[DISPLAY]UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=0TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=400[TERRAIN]TERRAIN_ERROR_FACTOR=95.000000TERRAIN_MIN_DEM_AREA=10.000000TERRAIN_MAX_DEM_AREA=100.000000TERRAIN_MAX_VERTEX_LEVEL=21TERRAIN_TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=8TERRAIN_AUTOGEN_DENSITY=5TERRAIN_USE_GRADIENT_MAP=1TERRAIN_EXTENDED_TEXTURES=1TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=40.000000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=60.000000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=1242456In order to really get the extended visibility of ground textures in FS9 this needs to be amended in in your FS9.cfg file. Without these adjustment FS9 looks like crap in the distance especially at higher altitudes.

[DISPLAY]UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=0TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=400[TERRAIN]TERRAIN_ERROR_FACTOR=95.000000TERRAIN_MIN_DEM_AREA=10.000000TERRAIN_MAX_DEM_AREA=100.000000TERRAIN_MAX_VERTEX_LEVEL=21TERRAIN_TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=8TERRAIN_AUTOGEN_DENSITY=5TERRAIN_USE_GRADIENT_MAP=1TERRAIN_EXTENDED_TEXTURES=1TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=40.000000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=60.000000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=1242456In order to really get the extended visibility of ground textures in FS9 this needs to be amended in in your FS9.cfg file. Without these adjustment FS9 looks like crap in the distance especially at higher altitudes.

Would this be applicable if you aren't using REX?I know there are multiple threads on this.. Just curious..

Would this be applicable if you aren't using REX?I know there are multiple threads on this.. Just curious..

It's a major improvement all around...

[DISPLAY]UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=0TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=400[TERRAIN]TERRAIN_ERROR_FACTOR=95.000000TERRAIN_MIN_DEM_AREA=10.000000TERRAIN_MAX_DEM_AREA=100.000000TERRAIN_MAX_VERTEX_LEVEL=21TERRAIN_TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=8TERRAIN_AUTOGEN_DENSITY=5TERRAIN_USE_GRADIENT_MAP=1TERRAIN_EXTENDED_TEXTURES=1TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=40.000000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=60.000000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=1242456In order to really get the extended visibility of ground textures in FS9 this needs to be amended in in your FS9.cfg file. Without these adjustment FS9 looks like crap in the distance especially at higher altitudes.

Confirmed. Excellent find. This actually improved visuals and performace that I was already happy with. Just when I was completely happy, I am now completely happier! :(Seriously, someone should figure out how to replace the terrain with HD and re-release FS9 as FS11. Just when everyone says this sim has gone as far as it could go, it goes further than ever imagined. I truely believe that FS9 has not hit its full potential yet and REX proves that.Good find my friend!

:( Hasn't there been countless number of posts that prove there is no change beyond 4 or 5 for those 2 values...

I was just about to ask the same quiestion...

I was just about to ask the same question...

+3

Yep, those values are waaaaay out of range with the exception of the texture bandwith multiplier.

Yup, the only one that actually has an effect is texture bandwidth, and that is specific to everyones system.

Yep, those values are waaaaay out of range with the exception of the texture bandwith multiplier.

How ever you want to slice it, it works. :( Flying at 30,000ft never looked so good (I'd still set upper level haze to 70 miles out in programs like 'ActiveSky Advanced' to hide FS9's crappy distance blocks, you be the best judge. It's much better than before where I had to set upper level haze to 20 miles out)... Instead of knocking it try it so you don't have to jack up FS9's haze (which works terrible with REX and GE Pro) just to hide scenery blocks in the distance when flying anywhere above 10,000ft. Even the ground texture/Autogen over cities comes into focus better when flying into a city from a distance out. Thought I'd share this especially since REX for FS9 has been released because this makes all the difference for the type of sky textures they use.Another thing for better performance is to lower your Cloud Sight distance down one notch. Believe me you can't tell the difference and weather updates load much much faster... You'll find the most fluid flight you've experienced to date...

Nobody is knocking it, it's just that the values are outside of range. FS defaults to the highest possible values in this instance so that's why you see good results with it.Here's a quick guide to what the values mean, quoted from Holger Sandmaan"TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS= * apparently, values can range from 0 to 9.99 and higher settings will be ignored * extends the use of the highest detailed mips (sharper textures) within the inner circle; lower settings means less than 40 miles and higher settings up to the 40-mile max. * changing this value doesn't seem to make much of a visible difference TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS= * same range of values as above * extends the use of higher maps for the outer circle(s). Supposedly, "1.5" reaches to ~70mi and "9.9" to about 100mi * careful!!! A setting higher than 3.9 can lead to "texture tearing" (blue slivers) in the mid- to far distance when high-res mesh is used. Some add-on mesh files - like some of mine - provide additional "buffer" mesh files, which prevent those blue slivers even at settings >3.9 TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS= * range from 0 to 8 * is tied to TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS and defines the max. mip level to be used for the outer ring(s), that is the sharpness of the outer ring textures * I never noticed much difference between 0 and 4; no changes at all when >4"

Nobody is knocking it, it's just that the values are outside of range. FS defaults to the highest possible values in this instance so that's why you see good results with it.Here's a quick guide to what the values mean, quoted from Holger Sandmaan"TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS= * apparently, values can range from 0 to 9.99 and higher settings will be ignored * extends the use of the highest detailed mips (sharper textures) within the inner circle; lower settings means less than 40 miles and higher settings up to the 40-mile max. * changing this value doesn't seem to make much of a visible difference TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS= * same range of values as above * extends the use of higher maps for the outer circle(s). Supposedly, "1.5" reaches to ~70mi and "9.9" to about 100mi * careful!!! A setting higher than 3.9 can lead to "texture tearing" (blue slivers) in the mid- to far distance when high-res mesh is used. Some add-on mesh files - like some of mine - provide additional "buffer" mesh files, which prevent those blue slivers even at settings >3.9 TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS= * range from 0 to 8 * is tied to TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS and defines the max. mip level to be used for the outer ring(s), that is the sharpness of the outer ring textures * I never noticed much difference between 0 and 4; no changes at all when >4"

Great, just set the things to the highest valid setting and enjoy... :( The point is today I see most have forgotten about this tweak and it's showing in the various shots I'm seeing (almost all FS9 shots have mud in the distance like FSX shots on slower machines, we have the option to get a much better experience in FS9). From my pain staking effort at home this holiday weekend FS9.75 was looking terrible and unrealistic with haze turned up below 10,000ft just to mask the small detailed area around the aircraft. Being a 'Heavy' flyer this was obvious the more I flew with REX's sky textures. At higher altitude haze couldn't help me without washing out the ground below. I couldn't get away from that distant triangle of mush off to my left or the small detail square area that was overly obvious as it followed my aircraft through the sky at higher altitudes. GE Pro (I originally had GE) looked like crap at lower altitudes until I applied this tweak. Approaching cities it was obvious the Autogen was popping up right before I flew over the square tiles. Looking at the city in the distance from the cockpit I saw a blanketed smeared carpet versus a city below. I upgraded my machine a year ago and totally forgot about this tweak. Using Activesky 6.5's sky textures I found it's effects hid FS9's ground warts with it's unique way of displaying haze in the sim. REX's sky textures is another story and unless you can extend the ground textures as far out as they can go REX looks weird thus the suggestion of not using REX's sky textures at all (whoever designed REX must have had this tweak applied or they would have approached displaying haze the way Activesky's sky textures do it). When I remembered this tweak (some FS9 tweaks are still valid even though our new machines can more than handle FS9) I found REX a much more enjoyable experience with many of it's sky textures. I'm sharing this because I feel most have forgotten they 'HAVE' this option... :(

... From my pain staking effort at home this holiday weekend REX looks terrible or unrealistic with haze turned up or at higher altitude where haze can't help you.

Please excuse my ignorance. You keep saying "haze turned up" "jack up the haze in FS9". Please clarify what setting you are discussing. I have never seen a "HAZE" setting in FS9.Thanks :(

Please excuse my ignorance. You keep saying "haze turned up" "jack up the haze in FS9". Please clarify what setting you are discussing. I have never seen a "HAZE" setting in FS9.Thanks :(

In FSUIPC (which most of us use) you have visibility options that allow you to restrict how far you can see. Many including myself use this to mask the detailed square that follows us as we fly along in FS. It's not that noticeable on the ground but at higher altitudes you can see past the detailed area and find mud in the distance. The area where this really looks bad is when flying over areas like the south west United States say Arizona and/or New Mexico. Winter is better masked as everything is white anyway.Activesky Advanced also has this option available when loading it's weather as to how far out you want the haze layer to be. You are right this is not an FS9 setting but rather something that can be set through external means. FS9 default at this point is an ugly experience without the niceties that's been afforded to us with things like FSUIPC and Activesky. FS9 without haze looks terrible period and has often been used to make the case to move over to FSX (in which some of us had to debunk).

Hey Dillion, despite my better judgment, I'll give those numbers a try. Will report back. :(