[BufferPools] PoolSize=0 the holy grail of FSX performance...

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Amazing! it worksBP=0 No more stutters anywhereI7 Win7 64 Nvidia GTX285

So...you've joined the BP=0/GTX285 club, huh? :)Glad you could make it, LOL!Seriously, I have been flying the Tiger Moth Bi-Plane...scraping the tree tops...and only smooth very life-like animation. Lovin' it. I'm also using the latest nVidia drivers (196.34) and am happy to report they pump out the performance. Beautiful graphics.Mitch

[Guest 413X3]

I am in the same situation, bf=0 and gtx285. I run vista x64, with sliders almost maxed, but no AI traffic at all. I only get 10-25fps on the ground or in the air. I followed nicks guide and run the exact settings. Flight is smooth but low fps and I can easily tellDavid

[Mike_CFII_MEL 790]

Hi Herc,Since my overclocked system is built for Flight Simulation only, I have no reason to turn on hyperthread. Microsoft Flight Simulators FS9 and FSX are unable to utilize this feature. Four of the eight I7 cores are virtual and Microsoft Flight Simulator will not use them. So on my system, all hyperthread does is increase hardware temperature without any added benefit. Since I am overclocking my system to 4.13GHz, I can use all the extra degrees I can get my hands on. With hyperthread on I lose GHz, due to an increase in temperature in runnning the hyperthread option from the system bios.I was running the following, but come to realize I did not see any benefit.[JOBSCHEDULER]AffinityMask=252Using six cores for Flight Simulator with the first one remaining free, my thought was that the first core was going to be used for the OS.This is a trial and error process that never seems to end. One day I will wake up and find a new from the ground up sim has been built that will rival FSX and utilize all of todays hardware advances, if only that day was today. :(

Mike,Curious on one thing (never thought I would participate in this thread). Any reason why using =12 for an i7? Do you have HT enabled (or not) in the BIOS?Based on another (older) thread, I used =254 (i7 940 W7 64b) and noticed quite an improvement. IF i read it all correctly, I see core 2-8 (HT enabled) working on FSX while core 1 is not busy. Hope this is not an hijack... but how could this thread be hijacked anyways!!

[Guest samgeologist]

Works for me! Thanks man :(

[FalconAF 213]

I haven't seen this mentioned here yet, so it may save you all a LOT of grief screwing around with all these BufferPool (and other "Holy Grail of FSX") settings. If you have an i7 and Win7 and a GTX200 series GPU...1. Delete the entire Bufferpools entry from the FSX.CFG file. No mercy! Don't even leave it in there set to "0".2. Start FSX3. Open Task Manager, and go to the "Processes" tab.4. Scroll down to the "fsx.exe" file and right-click it with your mouse.5. Select "Set Priority". It will be defaulted to "Normal".6. Select "High".7. Close Task Manager.8. Go fly...with no more micro-stutters. THEN if you want to try the Bufferpools settings "tweak", go ahead...if you even NEED to anymore.9. Make a vow that any future posts you make in FSX forums containing the words "Holy Grail" will only be in reference to a Monty Python movie.And no need to "water-down" any of NickN's nHancer recommended settings for Anti-Aliasing, or anything else, to get as many great looking trees in FSX as you want.The above may also work on other computers with different Operating Systems and CPU's. Your Milage May Vary.

[Noel 4,552]

I haven't seen this mentioned here yet, so it may save you all a LOT of grief screwing around with all these BufferPool (and other "Holy Grail of FSX") settings. If you have an i7 and Win7 and a GTX200 series GPU...1. Delete the entire Bufferpools entry from the FSX.CFG file. No mercy! Don't even leave it in there set to "0".

I've read there is already a default value UNLESS it is specified in fsx.cfg otherwise. So, not even leaving it in there, according to this version of the truth, ends up with it being set by FSX, not visible in a .cfg file, somewhere above 0, exactly what value I don't recall.Noel

[John_Cillis 2,406]

I haven't seen this mentioned here yet, so it may save you all a LOT of grief screwing around with all these BufferPool (and other "Holy Grail of FSX") settings. If you have an i7 and Win7 and a GTX200 series GPU...1. Delete the entire Bufferpools entry from the FSX.CFG file. No mercy! Don't even leave it in there set to "0".2. Start FSX3. Open Task Manager, and go to the "Processes" tab.4. Scroll down to the "fsx.exe" file and right-click it with your mouse.5. Select "Set Priority". It will be defaulted to "Normal".6. Select "High".7. Close Task Manager.8. Go fly...with no more micro-stutters. THEN if you want to try the Bufferpools settings "tweak", go ahead...if you even NEED to anymore.9. Make a vow that any future posts you make in FSX forums containing the words "Holy Grail" will only be in reference to a Monty Python movie.And no need to "water-down" any of NickN's nHancer recommended settings for Anti-Aliasing, or anything else, to get as many great looking trees in FSX as you want.The above may also work on other computers with different Operating Systems and CPU's. Your Milage May Vary.

Add to the "Holy Grail" cliche that of "I haven't seen this mentioned here yet". Yep, it has. As I pointed out in another thread, it seems some members here just have to feel like they are nominated to smash the "grail quest" and rain on the enthusiasm of members here. But without the enthusiasm of those posting such things, none of the tweaks that work for certain would have ever been heard. Who would want to share their time with the forums when others work so hard to debunk their comments? Why does it bother any member here so much whether someone posts a tweak that works all of the time, some of the time, or not at all? The only time that should matter is when someone suggests a tweak that can cause permanent harm to the sim or someone's system. I have seen that happen only a handful of times. I've written two add-ons that have been fairly popular--"Soft Horizons" and "Landclass Assistant". Both resulted from the groundwork laid by people tweaking functionality of the sim. Imagine if others jumped on the people who made the observations that made my program and those that followed possible? There would quite possibly be no add-on landclass today, or no programs that enrich the sim environment. Microsoft didn't say how those things could be done. People played with and reversed engineered the sim and found it possible. Microsoft never documented the inner workings of .air files. People poked and prodded .air files and have learned to work miracles with flight dynamics. Just check out RealAir. Imagine if someone had come into these forums and debunked their efforts? I can just imagine some here making the comment "I can't get this aircraft to spin, so their take that it's the "holy grail" of flight models is just all wrong." No, maybe it's just that the person making the comment hasn't learned how to fly."YMVV" applies to most things. But this thread has been a fun read, I've seen some interesting things on a tweak I haven't tried before, and invested maybe five minutes of my time playing with different scenarios. In the meantime, I read of an old tweak that I hadn't given much attention. End result is I've improved my performance in a sim that was already running rather well. Maybe not soley thru the original tweak, but due to those who took the time to post a thoughtful, assertive response vs. a flippant comment such as "Make a vow that any future posts you make in FSX forums containing the words "Holy Grail" will only be in reference to a Monty Python movie."....-John

[Guest FlyingBits]

I've read there is already a default value UNLESS it is specified in fsx.cfg otherwise. So, not even leaving it in there, according to this version of the truth, ends up with it being set by FSX, not visible in a .cfg file, somewhere above 0, exactly what value I don't recall.Noel

Noel,True, the default of RTM was 1mb in SP2 it is 4mb.

[SpiritFlyer 987]

Hi *******,Where is that post you made about making WIndows 7 backward compatible for vista with FSX? I can't find it. I have been experimenting and am breaking through some barriers here I think.Stephen

[Noel 4,552]

Ok, so you like facts? you want proof? you got it!! and you can check this for yourself if you have the right hardware.First, go get yourself a copy of GPU-Z, the latest version shows (in real time) HOW MUCH Video memory a Direct3D application is currently using.[bufferPools] PoolSize=0 Will tell FSX NOT to reserve ANY video memory at all. However, this doesn't mean FSX will not use it... IT WILL!!! and more effeciently because it does so at the driver level.In fact, Setting a PoolSize value (other than 0) makes FSX manage video memory, which might sound the logic thing to do.... however, this 'management' doesn't occur at the DRIVER level.. its a 'hack' by the FSX development team so FSX will not exhaust all the video memory available. this 'hack' is a static memory pool that needs to be constantly erased... guess what happens when FSX swaps memory in this static pool?? you guess it.. STUTTERS!! plus, the penalty of having CPU cycles devoted to this instead of having the driver handle it!!Setting PoolSize=0 allows FSX to utilize Video Memory at the DRIVER level, however, there is a problem with this approach. If you have a video card with LESS than 1GB this tweak will make your FSX crash and/or unstable!! why? because FSX doesn't know (or care) how much video memory you have... it will simply use ALL available video memory via the Direct3D driver until it is totally exhausted. FSX will crash or become unstable when it uses more than 65% or 70% of your available video memory. So even a 1GB Video card might not be enought unless you lower AA, AF and/or screen resolution.You can confirm everything I'm saying by doing your own tests, but you need a >1GB Video card and also the GPU-Z utility to measure Video Memory utilization. This will confirm my findings.I've been using PoolSize=0 since Oct 2008, it has always puzzled me why others don't see any benefit when using this tweak.. I think I found the answer.

After using GPU-Z a few minutes ago, I'm puzzled. I set BP at 0, and showed 348mb of 1000mb of video ram on my GTX280 after taking off in a PMDG 747 at KSFO. I then changed BP to 2000000 and did the same takeoff situation. GPU-z shows virtually the same video memory use. I stopped testing to come here and ask is something other than this would be expected. What am I missing on the correct interpretation of what is happening? Ahh, I see, I only have 1GB of video memory. That wouldn't affect this situation tho, as I am not getting anywhere near too much video memory use.Noel

[Guest Nils79]

These are just some results with my System (see profile), using Orbx's YMML, DX9, ENB series mod. BP=50000000:BP=0:BP=500000:BP=70000000:

[Guest UlfB]

I'm normally using BP=10000000. I've TBM=80. No other tweaks. I fly with fps locked at 26. Use nHancer with combined AA 8xS (setup as Nick recommends). My hardware is described in my sig.I run three different BP settings and checked my latencies. FPS unlimited.BP=10000000BP=0BP=20000000EDITED: How should I interpret these latency figures? Are they relevant regarding the different BP settings?EDITED once more: I might add that I used a predifined test flight over London City. I made another shot with maxed out autogen and a lot of AI traffic, but the latency figures remained pretty much the same.I'll continue to use BP=10000000 since I get good fps and a smooth flight. I'm not going to spend days, maybe weeks, testing all possible combinations of affinty, TBM and BP settings over different type of sceneries and with different aircraft just to gain a couple of fps. It's all about visual quality and smooth flight to me.

[Guest Nils79]

Ulf, did you fly over complex scenery? If i fly over normal scenery, i see no spikes with DPC Checker too.I did chose YMML for purpose because it's the most FPS intense airport i know.with BP=150000:I still got one yellow spike but i think the tendency towards lower values (except 0) on my system is evident.Maybe it's totally different on other systems :( My system in normal use (playing music with ITunes and watching an HD video on Youtube):So i think my system is okay. A few days ago i had got some spikes but i could sort the problems out with the help of the WPT Analysis tool.

[Guest UlfB]

Hi Nils,I edited my post at the same time as you posted :( The testflight was over London City. Not much difference with bumped up display settings and AI.What is your hardware specs?

[Guest UlfB]

Nils,Here are my latencies over Mega airport Frankfurt. A scenery that decreases hour fps and puts FSX on some heavy load.BP=10000000Maxed out autogen. AI (fsx default) at 100%. Ground traffic at 100%I guess the differences could be explained by hardware.EDITED: I even tried with MyTrafficX AI at 100% and the airport crowded with AI aircraft, but he latency figures reamained the same.