, said:

I donno I like my 2.0 shaders.

I don't know where your issue is, but my water looks perfectly fine with the 3.0 shaders.

[audiohavoc]

uber-N69204, on May 27 2010, 05:36 AM, said:

Peter797, on May 27 2010, 07:06 AM, said:

I donno I like my 2.0 shaders.

I don't know where your issue is, but my water looks perfectly fine with the 3.0 shaders.

Same here.

[Buziel-411_RED]

audiohavoc, on May 26 2010, 10:49 PM, said:

With water set to 2.x low or high, add the following lines to your fsx.cfg [TERRAIN] section:

MIN_DETAIL_TEXTURE_LEVEL=21
MAX_DETAIL_TEXTURE_LEVEL=21

These will eliminate or reduce the shimmer, while also helping to sharpen ground textures.

Is there any performance impact when using those tweaks?