FS2004 on a good video card.

[Guest venquessa]

I have got myself a good video card. It's a Nvidia 7800. I have FSGlobal2k8 and GEPro installed.I have followed every fs9.cfg tweaking guide I can find, but I still cannot get textures and mesh to look good anything beyond middle distance.I realize in relatively flat areas or from high altitude the way it renders is perfectly acceptable and the distance scenery is fuzzed out by distance haze anyway so texture quality is not important on the horizon at 80 odd miles.However when flying or gliding around the valleys in the Alps or Himalayas the peaks that might be 20 miles away 'should' look much clearer than they do. In fact beyond the middle distance they look pathetic like FS2000 or worse. Blocky triangular peaks with fuzzy textures and the only way to get them to look good in a screen shot is to zoom right out to fish eye view.Is there anyway to force FS2004 to use higher detail textures and terrain right out to the horizon?My video card will maintain 40-60fps in the Himalayas and *only* slows down when 3D clouds are turned up, so the terrain, nor textures is my bottle neck, thus I'd like to push the detail out further.My FS9.cfg (relevant parts)[sCENERY]IMAGE_COMPLEXITY=5DYNAMIC_SCENERY=1DYN_SCN_DENSITY=5DAWN_DUSK_SMOOTHING=1SUNGLARE=0LENSFLARE=1[DISPLAY]UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=30TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=400[TERRAIN]TERRAIN_ERROR_FACTOR=100.000000TERRAIN_MIN_DEM_AREA=10.000000TERRAIN_MAX_DEM_AREA=100.000000TERRAIN_MAX_VERTEX_LEVEL=21TERRAIN_TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=8TERRAIN_AUTOGEN_DENSITY=2TERRAIN_USE_GRADIENT_MAP=1TERRAIN_EXTENDED_TEXTURES=1TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=9.99TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=9.99TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=99999999[DISPLAY.Device.NVIDIA GeForce 7800.0]Mode=1280x1024x32MipBias=8TriLinear=1AntiAlias=1[GRAPHICS]FULL_SCREEN=0PERFORMANCE_MODE=0DEF_PERF_MODE=6TEXT_SCROLL=0AUTO_LOD=0DETAIL_TEXTURE=1WATER_EFFECTS=2TERRAIN_USE_VECTOR_MAP=1TERRAIN_USE_VECTOR_OBJECTS=1EFFECTS_QUALITY=2GROUND_SHADOWS=1SMOOTH_VIEW=1IMAGE_SMOOTHING=1TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=1024COCKPIT_HIGH_LOD=1AIRCRAFT_SHADOWS=1LANDING_LIGHTS=1IMAGE_QUALITY=0TEXTURE_BLDG=1TEXTURE_GND=1TEXTURE_WATER=1AIRCRAFT_TEXTURE=2SEE_SELF=1TEXTURE_QUALITY=3LOD_TARGET_FPS=21NUM_LIGHTS=8[Weather]WindshieldPrecipitationEffects=1MinGustTime=10MaxGustTime=500MinGustRampSpeed=1MaxGustRampSpeed=200MinVarTime=5MaxVarTime=50MinVarRampSpeed=10MaxVarRampSpeed=75TurbulenceScale=1.000000DefaultVisibility=0DynWx_MedianDewPointSpread=10.000000DynWx_ProbCloudFormForMedianDewPoint=0.000500DynWx_MaxDewPointSpread=50.000000DynWx_ProbCloudFormForMaxDewPoint=0.000125DynWx_ProbCloudFormForMinDewPoint=0.100000DynWx_DryTempLapsePer1000Meters=9.000000DynWx_ProbCloudFormForDryTempLapse=0.000500DynWx_MoistTempLapsePer1000Meters=3.300000DynWx_ProbCloudFormForMoistTempLapse=0.040000DynWx_MaxProbCloudChangePerMinute=0.040000DynWx_MultiplierForDynamicWeatherLevelMild=0.500000DynWx_MultiplierForDynamicWeatherLevelNormal=1.000000DynWx_MultiplierForDynamicWeatherLevelHigh=3.000000DynWx_MultiplierForDynamicWeatherLevelExtreme=10.000000DynWx_TempChangePercentageForOvercastClouds=0.750000DynWx_TempChangePercentageForMinDewPoint=0.700000DynWx_MaxTempChangePerMinute=0.060000WeatherServerAddress=fs2k.zone.comWeatherServerPort=80WeatherGraphDataInDialog=0DynamicWeather=0LOADWEATHER=1MAX_UNLIMITED_VIS=128747CLOUD_DRAW_DISTANCE=43D_CLOUD_PERCENT=100DETAILED_CLOUDS=1CLOUD_COVERAGE_DENSITY=8CloudsImpostorRingRadius=64000.000000

[calypso 32]

Paul. At the risk of stating the obvious, "Blocky triangular peaks with fuzzy textures" sounds like you have no Anisotropic Filtering.I had the same problem with my 8800 card, set the AF to 16x, and the fuzzy textures disappeared.

[Guest venquessa]

Set to x16 here too.Maybe I'm asking too much of it. I'll post a screen shot link later, I don't have anything but Paint and its useless for processing screenshots.

[calypso 32]

Paul, you might want to try these settings:TERRAIN_ERROR_FACTOR=70.000000TERRAIN_MIN_DEM_AREA=10.000000TERRAIN_MAX_DEM_AREA=100.000000TERRAIN_MAX_VERTEX_LEVEL=19TERRAIN_TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=8TERRAIN_AUTOGEN_DENSITY=5TERRAIN_USE_GRADIENT_MAP=1TERRAIN_EXTENDED_TEXTURES=1TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=40.000000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=40.000000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=1307992

[Farlis 2,281]

I really get headaches when I see the ridiculous paramaters you guys have set forTERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUSTERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUSTERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELSThe highest value that has effect is 4!!! And depending on the mesh one is using you will get blue holes in the scenery if you set the extended radius too high. I suggest to set the default radius to 4 and then start experimenting with the extended radius. Note that it is directly linked to the levels. So setting the levels to 0 and the radius to 4 will have no effect. Start with the levels at 2 and then experiment with whatever looks good to you.I settled forTERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=4TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=3.5TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=2

[Jim Robinson 122]

Paul,I am also using a 7800 card and was wondering how my terrain textures compared to yours. I just took this screenshot flying through the Cascades:http://www.cat-tamer.com/attach/cscds_txtrs.jpgI had weather > visibility set at 50 mi; the blurry textures look worse with unlimited visibility in my opinion, so I almost always set it at 50 or less.Immediately after snapping that screenshot I closed the sim and copied these sections from the fs9.cfg. I noticed you had Anti Ailiasing switched on in the sim, while I have it off in the sim and on in the card driver. Other than that, our settings appear fairly close. I added the "TextureMaxLoad=10" in the [DISPLAY] section as per someone's suggestion on this forum, but I didn't see where it made much of a difference either way.[Weather]WindshieldPrecipitationEffects=1MinGustTime=10MaxGustTime=500MinGustRampSpeed=1MaxGustRampSpeed=200MinVarTime=5MaxVarTime=50MinVarRampSpeed=10MaxVarRampSpeed=75TurbulenceScale=1.000000DefaultVisibility=0DynWx_MedianDewPointSpread=10.000000DynWx_ProbCloudFormForMedianDewPoint=0.000500DynWx_MaxDewPointSpread=50.000000DynWx_ProbCloudFormForMaxDewPoint=0.000125DynWx_ProbCloudFormForMinDewPoint=0.100000DynWx_DryTempLapsePer1000Meters=9.000000DynWx_ProbCloudFormForDryTempLapse=0.000500DynWx_MoistTempLapsePer1000Meters=3.300000DynWx_ProbCloudFormForMoistTempLapse=0.040000DynWx_MaxProbCloudChangePerMinute=0.040000DynWx_MultiplierForDynamicWeatherLevelMild=0.500000DynWx_MultiplierForDynamicWeatherLevelNormal=1.000000DynWx_MultiplierForDynamicWeatherLevelHigh=3.000000DynWx_MultiplierForDynamicWeatherLevelExtreme=10.000000DynWx_TempChangePercentageForOvercastClouds=0.750000DynWx_TempChangePercentageForMinDewPoint=0.700000DynWx_MaxTempChangePerMinute=0.060000WeatherServerAddress=fs2k.zone.comWeatherServerPort=80WeatherGraphDataInDialog=0DynamicWeather=0LOADWEATHER=1MAX_UNLIMITED_VIS=193121CLOUD_DRAW_DISTANCE=63D_CLOUD_PERCENT=70DETAILED_CLOUDS=1CLOUD_COVERAGE_DENSITY=7CloudsImpostorRingRadius=67200.000000DownloadWindsAloft=1DisableTurbulence=0[GRAPHICS]FULL_SCREEN=1PERFORMANCE_MODE=0DEF_PERF_MODE=5TEXT_SCROLL=1AUTO_LOD=0DETAIL_TEXTURE=1WATER_EFFECTS=2TERRAIN_USE_VECTOR_MAP=1TERRAIN_USE_VECTOR_OBJECTS=1EFFECTS_QUALITY=1GROUND_SHADOWS=0SMOOTH_VIEW=1IMAGE_SMOOTHING=1TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=1024COCKPIT_HIGH_LOD=1AIRCRAFT_SHADOWS=1LANDING_LIGHTS=1IMAGE_QUALITY=0TEXTURE_BLDG=1TEXTURE_GND=1TEXTURE_WATER=1AIRCRAFT_TEXTURE=2SEE_SELF=1TEXTURE_QUALITY=3LOD_TARGET_FPS=21NUM_LIGHTS=6[DISPLAY.Device.NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GS.0]Mode=1280x960x32[DISPLAY]UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=30TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=400TextureMaxLoad=10[TERRAIN]TERRAIN_ERROR_FACTOR=100.000000TERRAIN_MIN_DEM_AREA=10.000000TERRAIN_MAX_DEM_AREA=100.000000TERRAIN_MAX_VERTEX_LEVEL=20TERRAIN_TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=8TERRAIN_AUTOGEN_DENSITY=4TERRAIN_USE_GRADIENT_MAP=1TERRAIN_EXTENDED_TEXTURES=1TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=9.900000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=3.900000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=4[SCENERY]IMAGE_COMPLEXITY=4DYNAMIC_SCENERY=0DYN_SCN_DENSITY=0DAWN_DUSK_SMOOTHING=1SUNGLARE=0LENSFLARE=0Curious as to how those distant textures look compared to yours?Jim

[Guest venquessa]

Well, my near field view looks better (due to higher res, Ultimate Terrain and GEPro), but from that pic I'd say my distance looks much the same, worse when even more distant and large peaks.I'm about to reboot back to Linux where I process screen shots, so I'll post one or two in a moment.I do have a possible cause of my blurring though. Memory. I have 256Mb on the video card and 1Gb of system RAM, but I noticed by chance while gliding in the Alps that fs9.exe was using 650Mb, with the usual waste of resources we call Windows there can't be much left for anything! So possibly I can't have detailed textures that far out without another gig of RAM.

[Guest venquessa]

http://campbell-multimedia.co.uk/fs-stuff/...ance-check3.jpghttp://campbell-multimedia.co.uk/fs-stuff/...ance-check2.jpgBoth have good depth of field. The bottom one shows the textures blurring out in the middle right, the terraced roads and of course the peaks are blurry and triangular.It's worse if you are flying somewhere flat and mountains appear in the distance, the look aweful, when mountains often look their best that way.Here's one where I hid the blurring using lot of zoom out.http://campbell-multimedia.co.uk/fs-stuff/...r-637_small.jpgFull sizers (somehwere in here):http://campbell-multimedia.co.uk/fs-stuff/

[Guest over and out]

John de Giorgio, Aromatics or English blends, what do you prefer when simming?:)

[Guest over and out]

I have tried it but have never had a lot of success tweaking the configuration file. I keep my visibility set to about 50 or less miles.The problem how I understand it is that the speed at which FS9 renders is controlled by the CPU not the GPU. The faster the CPU the faster rendering, faster frame rates and reduced blurriness when rendering landscape, etc.The question I have is what

[calypso 32]

>I really get headaches when I see the ridiculous paramaters>you guys have set for>TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS>TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS>TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELSWell. I'm not complaining!http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/175438.jpg

[calypso 32]

>>John de Giorgio, >Aromatics or English blends, what do you prefer when simming?>:)Mostly Danish aromatics.Probably explains my crazy configuration suggestions! :-hah

[Guest deKoven]

>Well, my near field view looks better (due to higher res,>Ultimate Terrain and GEPro), but from that pic I'd say my>distance looks much the same, worse when even more distant and>large peaks.>>I'm about to reboot back to Linux where I process screen>shots, so I'll post one or two in a moment.>>I do have a possible cause of my blurring though. Memory. I>have 256Mb on the video card and 1Gb of system RAM, but I>noticed by chance while gliding in the Alps that fs9.exe was>using 650Mb, with the usual waste of resources we call Windows>there can't be much left for anything! So possibly I can't>have detailed textures that far out without another gig of>RAM.Indeed, I would think that another bank of memory would go a long way to increasing your enjoyment. I have 1.5 gig and wish I had at least 2 gig. Far cry from the days of programs that fit into 256K of memory.Dartmouth Tiny Basic, originally 5K but when I picked it up it was 8K. Heh heh heh!:-laugh1

[Guest venquessa]

It not that it uses the CPU for rendering the terrain, it uses the CPU to composite all the textures together to create a tile. That tile is then transfered to the video card and the GPU is responsible for drawing the 3D environment.Each tile is made up of many, many textures layered together. Base textures + land class texture + roads + rivers + lakes + daylight shading. On top of that FS has to select and place autogen and other objects and pass them to the video card.Clouds are also texture generated by the CPU and then sent to the video card.So, getting smooth textures out to the horizon requires a good CPU and lots of memory and even if you have a pants video card it will still be able to do that, but your frame rate will suck badly.Of all the performace killers 3D clouds are the worst. Hopefully the new DX9 and DX9 GPU capabilities will allow FSX to do clouds in the CPU instead as fog bodies or what ever. ???