[Display] TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=120

I was reading about setting the [Display]

TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=120

I know the default is 40 I believe but what is to be gained by the higher number?

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

 

This will give you some good info!

Hi usb,

About a year ago I came across a post recommending 200. I tried it in an area with which I'm familiar {going North into San Jose, CA at 1500 ft. looking left 90 degrees and down approx. 60 degrees with max scenery (default) and dense autogen from the VC in the Skyhawk} it appeared noticeably smoother so I just left it. This and setting FSX to run at High Priority are the only 2 tweaks that I've found worthwhile.

Since FSX:SE was released I found its default setting is 160. It seems likely to me that this is why people report smoother performance versus the disc version.

Jim F.

 

Edit: I should have said "Above Normal" priority. And I define "tweak" as something that requires manual editing, not a normal adjustment.

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

 

This will give you some good info!

Very nice info! Thanks, I found at 120 started to spike. I found 40 to run nicer.

You got it. I have mine at 40 and FSX runs smooth as silk, locked at 30 fps.

Chuck B

Napamule

I've used 40, 80, 120, and 160. No difference at all. Of course, YMMV.

 

Doug

 

Intel 4790K CPU, MSI Z97 Gaming 7 mobo, Noctua NH-U12S cooler, Corsair Vengeance Pro 16GB 2133 MHz RAM, nVidia GTX 970 GPU, Cooler Master HAF 932 Tower, Thermaltake 1000W Toughpower PSU, Windows 7 Professional 64-Bit, and other stuff:

 

500GB SSD - Samsung 840

12TB HDD Internal - Western Digital Black

40TB HDD External - Western Digital My Book

2x Asus PA246Q ProArt 24" 1920x1200

4x Plextor PX-891SAW DVD-RW

Hi usb and Chuck,

What type of CPU and video card do you have?. Mine are both AMD. I'm suspecting this may be the difference in what we're experiencing. I know the tweaking guides, that are frequently referenced, are geared to Intel/Nvidia and nothing in them is of any value to me; quite the opposite actually. Maybe this case is just another instance of different results with different systems.

Jim F.

 

Edit: Just saw Doug's post. My suspicions are strengthened.

I have two builds, the one below the newest and best but I started with an AMD FX-6300 and a Radeon HD7770 card. Trust me, the i7 processor and Nvidia card the way to go.

If it ain't broke? Do not fix it!...lol!

Hi usb,

A couple of questions. Do you have FSX:SE? And, if so, with its default of 160 do you have to turn it down to prevent "spiking"? And what is spiking?

And is one of your builds still an AMD and does it also exhibit problems with the higher setting?

Jim F.

I have two builds, the one below the newest and best but I started with an AMD FX-6300 and a Radeon HD7770 card. Trust me, the i7 processor and Nvidia card the way to go.

 

I've done the same thing. Except I did two different AMD builds before I gave up and bought the Intel. Stubborn I guess.

 

However, I love the capabilities of the Enfinity system. So I've been stuck on Nvidia cards for some time.

I have FSX Acceleration and yes, my experience with spiking especially with the low end AMD, auto-gen to high and not locking the frame rate say 30 fps. The newer build with the i7 processor handles even max water and only at the big airports ie JFK LAX frames drop to 15 but out in the sky solid 30 locked. But if I say go unlimited even the NVidia card will spike but I have my sliders all the way even 50% on the AI, 100% on the ships. And yes, I have all the ships.

Nvideo video has always seemed to handle dense FSX clouds the best. So they say..

As far as the scenery itself, both video brands seem to do fairly well.

 

Intel has the most brute CPU power, but sometimes the bang for the buck value

is good with the AMD chips. I've used both.. My present cpu is a i7 4790, but my

last was a Phenom II quad core.. The AMD wasn't bad.. But the i7 is much more

stout as far as brute CPU power.. Say appx 4000 vs 10,000-11,000 or so on the CPU

scores.. Clock speed per say ain't everything.. Actually, it can mean very little these

days when you compare recent chips with older ones, or the various CPU platforms

against each other.

 

I've tried the various MULT settings, and danged if I could see much difference..

But.. I might see a bit less of the "missing texture" syndrome that you sometimes see

when changing the view real fast. Say with acrobatic flying in something that can

quickly turn on a dime.. Sometimes you would see little triangles of missing ground

texture when turning real fast. I might see less of that with the higher MULT setting,

but not really sure yet. But I've been using 160 for a while, and haven't noticed too

much of that lately. FSX-SE seemed to have less of that than FSX box, so I started

using 160 for FSX, being as SE did and ran pretty well.

Hi usb,

A couple of questions. Do you have FSX:SE? And, if so, with its default of 160 do you have to turn it down to prevent "spiking"? And what is spiking?

And is one of your builds still an AMD and does it also exhibit problems with the higher setting?

Jim F.

 

In the mentioned "Demystified" link above:

"Then, if you take it into another scenery area, your issues with blurries, lag spikes, micro stutters, etc."

 

"Spikes" seems to be an non-defined, and vague item in an assortment of non-technical terms used to describe unwanted visual

attributes.

 

As another who is all matched AMD (chipset, video, CPU) I have no doubt when those running a certain AMD clock speed updated to another mainboard with a higher intel clock speed, they got better results. As for me, I'm satisfied I'm getting the same frame rate and visual satisfaction as the hundreds of other people I've seen posted here with intel clock speeds the same as mine. I would even go so far as to say, the number of users with intel CPUs the same clock speed as mine complaining of problems is rather large.

Do manufacturers optimize their hardware and software to work best with their own products? Of course. Do we also over time learn to optimize our FS experience for our personal satisfaction based on what we want out of the sim?

 

Whenever anyone makes the statement "I did this and it was better or my frames increased by x" I discount the statement as worthless to anyone other than that person. The only claims I even get close to considering are those I can objectively TEST.

If the user describes all the software and add-ons, the geo location of the frame measurements, with static weather, flight altitude, air speed and no clouds then the claim will be considered AFTER I have duplicated the environment 100% and looked at the results myself. FSX is a dynamic environment and only when the dynamics and variables are reduced to minimum, known and reproducible can the claims be tested and verified. It's possible for two flight results to be different from one another for other reasons than a tweak. It's also possible for two flights to be different from one another changing nothing.

 

-Pv-

Tested:

Display and frame rate difference using TBW 160 vs default 40.

 

Test duration: Appx 12 minutes.

 

The procedures used are avaiclimlable to every FSX user to duplicate.

 

Step One Procedure:

Opened FSX.CFG in Notepad with FSX shut down to confirm setting was default 40.

Confirmed Frame Lock set to 30.

Closed FSX.CFG

 

Started FSX to main menu and selected Free Flight.

Selected BKA (one of the default FSX aircraft with higher poly count in 3D model and panel.)

Local Sim Time: 1300 Pacific daylight, May 29, 2015

Selected 50% fuel all tanks.

Selected default KSEA runway 34R in default scenery. There is both generous MIP mesh and building textures in this area to reasonably load FSX to factory design specifications.

Selected default default Fair Weather Theme. No External weather, No FSX online weather,

Clicked FLY.

While paused on runway, saved the flight to filename "temp"

 

Took off and climbed on runway heading to 4000 ft and flew over downtown Seattle (one of the more detailed of the default FSX scenery areas) at 180 knots using only 3D panel.

While flying over city buildings, watched them scroll by. Turned 180 degrees to right, and landed KSEA 34R.

 

Step One Result:

Peak Frame rate = 30

Lowest Frame Rate = 27.5 (one instant lasing less than 1 second.)

Average Frame rate = 29.5

 

Step Two Procedure:

Closed FSX.

Opened FSX.CFG in Notepad and changed TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=40

Closed Notepad.

Started FSX

Selected Free Flight and loaded saved "temp"

 

Same Take Off and Seattle fly over as Procedure One with no online weather. Using 3D panel only, observed buildings and scenery as I flew over, Turned 180 degrees to right returned to land KSEA 34R.

 

Result:

No difference.

 

Also watched for any unexpected graphical anomalies including popping, flashing, slow texture loads, smooth distance filtering, etc. There were no differences between these two flights. If there was any difference in the appearance of scenery, textures, or clouds, it was perceivable.

 

Conclusion reached:

Same as the Kostas and FSX Bible tweaking guides. Settings over 40 produce no visual improvement or performance improvement.

 

-Pv-

Hi pv,

I don't pay much attention to frame rate. I have it locked at 40 as this was a bit lower than what I was seeing with my last install in a familiar area. I can't see much benefit in refreshing the screen more often than this. I'd rather have the system devote it's time to handling other tasks. I simply fly at a reasonable altitude and look at objects on the ground, perpendicular to my flight path and note how smoothly they are rendered. Pretty subjective but this seems to work well for me. I do something similar with aircraft; in the VC I simply pan horizontally and see how jerky the vertical edge of the windscreen appears. This is also the best argument for "ForceFullScreenVSync=1". No tearing. And I forgot about this being a tweak.

The other benefit for the higher setting that's a bit more subjective is simply looking forward in the VC and waggling the wings as quickly as possible and seeing how smoothly the forward view appears.

I read yesterday about the feasibility of using light in CPUs, as opposed to copper or other metal, in the conductive paths which would enable speeds of ten times faster than what is now possible. Heat seems to be the problem. Seems like FSX, with its CPU dependence, might benefit appreciably.

Jim F.

I think we're many years away from optical CPUs. There are other advances more short term and those may still be years away due to manufacturing QC and scale-up.

 

Keep in mind 24 frames is traditional film frame rate. 30 is video frame rate, and 60 Hz is the US AC electrical frequency at which florescent lights cycle, so unless you find your eyes constantly distracted by "blinking" videos stuttering every 30th of a second (and I'm not talking about camera, production and editing techniques) you may well be able to give up some of the frame lock, backing it down to 30 and give yourself some more eye candy with other setting increases.

 

My point in the the test was to shine light on the often proposed TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT as a non-starter.

 

-Pv-

Hi pv,

I think the projected time frame for optical pathways was 10 years.

As for increased texture bandwidth, for me it's a plus. I think Steam also got the word as their default is 160. I've never fooled around with it as I was happy with the 200.

And as for the traditional 24 FPS that is not how often an image is displayed. I don't recall the exact multiplier for commercial projection but for home 8mm 16 fps the projected frame rate is 48 (3 x 16). Each frame is displayed 3 times before the next frame is advanced. I've heard that anything less than 30 is perceptible.

Jim F.

"I've heard that anything less than 30 is perceptible."

 

Well. You don't have to depend on what you've heard since 10's of thousands of movies and nearly all the all time top rated classics were shown on 24 FPS celluloid film. I did not in all my life hear anyone complain about the shutter speed being too slow to enjoy these films. Your retina has an image retention rate much slower than this. All you have to do is close your eyes and see how long it takes for the image to entirely disappear.

 

I would even challenge people to turn off the frame rate counter and at any given time try to guess what frame rate they are seeing. Probably nine times out of ten their guess will be lower than real unless it's on the lock. As you say, frame rates are highly over-rated in this sim. The entertainment value even at lower frame rates of 15-20 is very high.

 

You might be happy with a TBW of 160 or whatever. I would challenge anyone to perform the test I provided, eliminating pseudo-random variables, switching between 40 and ANY OTHER higher number and prove there is a difference.

 

-Pv-

Not sure about fsx, but in fs9 it does nothing. I've experimented with every number between 40 and 4000 with no difference or effect noticed.

After years of cfg 'tweaking', I've dicovered very little is achieved if at all for texture loading of fps.

 

The placebo effect is the best tweak of all.

Hi JSMR,

I agree with you completely regarding the placebo effect. I've yet to find anything of value in these tweaking guides that are frequently recommended. I've requested on multiple occasions what anyone has found worthwhile and under what conditions. I've never received a response. This was why I tried to specify the conditions under which I evaluated the change in my first post in this thread. And, what type of CPU and graphic card are you using? I think I said this before but I suspect the hardware difference may be the key to different observations.

Jim F.

"The placebo effect is the best tweak of all. "

 

NICE! I did something therefore it works!

-Pv-