Steve, thanks, a nice comment there, yeah :( So, to your post:1) FS can show more cloud layers than 32) I have no real idea about Gamma Correction Multi or Super - I just followed Nicks post on this one, I believe it was with Gamma and without Super. I used to use Super though. Never saw real advantage with or without, except lower frames (especially with clouds)... so I left it off. I rather use 1024 clouds :)3) Why would I? I have no DXT3 clouds installed, thus no need...4) Oh yes, this old chestnut again. I tested this long time ago too, decided its best kept at max. Why? At Dust/Dawn, when the light is breaking at horizon, I think with Max Visibility in FS, something looks better. I might do other tests at some other time, but for now, I am happy with it as it is.Considering Nhancer: it's an open/set/forget tool. No need to activate anything manually. I set mine once when I install Windows and that'S it!

Hi Word Not Allowed.Well, I have changed all of the settings to the ones you recommended with the exception of the "Render to Texture" check box in FS.When I try and clear this check box FS crashes on me?Any suggestions.Thanks.

Hi Word Not Allowed.Well, I have changed all of the settings to the ones you recommended with the exception of the "Render to Texture" check box in FS.When I try and clear this check box FS crashes on me?Any suggestions.Thanks.

Are you using DXT3 clouds or 32bit? I remember it had something to do with it here...If you want PM me, we can MSN.EDIT: That reminds me, also DXT3 on AI will need RenderToTexture turned on.

Yea, you need render to texture checked if you have any DTX3 textures in use. I use DXT3 clouds so I must have that checked.On my system, having the Transparent SS checked helps bring down the shimmering of add-on scenery (ie, airports) down to a tolerable level, so I do have that checked. By my tests, that costs me about 3 fps at worst and well worth it, although I've never ran tests specifically looking at how much fps it costs vs the amount of clouds I have. My computer really sucks with clouds so maybe that's why...I'll look into that further.

As Red said, leave Render to Texture CHECK. There is no impact on anything, with or without it. For whatever reason, that option is there, i don't see any difference, at least on my system, checked or not. Everything remains the same.And for the cfg file, well, Word Not Allowed explained everything pretty well, so thats about it.One more thing, if you want more FPS, and have your monitor resolution, for example, 1280x1024 and above. You don't need to force some "mad" AA and AF values. Some values, around 8, is more than enuf. You allready have HIGH resolution, so you don't need HIGH AA&AF as well.EDIT: And for the clouds, if you have maybe, Active Sky Advanced, and put cloud layers to maximum of 20. FS2004 or FSX WILL show ALL 20 layers.

Yea, you need render to texture checked if you have any DTX3 textures in use. I use DXT3 clouds so I must have that checked.

In my experience, if by taste you prefer not to have Aircraft Reflections turned on you must have Render to Texture on. Otherwise you will experience fs9 crashes attributed to ntdll.dll caused by reflective aircraft textures. Whether this is crucial to all graphics cards/drivers I wouldn't know.Best wishes,John

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.

I did go through the entire document, but due to the technical jargon, auto translation leaves a bit to be desired. I was doing some work cleaning it up by hand (as best as I could combine my tech knowledge with the translation) but it was slow going and I became more interested in FSX any way so I quit.Due to the copyright I have kept my translation (such as it is) to myself.If some one wants to understand the terrain system, they really need to look at this book, and also download the special textures so they can play with them.One thing about Word Not Allowed's excellent post, is that he has TERRAIN_ERROR_FACTOR setto 100. My understanding is that FS9 computes the mesh in the detailed terrain area from the mesh bgl files, and does a comparison between the current model and the raw data, and this parameter determines the maximum difference (normalized in some manner) before the terrain engine recomputes the mesh. 100 basically requires the engine to recompute if any error exists at all. I have seen suggestions that lowering this value will reduce the processor load with little visual difference. It probably matters what your TMVL is set to and raw mesh resolution is as well. If FPS is an issue it might be worthwhile to reduce this a bit and experiment.scott s..

I did go through the entire document, but due to the technical jargon, auto translation leaves a bit to be desired. I was doing some work cleaning it up by hand (as best as I could combine my tech knowledge with the translation) but it was slow going and I became more interested in FSX any way so I quit.Due to the copyright I have kept my translation (such as it is) to myself.If some one wants to understand the terrain system, they really need to look at this book, and also download the special textures so they can play with them.One thing about Word Not Allowed's excellent post, is that he has TERRAIN_ERROR_FACTOR setto 100. My understanding is that FS9 computes the mesh in the detailed terrain area from the mesh bgl files, and does a comparison between the current model and the raw data, and this parameter determines the maximum difference (normalized in some manner) before the terrain engine recomputes the mesh. 100 basically requires the engine to recompute if any error exists at all. I have seen suggestions that lowering this value will reduce the processor load with little visual difference. It probably matters what your TMVL is set to and raw mesh resolution is as well. If FPS is an issue it might be worthwhile to reduce this a bit and experiment.scott s..

Hi Scott, nice addition! Though I must say, I experiemented with that in the days when I had Pentium OC'ed to 3,4G, and I was unable to see any real difference in FPS. I did a quick test on the current system - difference is below 3%, 63,5vs65 FPS, going from 100 to 90 on the mesh in FS9. But it might be one of those "little things" that add up in optimizing your system - but, I am happy about how my FS9 functions. Smooth and locked at 40fps very rarely dropping below 40 on massive airports.Truth to be said, these differences we see about every other setting of course, otherwise we wouldn't be needing such speedy computers as we mostly have. Of course every setting will bring subtle differences in the scenery and less FPS, but the question is when do we "simply put all the sliders to the right" and be done with it. I think this time is well past for FS9 :)