FSX & SLI

[Nick N]

Still stable at 625/1850 GPU. No artifacts nor tearing.

I think the fiber @ 33 helped a lot too and the frame lock at 24 seems smooth as well.

Good. I am glad you are experimenting with the numbers. Using what you have learned you can use it to work the important values to trim your sim for the hardware settings being applied.

The base slider and FSX.cfg settings John had you set up on this page: http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2 ... 2157609/45 remain the same after the initial fight tests. The only numbers you want to work with now that the sim was balanced prior to the clock work are:

Fiber Frame value
Autogen tree and building values
Autogen slider
Airline and GA traffic sliders
Frame Lock

The thing you must remember is all of or any ONE of those items being raised or lowered can have a huge impact on the visual results with even a very small change. The pain is in testing, testing, testing a new number for:

Airport performance from parking through takeoff
Visual performance (blurs and stutters) after takeoff and around metropolitan areas
Visual performance (blurs and stutters) outside of metropolitan areas
Visual performance (blurs and stutters) RE entering and going through metropolitan areas
Airport performance from landing to parking

The variables are Autogen, Traffic, weather and how much time the sim devotes to the terrain as compared to the flight (Fiber frame) and last the frame lock.

You go for the visuals first. Weather loads can not be precisely controlled so it is a WILD variable that must be tested LAST after you get the sim running right. If stutters, blurs and low performance are noted, changes to autogen, traffic, frame lock and the fiber frame are worked out first.

Everything else in the initial slider settings should remain the same until you get the sim running as close to perfect as you can. ONLY work with one value at a time and retest. NEVER make more than ONE change or the result will have you lost, fast.

Don

[Nick N]

Success with MSFS 10 (or any version) comes from:

1. Hardware selection, including the right HDD, video card, CPU, memory amount/speed and motherboard
2. Hardware setup and tower optimizing for high performance
3. Windows setup for high performance
4. Storage optimizing for high performance
5. Knowing how to set up the BASE sim sliders with the hardware being used
6. Understanding what the tweak numbers mean in the configuration file and how to use them CORRECTLY
7. Understanding the relationship between the settings and how one affects the others
8. Using a correct methodology to trim the sim for best results with all of the above

and there is one more item that is critical to changing the default environment provided by Microsoft and tranforming the sim into an awesome, realistic visual expereince

9. Understanding ADD-ONS and knowing what really works and what doesn't.

Just because mid-lower end hardware is used does not mean a bad sim experience. What it means is the user will simply have to accept what they can get out of the sim in the way of visuals.

Referring to #5 in the above list, the slider and FSX.cfg file settings posted in this thread for setting up FSX initially were not designed for low end hardware. The base settings before tweaking must be correct for the hardware and system prior to starting #8 or the experience will not be very satisfying.

I do not believe in reducing textures or hacking autogen. If those methods are needed the user is trying to run FSX at settings their hardware -is not designed to run-, its that simple. I understand why doing that may have value but quite simply the best way to approach FSX is to start with the right hardware and follow though with the right setup process for the tower, windows and the sim. When updates are released that means hacked systems are subject to changes that may force a re-install and as many have discovered those hacks actually cause more headaches than they fix.

A Core2/X2 A64, 8800 or DX10 card to enjoy FSX is not a requirement. All thats required is understanding accepting the limits of the hardware installed. Most CPU's including and above AMD 3700+ or Intel P4 with the right amount and speed of memory (2gigs) and a decent video adapter x800xtx-7600GS and above will deliver a resonable FSX show if the user is will to accept the limits and not push the sliders and numbers higher than their hardware can handle. If one can't accept that, FS9 still works just fine and would be a better choice for such people who think they should be able to max out settings and fly 30+ frames.

Most who gripe about FSX cant fly FS9 much better either because they think the software is load-and-go. Referring to #9 above, if one expects to run add-ons in FS9 that transform that sim into a much better and much more realistic world than the default scenery can, load-and-go is -not possible- either and the same listed methodology must be appiled to it. The only difference between FSX/FS9 is lower end hardware will allow higher settings be run. How well it runs depends on the user knowing what add-ons to use and how to set everything up, plain and simple.

[Black ZR-1]

Most who gripe about FSX cant fly FS9 much better either because they think the software is load-and-go. Referring to #9 above, if one expects to run add-ons in FS9 that transform that sim into a much better and much more realistic world than the default scenery can, load-and-go is -not possible- either and the same listed methodology must be appiled to it. The only difference between FSX/FS9 is lower end hardware will allow higher settings be run. How well it runs depends on the user knowing what add-ons to use and how to set everything up, plain and simple.

I totally agree. Most people treat FSX like FS9 and expect to max out their settings like they did in FS9, expecting the same results.. only to be dissapointed. I lost count of how many "FSX sucks, I'm returning it!" threads I read back in September on this board..

True, I got nowhere near the visual experience I did with my 9800 Pro compared to my 8800 now, but after the demo I knew it was time to upgrade.

[Nick N]

Most who gripe about FSX cant fly FS9 much better either because they think the software is load-and-go. Referring to #9 above, if one expects to run add-ons in FS9 that transform that sim into a much better and much more realistic world than the default scenery can, load-and-go is -not possible- either and the same listed methodology must be appiled to it. The only difference between FSX/FS9 is lower end hardware will allow higher settings be run. How well it runs depends on the user knowing what add-ons to use and how to set everything up, plain and simple.

I totally agree. Most people treat FSX like FS9 and expect to max out their settings like they did in FS9, expecting the same results.. only to be dissapointed. I lost count of how many "FSX sucks, I'm returning it!" threads I read back in September on this board..

True, I got nowhere near the visual experience I did with my 9800 Pro compared to my 8800 now, but after the demo I knew it was time to upgrade.

I think the only thing that needs to be worked out on your system now is traffic. The funny thing about MSFS is as I said above, sometimes when a load is applied on one end and the sim displays a negative response, the fix is to apply a HIGHER load elsewhere to compensate for the change, such as increasing the autogen line numbers by 100 -or- reducing/increasing the texture bandwidth multiplier, instead of reducing the traffic slider or a autogen value. One of the reasons MSFS is so hard to get timed is because it defies typical logic than more is bad and less is good. Understanding that traffic in FSX is currently a very CPU dependant item and understanding the load it applies to the type of video adapter being run (because of the shader and memory it may have) is important so what numbers to work with instead of saying.. 'traffic is too high, I must reduce it' right off the bat can be worked.

With that in mind about raising traffic, another value that should not be forgotten is bufferpools. This can be raised in order to trim out stutters or lags in view changes and banking the aircraft, including heavy weather conditions. What it does is reserve a section of the video memory for buffering the renders. By doing so the rendering remains ready for use and does not need the CPU and GPU cycles to be recalled. In a high memory card this should be experimented with. Sometimes it is better to raise the bufferpools from 5000000 to 10000000 and reduce/raise the texture bandwidth multiplier after to trim out visual pan and aircraft banking stutters or lags. After such a tweak, frame lock may need to be re-evaluated.

Again, its a balance. The scenery sliders and autogen numbers need to be found first and after that its about trimming the settings that deal with what you see on the screen and that is not always related to more or less scenery or traffic.

Once you have the sim where it needs to be, ALWAYS back up that config file and save it.


If hardware changes are made, CPU, memory, new motherboard, video card, all or just one, you may find it best to start over with a fresh FSX.cfg file and work it all out again. Something as simple as raising the amount of memory may change the ball game enough to where the original numbers that were worked out no longer produce the same view-to-view load balance. With a substantial CPU or video card upgrade, starting over is a must.

[Black ZR-1]

So you think after my OC'ing, I should start fresh with a new FSX config file?

[Nick N]

So you think after my OC'ing, I should start fresh with a new FSX config file?

That suggests you have a hardware upgrade by overclocking. Again, this is a very big mistake people make. They think because their CPU and video card are running clocks that very expensive and much faster hardware are running, they can do the same thing with the sim.. Wrong. The supporting electronics and internal design differences of those better components is what makes them better, not their clock rates.

[Black ZR-1]

Temp @ idle



Temp while running FSX



--------------------------------------------------------



Temp @ idle



Temp while running FSX







No artifacts or tearing yet, but then again I haven't ran for an hour like you suggested so who knows yet..

[Nick N]

Temp @ idle



Temp while running FSX



--------------------------------------------------------



Temp @ idle



Temp while running FSX







No artifacts or tearing yet, but then again I haven't ran for an hour like you suggested so who knows yet..

Here is the thing about GPU cores. As soon as you exit FSX (or minimize the screen) the GPU will instantly drop in temp by as much as 10-20c. The only way you can tell if a GPU is being overheated is use the Nvidia monitoring software that, when set to do so, records a decent timeline of the temps at which point when you minimize the FSX window you can see how the core was doing over a good period of time while you were flying and check the temp spikes for overheating. You will also see how fast that core temp dropped too.

I would say by the 62c temp shown that during actual use that core is most likely in the 75-80c range. I may be wrong but you really need to use the timeline temp monitor from the NEW driver control panel to see that for sure.

[Nick N]

There are a few alternative software package that can be used to monitor temps. ATI Tool v.26 will work. Do not use it to set clocks but it can be used (if temp monitor is activated) to display the low/average/highest temp and has a small graph as well. Its not a bad little tool but it has limited use with Nvidia cards. The temp monitor does work but it also has a tendancy to make MSFS stutter here and there while the system is being poled for the readings. Under the options 'monitor GPU temp" must be selected and the 10 second rate is fine.

[Black ZR-1]

Real weather @ KORD

[Black ZR-1]

After some exentsive flying, this is the highest degree I could record:

http://djtaso.com/fsx/temp12.jpg (800k)

[Nick N]

Real weather @ KORD

Very interesting that the temp appears to remain constant without any spikes or drops. Does the idle temp remain the same or does it drop after FSX completely exits?

[Nick N]

After some exentsive flying, this is the highest degree I could record:

http://djtaso.com/fsx/temp12.jpg (800k)

That makes a bit more sense. OK, what is important is that the temp is remaining stable and well below any danger zone. 70-75 is fine, when it creeps up into the high 70's and low 80's its pushing the card. Mid to high 80's and the card is being over-stressed and needs to be backed off or better cooling applied.


FSX is not going to push the card to its limits. Sometimes it takes a program like 3Dmark run in loops to really heat up a GPU. What is being displayed looks good but keep in mind that when overclocking anything it is a good habit to check temps every so often, especially with climate changes and conditions.

[Black ZR-1]

Very interesting that the temp appears to remain constant without any spikes or drops. Does the idle temp remain the same or does it drop after FSX completely exits?

Temp after exiting:



EDIT: 60 - 61 now

[Nick N]

Very interesting that the temp appears to remain constant without any spikes or drops. Does the idle temp remain the same or does it drop after FSX completely exits?

Temp after exiting:



EDIT: 60 - 61 now

Alright. I think we confirmed your running ok. Usually a GPU idles around 35-45c depending on the card. The newer cards  ;) do tend to idle higher. As I said, I think you are fine, just check it evey so often and definitely keep an eye on it with a background scan running when testing a new clock