Interesting find regarding TBM tweak

[markturner 0]

I would just like to impart the results of some experimenting i carried out last night. Some of you reading this may have noticed in these threads:http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=253149 http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...texture+loadingI have been trying to improve the speed and quantity of loading of high res textures , to reduce the "morphing" effect of patches of lower res textures beiing displayed and then taking too long to be replaced by the higher resolution textures. I had been looking at the following variables:Texture bandwidth multiplierlod radius detailBufferpoolsAffinity maskThe general concensus appeared to be that hardware and scenery manufacture methods were the problem and that not much could be done.I remained sceptical about this, as there appeared to be variation in the way different types of photoscenery were displayed, so decided to start from scratch now my new set up was running, with a fresh install of Windows and FSX.I decided to start with TBM, as it seemed the most logical place to start. The stock setting in the .cfg file is 40. I had read here http://www.highflightsimulations.com/fsxcfg.html#Tweak2 that a lower figure was a good tweak. I did not see why, especially as Nick Advises a figure of 70 - 80. Anyway, I started at a figure of 30 and loaded a saved flight out of Dillingham Oahu, with Megascenery Oahu, dillinghamX, and FSdreamscapes NextMap pro mesh installed. I repeated the same flight and route, up and over the mountains each time. The results were very interesting.At 30, the problem was much worse, with lots of texture swapping, uneven patches of low and high res textures and long ( 10 - 15 seconds ) delays before the high res textures displayed.As I increased the figure in increments of 20, performance got better. I now have it set at 300 and it loads all the high res textures virtually instantaneously as you fly over them, and they stay loaded. I noticed no performance slow down either, frame rates in the 50's and smooth as you like.Now, I realise this will not apply across the board. I have just set up my system with 2 raptors on a raid controller loading the scenery, which is going to help and I use photoscenery with autogen turned off. All my other settings are max, that is mesh complexity, global texture resolution, water effects, texture detail is at 60cm. I also realise that this flies in the face of Nicks advice that raising this setting above 90 does not help, in fact will hinder performance, ( he says he has never used more than 70 or 80 on a machine he has set up) However, he is using a set up with autogen and extras such as UTX< GEX etc, which may effect things differently. Anyway, all I know is that it cured my problem and my photoscenery now looks as it should . Anyone with a similar spec machine who runs photoscenery may like to give this a try. Oh, and I need to add I had none of the other .cfg file tweaks applied, and Lod radius set at 4.5. After I found the results were good at TBM 300, I raised the lod radius to 6.5, but appeared to no effect on either performance, load times or the texture loading. Cheers, Mark

[flying_w 58]

Hi Mark,I remember comments that high values for TBM such as yours could lead to significant stutters. Do you see any evidence of that?RegardsSimon

[LuisFelizTirado 33]

One look at the specifications for Mark's system and everything becomes clear. All the so-called "tweaks", in fact all settings, we might even say that everything in FS, are limited by hardware. Improve hardware and expect better performance. This is a universal truth going back a long time.Best regards.Luis

[Cruachan 705]

One look at the specifications for Mark's system and everything becomes clear. All the so-called "tweaks", in fact all settings, we might even say that everything in FS, are limited by hardware. Improve hardware and expect better performance. This is a universal truth going back a long time.Best regards.Luis

Hi Luis,Have you listened to the Mathijs Kok interview at FSBreak? http://fsbreak.com/He makes some very interesting comments regarding hardware and FSX performance. In particular, note what he has to say about graphics cards.Regards,Mike

[markturner 0]

Like I said, I have no performance issues using this setting, no stutters, smooth panning and frames of 50 plus. I have initially set the frame rates to unlimited and notice a fair bit of fluctuation so am going to experiment with locking it 30 or so, but even with the fluctuation, the performance is still not degraded . I hear what Luiz is saying but if that is the result only of my new controller card and fresh install, I would be suprised. My previous card was a GTX280, so no big improvement going to a GTX285 and I had my raptors before. Whatever the ins and outs, my set up now is working pretty damn good, if anyone wants I can give some more details. I guess just try it really, like anything else in FSX, people will get different mileage out of it, depending on their system and settings. I am just really pleased that I have managed to nail this problem, as it was the only thing that was spoiling my FSX experience. I will post a screen grab later of a flight in Colorado, for you to compare to the one illustrating my previous problem. The difference is simply astounding. rgds, Mark

[Guest Nick_N]

However, he is using a set up with autogen and extras such as UTX< GEX etc

he sets up FSX the way it is suppose to be used and using the texture system most people use instead of photosceneryIf I had a nickel for every time someone came up with a miracle change that worked on their system and does not work for most I would be richFSX must be set up for the system components and the scenery being used. If photo scenery is preferred over textures the variables WILL be differentI dont use photo scenery. I find it annoying in color balance, no shadowing and light dynamics, and it loses its realistic look for low and slow and much prefer textures/autogen even if its not an exact image of the area being flownAlthough I can see value in higher altitude flying with PS that value is lost when flying low and slow or landing and taking off Since most people do not use photoscenery I designed my suggestions around the default system knowing the limitations of the hardware on the market and what they should not do in assumption but I also stated quite clearly there are exceptions to what I posted. I simply did not go into those exceptions for several very good reasons.. most of which have to do with the PLACEBO effect FSX tends to have which perpetuates more crap about how to use it than any other reason. I dont want people reading this and running off to set their TBM to 300 on textures because that is a load of horse manure!Here is how TBM worksTBM starts with a hidden calculation of 3 times the file size of each 1024x1024 ground texture. This hook is named: TextureMaxLoad= and its default value is 3That hook IS available to be set by adding that line to the FS9.cfg file under the DISPLAY header and although it CAN be tuned in FS9 (I used the value 10 and reduced TBM to 100-110 in FS9) , .. FSX will IGNORE it. Do not confuse that line with TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=XXXThere are no underscores in that TBM calculation hook684K is the average texture file size in 1024x1024 textures3x684 = 2052k or about 2MB <---------- TBM MULTIPLES that valueA 300 TBM is insanity for video cards and flying textures because the math on that setting does not allow for typical hardware to work with such a massive texture load300 x the file size in 1024x1024 x 3 (or 300 x (684 x3) ) = about 600+MB of video memory for ground textures ALONEthe math does not work for typical hardware and normal texturesYou add in the other elements of the scene and tweaks such as bufferpools and such a high TBM is ridiculous which is why Phil Taylor said early on even pushing that past 40+ was not suggested but that was also back when FSX was first released and hardware was not what it is todayand by the way.. a 1GB card does not give a user the ability to run 300 with textures either. Photoscenery is not textures and is not handled the same as textures with FSXa TBM setting of 80 means80 x the file size in 1024x1024 x 3 (or 80 x (684 x3) ) = 164MB of video memory for ground textures which is very REASONABLE leaving the rest of the dedicated 512MB FSX wants to other scenery needs.. then bufferpools is over and above that 512MB for GEOMETRY only, not texturesIn FS9 it was possible to run a 250 to 400 TBM because the texture file sizes were significantly LESS.. 50 to 256K vs 684K+ in FSX400 x (128x3) = 150MB, again very reasonable and even 256K works because in FS9 there were MAJOR limits to the amount of autogen per tile being rendered and no where near the CPU overhead FSX needs to run correctly. FSX increased the CPU and memory subsystem power needed by 75%+Anyone who says 300 works on standard textures without screwing up anything else is seeing things, they do not see or care about what it is they have lost,.. and are not running the sim correctly. They are robbing Peter to pay Paul which is why Phil Taylor said: "You get what you pay for" when referring to hardware and I added: "If you know how to use it" which goes to the suggestions I placed out there to ensure the bulk of the community gets their sim tuned correctly if they read and follow directions.Past those directions is possible but only under the correct circumstances and with the right mindset in how the sim worksThe reason you see a difference is because photoscenery is not textures and is not treated the same in the render as textures. Its also somthing that was iffy to even attempt before the 1GB cards hit the market and fast enough processors to feed themThe tweak MipBias=6 can also increase photoscenery clarity and without screwing with TBM but the effectiveness DEPENDS on the maker of the photoscenery product too

[robert young 2,897]

300 TBM is a disaster on my system (a new one: i7, 6 gigs RAM, GTX 275) so it's no slouch. I find the polar opposite and 30 TBM is the sweet spot. But can I take this opportunity to somewhat disagree on the popular setting of high buffer pools values? I do not know the precise technical details of this param but on my system changing it to high values seems to have the effect of the precise opposite of that commonly attested. It also demonstrably reduces frame rates. I set buffer pools to 800,000 (note not 8 million but 8 hundred thousand). It works for me. Total smoothness and healthy frame rates. Setting it to more than 2 million by contrast slows things down and creates artefacts and texture ripping.Rob Young

[Guest Nick_N]

300 TBM is a disaster on my system (a new one: i7, 6 gigs RAM, GTX 275) so it's no slouch. I find the polar opposite and 30 TBM is the sweet spot. But can I take this opportunity to somewhat disagree on the popular setting of high buffer pools values? I do not know the precise technical details of this param but on my system changing it to high values seems to have the effect of the precise opposite of that commonly attested. It also demonstrably reduces frame rates. I set buffer pools to 800,000 (note not 8 million but 8 hundred thousand). It works for me. Total smoothness and healthy frame rates. Setting it to more than 2 million by contrast slows things down and creates artefacts and texture ripping.Rob Young

Bufferpools added to the fsx.cfg file can cause scenery 'spikes' even if the card has enough video memory. This edit to the configuration file works for some and does not work for others. If you see strange graphics errors that do not clear up by visually panning around the outside of the aircraft then you should REMOVE the bufferpool entry from your config file. And do remember... Your Mileage May Vary with Bufferpools! Some cards simply do not like the edit in the config file no matter how much video memory they have and I have seen this vary from driver to driver as well.

I do agree that BP should not be added to any config file during tuning as it is one of the absolute last items to test.. that and Affinity mask whic to this day I have never needed to use however both edits can present results if a user knows what to look for and how to use them and when not to.I never said changing or raising Bufferpools is a DEFINED tweak for a better FSX experience... its a test and see trial/error setting and its only going to show value over large amounts of autogen, especially trees, if it does present any relief at allIt only buffers geometry and has nothing to do with textures

[markturner 0]

Hi Nick, hope you are well and not too overworked getting your next release out ! Which i cant wait for BTW> Dont get the wrong impression, i am not trumpeting this as another " miracle tweak", just a fix that worked specifically for me on my specific set up. I just suggested anyone else with similar set up, both scenery and machine, may wish to try if they were experiencingthe same problem. I fully realised that my "find" was not applicable across the board, thats why I prefaced the topic "for photoscenery users". I dont think my post implies anything but the fact that it worked specifically for me with my set up and that I realised that a very different result would occur if you were using autogen, and UTX ,GEX etc etc, but i guess it could be misinterpreted.Just wanted to clear that up, and hopefully no one has misunderstood what I posted.As a photoscenery user, I often find it difficult to get specific information as it is a niche market within FSX. For instance, in all the threads regarding this problem, I started, no one ever pointed that photosceneries worked differently and were rendered differently to the normal textures. bHopefully my little find will be of use to fellow users. On another note, my new drive set up etc seems to be working very well and having set up FSX and windows again using your tweaks and advice, its all great. So thanks once again for your help and advice getting me to where i am now, best regards, mark here are the screenies I promised of Gottfried Razek's blue sky scenery:Before tweak:And after: ( note the frame rates in this one) Does not look to sad eh?!

[robert young 2,897]

I do agree that BP should not be added to any config file during tuning as it is one of the absolute last items to test.. that and Affinity mask whic to this day I have never needed to use however both edits can present results if a user knows what to look for and how to use them and when not to.I never said changing or raising Bufferpools is a DEFINED tweak for a better FSX experience... its a test and see trial/error setting and its only going to show value over large amounts of autogen, especially trees, if it does present any relief at allIt only buffers geometry and has nothing to do with textures

Sure Nick. I understand that.Rob

[Guest Nick_N]

I fully realised that my "find" was not applicable across the board, thats why I prefaced the topic "for photoscenery users". I dont think my post implies anything but the fact that it worked specifically for me with my set up and that I realised that a very different result would occur if you were using autogen, and UTX ,GEX etc etc, but i guess it could be misinterpreted.Just wanted to clear that up, and hopefully no one has misunderstood what I posted.

I understood that MarkI get the same clarity in photo scenery as I do textures with a 80 TBM, no blurs However in your case you are running a full PS package as opposed to a section such as Frank makes for the Alps that runs along side texturesBut this community has a serious problem and its called "I must find the miracle tweak" with respect to MSFS and even with the preface that you use Photoscenery most wont understand that and will go off and start screwing with the TBM value running texturesThe Placebo effect then kicks in.. and "I will see things that don't exist in the process"Next the forum will have threads with "I change my TBM to 300 like "this thread" and my sim never looked better"Then the the placebo effect REALLY starts kicking in .. for every person on the right hardware running photoscenery that sees a REAL change there will be 5 others who swear they see a difference on textures when they dont see any real change and also dont yet see what that change did to screw up something elsewhere.. eventually most will figure it out but usually not for a few weeks depending on how much flying they do regularly.Before its all over and done with and before everyone realizes it doesnt work and sets their TBM back to where it belongs there are threads in forums everywhere that have wasted everyone

[LuisFelizTirado 33]

Hello Mark,As I mentioned in the other thread, I am very happy that you have gotten excellent performance, in fact, I am very happy when anybody gets good performance with FS X. It is such a change.But, you could not push all those textures through your system if it were not so powerful. Good for you that you attempted increasing that variable to such a high value, and good for you that it worked so well. But, there are probably not more than a half dozen people on this board who could do that and get good performance, because few people have the equivalent hardware.Flight Simulator is all about hardware (what? not about flying? what have we come to!)Best regards.Luis

[markturner 0]

I am so happy all that time and money that i have thrown at it was worth it!!!!!!damn, now what am I gonna do? Hmmmm...... I know, I could try actually doing some flying.. !!!!!! And learning how to use my auto pilot... and learning how to use the systems in the various planes I have got....... and,, and........ :( :( :(

[Cruachan 705]

I am so happy all that time and money that i have thrown at it was worth it!!!!!!damn, now what am I gonna do? Hmmmm...... I know, I could try actually doing some flying.. !!!!!! And learning how to use my auto pilot... and learning how to use the systems in the various planes I have got....... and,, and........ :( :( :(

Hi,I believe Christian Buchner recommends a TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT setting of 400 while running TileProxy with FSX.Mike

[markturner 0]

Hi Mike, that is really interesting. Its a bit frustrating how this information regarding the use of photoscenery is so difficult to come across, I have been posting about this on various forums for a while and not managed to get a definitive answer ( although learned much on the way) , I manage to find the answer myself, then all of a sudden people chime in with the kind of pointers I was looking for !!!!I might if I have time, compile a list of all the tweaks and things I have learned that relate specifically to setting up photoscenery and post it, as the information is definitely hard to come by and well hidden. My next project is to start looking into producing some scenery myself using FSEarth tiles and also to give Tileproxy a try. No doubt a steep learning curve there as well.......rgds,Mark