Gday Guys,I know many of these post have been put out before, and i have read those. I have changed my values in my fs9.cfg, however i am still faced with the blurries in the distance. Below i have posted both a picture, and the part of my fs9.cfg showing i have changed the values with no luck.

FS9.CFG[DISPLAY]UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=81TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=200DisableSoftwareWarning=1[TERRAIN]TERRAIN_ERROR_FACTOR=100.000000TERRAIN_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=4.500000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=6.000000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=232[sCENERY]IMAGE_COMPLEXITY=5DYNAMIC_SCENERY=1DYN_SCN_DENSITY=5DAWN_DUSK_SMOOTHING=1SUNGLARE=1LENSFLARE=1

Kind Regards,James

OK... did you try to increase your mip-map quality in Settings-->display-->hardware? increasing this diminisches this effect... however decreases performance...

Mario,Thanks that did the job. Also did some Nvidia Settings which helped aswell.Regards

Also set some haze on the horizon. Either drop the visibility or download the freeware Soft Horizons.

TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=4.500000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=6.000000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=232

This is completely bogus. Maximum for these settings, which will impact anything is 4.I suggest:TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=40...TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=4TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=4TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=4Anything else has absolutely no impact on any FS performance (except lower numbers). Also set MipMap to maximum if you PC can handle it.

Hi.This is such a confusing issue, and I wish we could get to the bottom of it once and for all, but there just seems to be so many varients that it seems a never ending quagmire of figures.I have just looked at the numbers above, such as TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=4TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=4TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=4and mine areTERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=9.500000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=9.500000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=4I am using nHancer with the 186.18 Nvidia drivers.My nHancer settings are as belowAA: 4xS,Gamma,TranspSSAF: 16xVSync: AppSLI: AFR-4W [0x0240000D] (predefined)Perf: HiQualTrilin- AnisoSam-NegLOD: ClampLOD: 0.000MipMap:None CPU:SingleCore HDR:Off OGLMultiDispMode:Single OGLSingleBackDepthBuffer:Enabled I am too being plagued by somewhat blurred images in the distance, but not too far from the aircraft.I just don't know what the fix is for this. But I do welcome any input by anyone.I'm running Win XP Pro with SP3 on a Pentium4 3.40GHz CPU with a Geforce 7800 GS graphics card with 512MB on board and my system has 2 Gigs of RAM.Thanks.

This document http://www.germany-vfr.de/Jobia/lcdokupdf/lcdokupdf.zip describes what is possible in FS9. And it does that very good. Unfortunately it's in German, so no help for many people here. It's some 500 pages, rather to the end it shows differences in all MIP levels. Those numbers are nothing else but different mipmap levels which you turn on.There is also a test-scenery representing what happens in FS, which can be used along with this document, I tried it a long time ago - I have no wish to translate 500 pages, but I can tell you they are right. I went through many tests couple of days long, just to see what's up.I have tried on many occasions to write about this, but people don't really have a wish to listen. So I just kept my settings to me and that's it. Those 9.5 settings - completely no effect, and if people say "I see a difference", its 100% placebo effect (that is, if you compare 4 to 9,5, there are of course differences between 1-2-3-4).

This document http://www.germany-vfr.de/Jobia/lcdokupdf/lcdokupdf.zip describes what is possible in FS9. And it does that very good. Unfortunately it's in German, so no help for many people here. It's some 500 pages, rather to the end it shows differences in all MIP levels. Those numbers are nothing else but different mipmap levels which you turn on.There is also a test-scenery representing what happens in FS, which can be used along with this document, I tried it a long time ago - I have no wish to translate 500 pages, but I can tell you they are right. I went through many tests couple of days long, just to see what's up.I have tried on many occasions to write about this, but people don't really have a wish to listen. So I just kept my settings to me and that's it. Those 9.5 settings - completely no effect, and if people say "I see a difference", its 100% placebo effect (that is, if you compare 4 to 9,5, there are of course differences between 1-2-3-4).

Hi KostaI'm sorry that you feel that people do not wish to listen, but there will always be exceptions to the rune, and some individuals will always argue with what someone says.I however am not one of those individuals and welcome any input from you whatsoever.I am always willing to listen and to learn. I have downloaded the zip file you linked thank you, and I will work my way through it.Performance wise I am very happy with my FS9.1, it's just the scenery blurriness that I am trying to sort out.I will post a screen shot below so you can see what I am referring to.Please feel free to add any comment or suggestion that you feel attributable to my issues in any shape or form, this is after all how we learn from each other.Here is the screen shot in question. Look toward the front and sides of the Heli where I have ringed the picture in Red to see what I mean.Thank you in advance to anyone that may have any thoughts or suggestions in this matter.

Word Not Allowed,You seem to be a very intelligent and common sense person. I'd like you hear your best settings for everything if you don't mind sharing. (fs9 cfg, video card settings, settings within fs...etc)

Hi.Can I please echo what Red1 has said, and lets hear what you're settings and recommendations are please Word Not Allowed.I have downloaded and looked at the 500 page pdf file that you linked, but of course I can't understand any of it because I don't speak German unfortunately, which is a shame because the author seems to go into some real depth and detail in the report.I don't fancy trying to use something like bablefish on five hundred pages. Saying that, there does seem to be a lot of the pdf dedicated to LOD detail.Any thoughts are most welcome from anyone at all. I have tried to get this issue, and similar ones before sorted out, but all that happens is a number war between different individuals and it's very confusing and demoralising to be honest.All I'm trying to do is get some help in resolving this issue.Many thanks.

Red and Steve,Thank you for your kind words, I'll do my best to explain in couple of shots and words why and what I am using:1) My Nhancer is set to what Nick suggests on Simviation I think, that is:2) My relevant terrain settings in fs9.cfg are as follows:3) My FS9 settings are:4) And finally, results in FS9:3000ft, settings set to 4-4-4, zoom 0.7510,000ft 4-4-4, zoom 0.7515,000ft 4-4-4, zoom 0.7530,000ft 4-4-4, zoom 0.75Now as you can see from these screenshots, this is the absolute maximum distance of high detail the FS9 can display.To counter this stupid effect of getting roads as "dots", one uses limited visibility (we all heard about that one...) and zoom out.So what happens:Zoom 0.50, FSUIPC set to:And I get:Add ActiveSky, notice very important Maximum Visibility limiting of 60nm:And I get my final result (AS might add some more visibility limiting depending on current WX and clouds):OK, so these are my settings and what I get out of them.Now, let's take a look at couple of things this document I mentioned proves.Settings 4-4-4 in fs9.cfg, zoom factor 1.0, any visibility limiting is disabled:Now if I would change these to what someone said eons ago, and it has been so impregnated into this community like a scar:TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=9.5TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=6.5TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=232And look, absolutely no change in MIP Level limits. In pulled red lines on the points where the MIP Level changes, in the 2nd picture, with those bogus settings, I pulled the lines on purpose a bit over the real cut, so you can see that there really is no change in MIP Level. This is why these settings do not change anything or help with any blurriness of FS9.As I can't post any more pictures, you can do the same test in FS9 using 1, 2, 3 and 4 on all 3 settings.Finally what the document (in short) has to say about these settings:>>TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS and TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS work together.<<TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS defines how many MIP levels should react onto the defined factor of TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS. << don't yell at me, I am trying to translate!!TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS can be 0-4:0=Off1=MIP Level0,2=MIP Level0 und MIP Level13=MIP Level0, MIP Level1 und MIP Level24=MIP Level0, MIP Level1, MIP Level2 und MIP Level3TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS defines basically how much is the diameter in the dimension of one LOD quadrant, which is set in TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS.TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS has the same function like TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS, only the TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS has the complete influence on the whole diameter from MIP Level0 to MIP Level3.The difference, which one to use?There is a sheet in the document, Page 308:LOW TERRAIN * RADIUS:Good: Better performance, no blue rips in the scenery, no hassle, permanent mostly sharp textures on low perf machines, stable mesh, meshswitches happen earlier (more far away), quicker loading times, more permanent fps, less texture shimmering of terrain texturesBad: less viewing distance (worse textures closer to the aircraft), switches from high MIP Level to the lower MIP Level are closer to the aircraft, less high MIP Level far away, VTP Code (streets) are not going to be rendered far away from the aircraft - not going to impact photo sceneryHIGH TERRAIN * RADIUS:Good: Better textures also far away, switches to lower MIP Levels happen further away, more details of a high LOD Level mesh files further away, VTP Code is gonna be shown further away (still up to Level3, but throught the bigger range of Level3, also streets are shown further away)Bad: Less performance from FS (not a problem today), MIP and LOD Level jumps (causing blue rips in the scenery), optical errors through MIP and LOD Level jumps are not only dependant on TERRAIN*RADIUS but also on LOD Level and Profile of the Mesh (user would be required to check these to be sure there are no rips, explained in the docu), only sharp textures when PC is strong enough (and if it is not, things go backwards, and we see blurry textures), mesh changes happen often later (this is especially true if PC is not fast enough), more texture shimmering of terrain textures, more loading times, possible FPS fluctuationsThis is the best I can do translating from German from the point where it says "in short" :) The fact is, after I read this document, I went on making my own tests, doing many screenshots like above and comparing them.You both probably know the very well known blue cuts in the far away scenery, which can be caused if using high LODs. I know some of the combinations between 0 and 4 cause these. These have also been in detail described in this document. Not going to into those, I made a post big enough as it is.The fact is simple:Using:TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=4TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=0TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=0ORTERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=0TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=4TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=4is going to yield a very similar result. I opted for 4 on every setting simply because it didn't make a change and because I saw both settings do the same thing. And no, I did not read the whole document, I am not THAT nerd. :)I will however I think deactivate TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS, setting it to 0. I am again doing some tests :( I hope this has been at least a bit helpful, I know it took me over an hour to make this post.

Word Not Allowed, excellent post my friend! That post alone should be sticky'ed to finally put to rest all the myths on the different cfg tweaks. I'll admit that I have 9.9 for the two number and 232 for levels, but was always skeptical about those settings because I did not see any real improvement. Again, a big thank you to you for all your testing and excellent post.A few questions though..you never went into detail about the texture_bandwidth_multi. Have you done any experiments with that? You have a very similar system to me and would like your input on that. I currently use 100 for it, along with texturemaxload=8. I've tried running my own experiments with that but they were never conclusive. I see you have vsync forced off. Do you not experience tearing? I have the 8800gts and get horrible tearing if I force it off.What kind of fps do you get with all your settings, in situations like sitting at an add-on airport like jfk or similar, looking at terminals, with a thick overcast and a few other layers of clouds in a PMDG 737(turned on) or similar in VC. Reason I ask is because I see you don't use DXT3 clouds as you have render to texture turned off along with up to 15 cloud layers. I think my system would simply laugh at me in that situation. Again, a big thank you to you.

Thank you for the kind words!Alright, TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT thingy:It is only active if you limit your FPS. If you have it on unlimited, it has no effect.This setting is only a multiplier. And it works out like this:"This value is multiplied by the TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT configuration variable and divided by the target framerate only in the case where you have a target framerate set." - words of a developer."This value" is a hidden value of TextureMaxLoad (be careful, it has nothing to do with TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD in the Graphics section, the TextureMaxLoad would go into Display section), which if not in the FS9.cfg defaults to 3, meaning following: "the default is the equivalent of three 256x256 textures with mips" = 3 x 43,762 (size of one landtexture) = 131286 bytes.So, if we would take one has set a FPS limiter to 20 and TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MUTLI=40:40 x 131286 / 20 = 262572 Bytes Transport-Capacity/FrameSet TBM to 200 = 1312860Bytes Transport-Capacity/FrameWhat happens with 40FPS and TBM=200:656430 Bytes Transport-Capacity/FrameAlso to see is, even if we keep the TBM on the same value, the transport-capacity per SECOND is the same. Frames go up, transport-capacity per frame go down. Per second stays the same of course.OK, this is what developer says.I made many tests, for example coordinate jump, or even easier via FSNavigator, jump to the same place. That way, FS9 is forced, without standard texture reload, to reload all textures. I measured times. I did my tests in jumps from LOWW (5000ft in the air, slew activated, NOT paused) via FSNavigator Move to here, to a place near LOWS, forcing FS9 to slowly reload all textures - its like basically slewing to some far away, a known effect where textures can't keep up, and then staying there for a while. Eventually textures reload, thought it takes time.From what developer says, there should be a difference in the loading of the textures. Again, this is NOT a texture refresh, which can be triggered over assignments, but rather a slow reload as you would fly there fast.>>>I could not see ANY difference in load time with different TBM settings.<<< I tried couple of settings between 40 and 400.Also tried in combination with TextureMaxLoad, and it also had no effect on so called Micropauses that everyone dreads so.The only factor that influences texture loading times in this case is framerate setting.Mostly people think they have micropauses in turns because of false settings in fs9.cfg, but in fact it's mostly background processes in Windows or too high set FPS, where the computer can't cope with the set framerate.From my point of view, those two settings DO NOT function in FS9. At least they don't on my setup. And as you say, you were sceptical about your computer too, if you see no difference, there is none. This is why I keep mine at 40, which is default what FS9 installed and my FS9 functions very very smooth with FPS locked at 40.VSYNC:I see no difference between on or off, I only see a difference that I can't test past 60fps if I want to see how high it goes. As I keep my FPS at 40, there is no tearing.OK, here is a screenshot for you:Flytampa LOWW, PMDG 737 VC looking at the terminal, 5 cloud layers (2x scattered 4/8 cumulus at 5000ft and 10000ft, 1x overcast cumulus @ 15000ft, 1x overcast 8/8 stratus @ 25000ft, 1x overcast cirrus @ 25,000ft):As you can see, my system laughs at me also in this situation. But, I *NEVER* encountered so many clouds generated my ASV. It usually optimizes somehow, never giving me below 20s numbers. And very rarely even below 30...Hope it helps. I'd really appreciate if these two posts could be stickied, because in my opinion too many simmer are experiencing problems just because they are following false "rules".

Very helpful and very interesting. Thanks Word Not Allowed!KP

Hi Word Not Allowed and Red1 :( Word Not Allowed, I want to have your children . . . . . . Sorry, I couldn't stop myself from typing that remark.Anyway, I am going to try you're recommendations as I always have a safe cfg back up to fall back on if I make a boo boo.I did notice some very very interesting points in your post though, and I am going to number them for ease of reply regarding my observations from your settings.1) You have your cloud numbers set at 15. I was told that FS did not recognise any cloud numbers above 3 ?2) Gamma correction. you have yours set to Gama correction, but no Super ticked or Multi.3) you don't have the box ticked if FS for Render to Texture.4) again in FS you have your cloud, draw and vis settings on the maximum, but have the visibility set to 60 in both FSUIPC AND ASv6.5. I haven't seen this before.I am going to try your settings and report back to you in here so that others such as Red1 can gain the benefit from what we have all discussed. But my Geforce 7800 GS with 512 on board RAM might not look as good as yours and Reds 8800 cards look, but I will try the settings anyway.I feel very pleased and feel as if we ARE making Progress in this matter at last.I boot my PC into a separate hardware profile. I have 2. one for general PC usage and for running up-dates etc, and the other for Gaming which has a lot of unnecessary processes turned off.I also have my nHancer set to "Profile can be activated manually" as I was told that my settings might not activate properly without it being activated manually. Again I am going to clear the check box from "can be activated manually" and see what happens.I think it will activate as soon as I launch FS despite what I have been told as I am sure nHancer activates as soon as you fire up FS because of the exe being used for starting FS.(does this make sense)I will let you know, and post a few screen shots for you to see.I am however extremely grateful to you for taking the time out of your day to make this very informative post for us all to read, and what an interesting read it is too.Thanks very much again Word Not Allowed. Chat later with some results. :(