Looking for config tweaks -

[CF104 0]

Hi All,Just re-installed FS2K2 and was searching for the FS2002.cfg terain tweaks but the search engine is only going back to Sept. 19/02. I'm looking specifically for the [Terain] tweaks regarding blurred textures. They worked well on my system and any help finding them is appreciated.Cheers,JohnBoeing 727/737 Mechanic

[Guest gasebah]

I once copied and pasted the important stuff to a doc file to avoid the situation you are in :-).Texture_max_load =1024TERRAIN_ERROR_FACTOR=1.000000TERRAIN_MAX_VERTEX_LEVEL=19TERRAIN_TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=8TERRAIN_AUTOGEN_DENSITY=5TERRAIN_USE_GRADIENT_MAP=1TERRAIN_EXTENDED_TEXTURES=1TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=60.000000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=40.000000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=4Cheers,Alex

[CF104 0]

Hi Alex,Thanks for the quick post.Cheers,JohnBoeing 727/737 Mechanic

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Keep in mind with the tweaks posted, that the memory footprint of FS2002 may increase, especially with these entries:TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=60.000000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=40.000000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=4I discovered this when one day out of the blue I noticed swap file activity on my system. Shortly after I first installed FS, I did some RAM usage studies so I could run it optimally on my 256 meg system. I found FS's footprint right around 150 megs with default a/c, scenery and mesh. But I ran through the many suggestions offered for tweaking, and some weeks later I noticed an odd stutter running FS. The only time FS2002 has ever stuttered on my system was due to swap file activity in the days I only had 128 megs of RAM--I upgraded to 256 megs within a week of purchasing FS2002, I remember.Out of curiousity, I evaluated RAM usage again, and the "footprint" had jumped by 50 megs. What was more interesting is it seemed FS was gradually eating more & more megs. The only thing I could consider was the Terrain tweak, so I set it back to the defaults. Normal RAM footprint. Changed it back to "tweaked" settings. Increased RAM footprint. Toggling the tweak back & forth brought pretty consistent results.Finally, I settled on default untweaked settings, combined with the Nvidia LOD/anisotropy tweaks. FS2002 had better performance, and the visuals looked (and still look) on par with the best results I've seen here (I've always used L. Adamson's screenshots as an example of what FS should look like).I don't know why the memory usage changes, I'd guess that FS may buffer textures somehow--the more required, the more buffered. Many months ago, someone posted some comparison shots of the tweaked vs. untweaked settings. For me, the differences were so subtle as to be almost unnoticeable.I've always had consistent results to gain sharp textures--run w/as few third party apps as possible, boot from a "clean" system, apply the Nvidia tweaks, and fly aircraft which are light in texture size. Most complex third party aircraft I've converted to DXT1 and stripped the alpha channel. often reducing texture load from 20 megs or more down to 1-2 megs. I really suspect that aircraft texture size can influence the overall results and performance of scenery display in FS.Hope this helps. And for what it's worth--try the tweak, and decide for yourself. These tweaks can have different results on different systems...-John