More Real versus Sim & the blurries

[LAdamson 240]

Posted these as a reply at Flightsim.com. But they do once again demonstrate that "real life" has blurry textures at a distance!KSLC area, looking towards the west, second pic --- FS2002/Dreamfleet CardinalL.Adamson

[Guest jase439]

Stop it. You're making me homesick ;-)

[Guest JonP01]

As I get older everything gets blurrier anyway :-lol Then again, it was very refreshing to load up the x-plane demo and to have better frame rates and no blurries at all.

[Guest Eric]

L.Adamson, The problem is, near the aircraft, you will see alot of blur in the screenshots forum. CFS3 same problem, stop protecting this MAJOR problem. Many simmers get blur after while below the aircraft.Eric

[Guest Paul_W]

I always appreciate it when people take the time and effort to post real world versus simulator views; I find them really interesting.I have to say though that I find this comparison rather classic. What I see in the second shot that compares very well with the first is a very realistic aircraft wing.But when comparing the real world scenery to the simulator's, you've pointed to some distant point and labelled it as blurry. I realize you're trying to make a point here and there's been lots of discussion about that issue, but when I compare those two scenes I see dramatic differences that are vastly more relevant than whether some small and distant patch in the real-world view can be labelled as blurry. I see a much darker view in the simulated world, a lack of grass-green textures, and mountain textures that don't mimic the dull brown ruggedness of the originals very well at all. I would think these things are eminently fixable in FS 2004, but if I was looking at that simulated view in isolation my guess would be that it was modelling some other completely different geographic location.

[Guest cwright]

Larry, the problem with dynamic blurred textures is this: as you fly along FS fails to properly update the mip map resolutions, so as a result the textures directly below the plane are blurred (quite a few official CFS3 screenshots show this too, by the way). I have no problem with blurred textures in the far distance, as in your shots. But what I *do* have a problem with is sometimes totally blurred textures immediately surrounding the aircraft if I go mad and fly at more than 50 knots. Fly at a couple of thousand knots and I suspect you'll find yourself surrounded by blurred textures! In contrast FS2000 can maintain full resolution at many thousands of knots (the constant redrawing that FS2000 suffered from was nothing to do with the mip map resolution). Best regards, Chris

[LAdamson 240]

>As I get older everything gets blurrier anyway :-lol Then >again, it was very refreshing to load up the x-plane demo >and to have better frame rates and no blurries at all. I run X-Plane too! Nice glossy mountain textures that can look photo-real, but they are all repeating----------- and repeat alot!! Gain an advantage & lose an advantage.L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

> The problem is, near the aircraft, you will see >alot of blur in the screenshots forum. CFS3 same problem, >stop protecting this MAJOR problem. Many simmers get blur >after while below the aircraft. > ;(8 ;(8 ;(8 L.Adamson

[Wolfko 0]

Eric,what you mean is a different kind of blurring - it is known as "dynamic" or "progressive" blurring.This occurs, when your system simply can't manage your settings. Most people who had this "dynamic" blurries problem, were able to solve it via options/settings/display respectively Options/sttings/ATC or via the grpaphic card settings.Of yourse, if you do not want to compromise or if you are not willing to accept a decrease of what theoretically would be possible with a perfect state of the art system, then there will be no help for your problem.Wolfgang

[Guest Dean]

>Posted these as a reply at Flightsim.com. But they do once >again demonstrate that "real life" has blurry textures at a >distance! >>KSLC area, looking towards the west, second pic --- >FS2002/Dreamfleet Cardinal >>L.Adamson Larry,Your first picture looks like a sim, the original TS2 textures come to mind, and the second looks real! The underwing texture of the Cardinal looks great, very real looking.

[Guest DNelson]

I snapped this right over KSLC almost 2 years ago during one of our famous winter temperature inversions. Even though KSLC looks like wide open VFR from above, ground visibility at the time was about 2 miles and ILS approaches were in use. You can really see the difference between vertical and horizontal visibility by looking out toward the horizon - the horizon ain't there due to the fog! This effect has caused more than a few bent airplanes by VFR pilots that aren't aware of how this works. You are on short final with the runway clearly in sight, then shortly before touchdown the ground disappears because of the fog layer.Dan

[Guest jase439]

OK...so maybe I'm not THAT homesick :-lol

[John_Cillis 2,406]

IMHO, the shots simply do not compare... The problem with the first shot is a very low visibility caused by the haze, whereas the second shot is almost unlimited vis. by comparison...Having said that, I do agree that FS2002 is sharper than real life.... I took a trip to California last week. Almost unlimited visibility, but "patches" of ground were obscured by haze and/or a thin ground fog (as we approached the California coast). In all my "real life" flights, which number in the thousands, I've yet to fly anywhere where the visibility was consistent, all the way to the horizon. Drifting smoke, inversions, local humidity have always added patches of blurriness.I've learned something recently about dynamic blurriness... The larger the combined texture size of the aircraft, the more dynamic blurriness. I think it important to consider overall texture load when trying to troubleshoot the dynamic blurries. I spent hours tweaking FS2002....not for maximum sharpness, but for maximum realisim. I played with LOD and anisotropy settings until I found something which mirrored most of the flights I've been on. And I've been quite happy with the results. Below is a link to some shots which meet that requirement for me... And the MU-2 in the shots is cruising at well over 50kts.... At FL200, it's cruising right around 290-295 kts... http://ftp.avsim.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboa...rum=DCForumID47-John

[Guest jase439]

Just curious: what are your settings in those pics?

[John_Cillis 2,406]

My anisotropy is at the highest level a GeForce 2 supports... My LOD is -.5...FS settings...untweaked FS2002.cfg, and unlimited vis. in the flights shown... Also, whenever I cruise in the flight levels, I disable Autogen (I rarely use it unless I'm fooling around in an ultralight)..My fps lock is at 25. Higher than that, and dynamic blurries begin to crop up... It's a good compromise setting....achievable in most places with my rig (P3-800), and fast enough to provide wonderful fluidity in flight...-John