...without smooth gradient

[Lucas]

1). "Do I think that a 4.5 gig proc needs watercooling??" I can't answer that question, Lucasz.
What information would you think I need in order to answer that question?

I was suggested your above words:

„With some water cooling and some patience - your proc should see 4.5 or 4.6”

…so asked you about water cooling, but I understand that you cannot give me simply answer – no problem.

* * *

I said that:-

In your case - at 4.3 gig - any of those cards will work - even a 560Ti is ok, but the 660 is a 3rd-grade card, so you would be better to wait and save up to get a good card - the 680 - as this will match the proc, and will even allow you to move the proc speed up tp 4.6 gig - then your FSX would begin to fly!

- so you knew that when you purchased the card.

# 5 is your problem, Lucasz. Expectations. To get a smooth sim, with nice graphics and a high (30fps) frame rate then you have two choices: you either get a faster system - say 4.8 - 5.2GHz, with an x80-series gpu, or you lower your expectations. You can be as stubborn as you like - your pc is not going to suddenly behave as if it were a high-end pc. I've suggested good settings for a low-end pc in a re-vamped fsx.cfg on May 14th, in this thread, and you've ignored most of them, and I have posted a list of the known frame-killers. If you choose not to make use of that, or to ignore what others suggest, then you have to find your own way - ok!

Ok, Poul, yes - you exactly wrote this, but you also wrote:

Post #10:

„A 660 will give much better performance than the 560 - even the 560Ti is much better, so - yes if it's available and you can afford it..... and will allow the use of: [BufferPools] UsePools=0”

Post #15:
- my question: „Do you think with 660 will be big performance improve in relation to my 560?”
- your answer: “Yes it will: the 560 is a low-end card, even when compared to the 560Ti.”

Post #18

“[…] but the 660 (or 660Ti) has many features which put either into the "next grade" above the 560. I'm sure you'll do the right thing....”

After all these words I was sure that superiority 660Ti over 560 will be visible, so this is why I’m disappointed now - I hope that you understand me.
Of course I know that ‘x80’ card is far better, unfortunately I don’t have money for it, however after your words I expected improvement even with 660.
Ok, nothing happened… don't misunderstand me, I’m not angry on you …still very thankful for time spent for me and a lot of help from you.

Regards,
Lucas

[Paul J]

Post #10:

„A 660 will give much better performance than the 560 - even the 560Ti is much better, so - yes if it's available and you can afford it..... and will allow the use of: [BufferPools] UsePools=0”


Post #15:
- my question: „Do you think with 660 will be big performance improve in relation to my 560?”
- your answer: “Yes it will: the 560 is a low-end card, even when compared to the 560Ti.”

Please don't blame me for you ignoring the settings which I've posted twice for you to use. And cherry-picking one sentence out of context mixed in with two (or more) long posts regarding your problem is not going to score any points, either.

Your problem is a slow processor and system in general, and you are expecting much better performance with just a gpu change. At the same time you are killing the system with FSX settings which are too high.


And my name is not "Poul".


pj

[Lucas]

I'm sorry that I made a mistake in your name.

* * *

Ok, nothing happened… don't misunderstand me, I’m not angry on you …still very thankful for time spent for me and a lot of help from you.

Again... I don't blame you! (that was my choice) I'm only disappointed (I think that I have a right to be disappointed) that with THE SAME SETTINGS in simulator, Inspector, etc. FSX's performance is the same with both cards, although one is much better then the second.

Ok, there is no sense to continue this subject. I didn't expect such your reaction. I hope this will not have affect on our acquaintance.

All the best,
Lucas

[Paul J]

These are most of my personal rules, Lucasz:-

Given that Flight Simulator X is processor-bound:

If you increase your cpu speed - you will get better performance.

If your gpu is not capable of matching that performance - you will only get the same performance - maybe a hair better, or smoother. The 660 has better performance than the 560Ti.

If you move your cpu to 4.6GHz with the 660 - you will get better performance.

If your cpu and gpu are improved, you need to bring the rest of the system up with them.

I use this cooling system, chosen by knowing (before I purchased it) - that it would take care of the heat from any proc I could overclock.

I only buy the *80 - series Nvidia gpu's. I have then taken care of the gpu bottleneck.

I use Alacrity to stop all un-necessary processes.

I have FSX on it's own dedicated SSD.

I only load areas and airports where I'm going to fly.

I have different fsx.cfg's for each "type" of flight that I make. GA - VFR or IFR: Airliner: Helicopter: each has it's own cfg file.

The fsx.cfg and Inspector settings are only two members of the team. The "system" has to work efficiently and in harmony.
Some of this is also outlined in Nick's "Bible" - particularly the hardware choice for FSX.

OK!

All the Best.

pj

[Lucas]

Hi Paul,

thanks for detailed info.

Yestarday I applied your proposed settings and did some tests, then changing this and that ... and I observed that the big impact on performance (in my case) has WATER_EFFECT=5 and IMAGE_COMPLEXITY=5, so I decreased them by 1 -> there is much better now. I also set limit of frames in FSX.
Other settings from [TERRAIN] section and cloud settings ('coverage density' and 'detailed cloud') I decided to leave – I think they have no impact (or very marginal) on performance (in my case).

Now, I’m going to do some tests with set windowed VSYNC (some people said that it increase smoothness) -> please tell me one thing: I know that I have to start Aero after run FSX but is it necessary to use “pseudo full screen” or is it visual effect tweak only?

Best regards,
Lucas

[Paul J]

Good Morning Lucasz;

, I’m going to do some tests with set windowed VSYNC (some people said that it increase smoothness) -> please tell me one thing: I know that I have to start Aero after run FSX but is it necessary to use “pseudo full screen” or is it visual effect tweak only?

Pseudo-FullScreen is a visual effect, allowing FSX to be in "windowed-mode", but looking as if it were in "full-screen mode". This is a requirement for most dual or multi-monitor flyers who want their GPS - FMC - PlanG, etc., on the second monitor, but want to fly in the "normal" full screen mode.


Regarding:-

cloud settings ('coverage density' and 'detailed cloud') I decided to leave – I think they have no impact (or very marginal) on performance (in my case).

From your fsx.cfg, May 4th:-

CLOUD_DRAW_DISTANCE=6
DETAILED_CLOUDS=1
CLOUD_COVERAGE_DENSITY=8

I recommended, on the same date:-

CLOUD_DRAW_DISTANCE=3 // 6
DETAILED_CLOUDS=0 // 1
CLOUD_COVERAGE_DENSITY=7 // 8

These settings have a very large impact on frame rates, and will prevent other, perhaps more desirable effects to not perform as you think they should.

Regards,

pj

[Paul J]

Good Morning Lucasz;

, I’m going to do some tests with set windowed VSYNC (some people said that it increase smoothness) -> please tell me one thing: I know that I have to start Aero after run FSX but is it necessary to use “pseudo full screen” or is it visual effect tweak only?

Pseudo-FullScreen is a visual effect, allowing FSX to be in "windowed-mode", but looking as if it were in "full-screen mode". This is a requirement for most dual or multi-monitor flyers who want their GPS - FMC - PlanG, etc., on the second monitor, but want to fly in the "normal" full screen mode. We use Aero to provide the vSync in this case, as it does not normally work in windowed mode.


Regarding:-

cloud settings ('coverage density' and 'detailed cloud') I decided to leave – I think they have no impact (or very marginal) on performance (in my case).

From your fsx.cfg, May 4th:-

CLOUD_DRAW_DISTANCE=6
DETAILED_CLOUDS=1
CLOUD_COVERAGE_DENSITY=8

I recommended, on the same date:-

CLOUD_DRAW_DISTANCE=3 // 6
DETAILED_CLOUDS=0 // 1
CLOUD_COVERAGE_DENSITY=7 // 8

These settings have a very large impact on frame rates, and will prevent other, perhaps more desirable effects to not perform as you think they should.

Regards,

pj

[Lucas]

Hello my friends,

have you ever try this "tweak"? -> http://forum.avsim.net/topic/442239-...y-cores-trick/
I'm going to do some test (I have not enough ) with it...

Regards,
Lucas