Sunday, January 13, 2013


[FSX] Optimization of the fsx.CFG file to better 'customize' your FSX to reflect YOUR hardware.

We've all flown our favorite routes to our favorite airports ....and then falling among'st the OOM errors, which is happening more and more since the airport scenery's are becoming more and more demanding.  So when this happens....

...if your anything like me, then this will happen next...

so, to help and avoid PC frustrations,- I have gotten around this myself by following 3 simple steps.  See below: -

Lesson 1 - Start with an ONLINE fsx.cfg tweaker to provide the BASE for your hardware.

Lesson 2 - Manually tweak your cfg file to better optimize based on performance after the tweak. e.g Frames in my opinion are not as important as the 'smoothness' and feel when panning around your VC if your at a demanding airport such as FSDT.  Some tweaks I manually enter to better help with performance are below: -

cfg entries

[TERRAIN] Sweet spot below:

TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=40 (or 400 if your using Concorde X by FSLabs)

(to reduce bluries)and give more bandwidth to texture loads
loading.  higher settings from 30 may cause microstutters.
settings between 100 and 600

TextureMaxLoad=9 OR 30 reasonable.  
However, note this figure in conjunction with the above should be multiples of 3

[SCENERY] - to be added below
SmallPartRejectRadius=1.0 (default)
2 or 4 next settings.
May cause popping of small objects


(if stuttering when panning is experienced, reduce back to 4.5)

Lesson 3 - Use an FPS external limiter rather than inside FSX.
It has been noted that FSX internal FPS limiter can cause micro stutters due to the way textures are controlled.  Using an external frames limiter (see below link) using JAVA can improve frames by as much as 10 FPS which would give smooth panning even at demanding airports.

or a clever QUICK tweak that I use to tell you PC to use more available memory to avoid OOM (out of memory) errors.  

Note: to be used on 32 bit systems only.

Now it should be time to go FLY and test those improvements, which should have improved your computers efficiency by 30%.

Happy Flying,


Unknown said...

Just to tell you this: This shouldn't be posted here as people WILL read this and ask ourself if this is really the good place for such a thing. I mean you only collected everything without really giving credits to people who "suffered" to find those tips&tricks... In my opinion a bit low no?

Anonymous said...

Just to tell YOU this: Are you kidding me? Tweaks like these flood around FS sites all the time! And plus, whats wrong with sharing with FSXers on how to make their simming experience more enjoyable? I'm sure those that are experiencing OOMs will appreciate this. Moreover, do you really think he just copy+pasted all this?

DAndre Newman said...

As desperate as I am to squeeze more frames out of FSX, i'll take all I can get. Besides, if people are unaware of these options, now they have a chance to try.

No harm in that. Just back up your FSX.cfg first!

Anonymous said...

It's a good idea to keep them all in one place (or one message in this case)


Unknown said...

Perhaps some controversy?

Links shared here are in no way a copy of one post, however notes in my experience of what DOES and Does NOT work in my opinion. You can trawl through the hundreds of sights out there and take peoples advice with a pinch of salt and find out the hard way what works and what doesn't, or you can read here, from an experienced simmer, and someone who has managed to find success in what others have posted, and would make the whole experience, simple, easy and effortless to install in to their current FSX configurations. I hope people reading this can understand this is a post about sharing what has worked and will work to those who perhaps haven't gotten around to 'searching' for those right answers. Darryl

Anonymous said...

Guys you've opened Pandora's Box! :-)

It doesn't really help to list every available tweak for FSX which has ever been published. This is surely more stuff to talk about in forums, not a news blog.

No tweak can compensate poor or unbalanced hardware.

So you have to complete this task first and if necessary and the mission is accomplished start some slightly tuning.

Pls keep in mind, that different design-methods respond in different tweaking results. So you can waste lot of time, finding 100 best settings for 100 sceneries. Something what fits perfectly for A normally provides unwanted results for B.

So be careful inbalancing fsx texture engine via fsx.cfg. Standards are mostly better than you are willing to believe.

Unknown said...

Just to make this (a bit clearer):
Do you really think that posting it here is good? I mean you are bringing this up here like it is a news and how many people do you think will use this? And then telling them, I simply quote: "Now it should be time to go FLY and test those improvements, which should have improved your computers efficiency by 30%." Just re-read that sentence and think a bit... 30%, that's quite much no?

To come back to you: These tweaks are flooding around mostly on big forums to show people and to get in touch with experiences all over the world and with 1000 of potential different systems and settings. Putting it here is simply the wrong area and showing that the poster did not understand the way this is done. He is just saying that his 3 steps are one of the MAIN answer to their OOM problem. There you just see his knowledge is as little as a 4 month old baby. The main reason for OOMs is that users overexpect the power of their PC's and that they do not realize that flying (due to the current events) with Orbx PNW/PFJ/CRM/.., the PMDG 737NGX, FSDT Vancouver and Active Sky is too much. If you have the PMDG 737NGX you surely do not need all those Orbx things. You do not need to have 20 layers of clouds,...
So in other words: Instead of letting people run into the knife, while not helping them with comments like: Do you really need 20 cloud layers? Do you really need airport XYZ,IOF,.... installed while flying a twin-engine short- to middle-distance jet? I mean this will help other people instead of those (more or less) dumb "fixes" since when now another airport is added the OOM will surely come back and then you cannot push your setting much harder...
but anyway, to whom I am talking. Nobody listens to the voices of others as they think they are right but they all have not really much experience in this I suppose...

Unknown said...

Hi Markus, you have some good opinions, but let's keep responses clean.

References to a 4 month old baby is unnecessary, and ironically 'childish'. To be clear: The steps outlined above are the basis for configuring your FS\ to optimize IF your experiencing these errors or poor frames, based on demanding scenery.

With that in mind, the above steps is a 'guideline' and has worked for the majority, not all. Your suggestions are good, and culminate these together and I think we'll be on the right path.

FSX in my opinion is like the weather, its a science, but no definate answer. Trial and error is key to figuring out what works and doesn't work on each independent system. Bringing these ideas to perhaps someone who hasn't read or come across a tweak might actually help them, so rather than responding negatively with a condescending nature, lets try and help each other, yeah. Cheers, DS

Anonymous said...


I'm not really sure exactly what your argument is here, and why you have such a strong detest towards this post. To my understanding, AIRDAILYX is a place to share everything and anything that is remotely beneficial towards FSing, whether it be news, advice, or just basic experience from other FS users out there. Yes, their have certainly been a lot of pioneers out there, who have definitely broke through a lot of operating problems which originally came with FSX. Elaboration regarding the subject, will be, and always will be, a never ending discussion, as new people will come along and show us how simple it really is.

To my understanding, having a properly tweaked fsx.cfg is an absolute MUST. Most users, have a determination of bringing FSX to a level of realism never originally thought possible. Darryl's posting here, only shows that having the capability of running all those awesome new addons, isn't necessairly out of arms reach. Having a properly config'd fsx can bring us there.

Darryl, has only chosen to spark this discussion to help others who are (and there most certainly are) unaware of the benefits of having a tweaked cfg. People don't want to hear that with performance, must come with sacrifice. In a sense, that still is unfortunately true, but it is not the type of attitude that will bring us to a place where every simmer wants to be.

Anonymous said...

What works for one may not necessarily work for another.

That said, I would strongly suggest reading what this guy has put together:
He may be appear a little arrogant, which may simply be down to the fact that English is not his mother tongue, but he has put together an excellent one-stop shop of information regarding FS tweaks and information on tuning. It is great that someone has put this into one single guide...
It is worth mentioning that using the nVidia inspector setting for vsnyc set to half the screen frequency (60 Hz is common for many LCDs) and then setting the internal FSX frame setting to 30 limited gives me smoothness and no tearing. You have to try each setting, understand how it affects FSX and your system. That way, and only that way, will you achieve the sweet spot for your system.

You cannot expect even the best of systems to be able to cope with 4096 HD textures, NGX, OrbX a thousand addon airports, REX etc, Opus weather, 15+ cloud layers and so on...
Remember that FSX is a 32-bit application with only 4 Gb of Virtual Address Space. Reach that and BAM! OOM... This is probably more likely to happen on an overclocked, all-singing-and-dancing i7 2000/3000 series, with 16+Gb RAM, high-end GPU, as the user is going to throw everything at FSX... even with such a high-end system, it is important to find the correct mix...
Oh, and when it comes to GPUs, I did some tests with my GTX470 running [bufferpools] UsePools=0 (which needs Water set to High 2.X in order for the flashing to be addressed) in the NGX over OrbX EU ENG London at UK2000 Heathrow Extreme, at 1920X1080X32-bit resolution... I couldn't get the GPU load over 50%...
No doubt, FSDTs CYVR might push that a little more, given their use of the GPU, but even then, I probably still have enough headroom...

Not saying that this is the solution for everyone, but it appears to work for me, FOR ME being the important bit here...

All the best in finding your respective sweet spot setups, check out the link above...


Anonymous said...

see this suggestion at FSDT

by tf51d

Post a Comment

Comments are now deactivated. Please visit our new website:

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.