This is what I have seen alot of peeps here setting their Radius settings at in the fs9.cfg>TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=9.500000>TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=4.50000But, when I opened my fs.cfg to see what the default was it was the following:TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=0.000000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=0.000000HUH? They are both set at 0 for the default! Is this right? I was wondering that if they are at the default zero what is the sim doing with that setting? What does the new setting of 9.5 and 4.5 give us?

My defailt was also zero.I made the change and switched back and forth again between the config file versions. In my testing, it appears that there is less sudden texture pop-in around your plane, especially in mountainous regions. IT seems as if the LOD for the textures is being scaled further away, so it's not as evident when the detailed textures suddenly appear.Not sure if this is the expected result, but that's my observation.

Thanks for the reply Jimmy. I wonder if changing to the 9.5 and 4.5 will actually cause a performance hit? Have you noticed that?I remember back with the FS2002 config file that the default actually had a value and everyone was tweaking it from the default vaule to increase the graphics quality. I wonder why FS9 has a Zero default value? Hmmm?Maybe a few others can chime-in with there experiences with this config file change?I also have seen this change as per Chris Willis, which is supposed to "controls the rate at which textures get transferred to the video hardware. Higher numbers will result in the textures getting to the hardware faster and avoiding "popping" textures when switching view but may increase stutters and require more physical memory on the video card (and some more, not recommended for video card with less than 128Mb)'"Fs9.cfg under: (DISPLAY)TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=40 <------------ to a higher value ex: 400

I think there's two main possibilities for the zero setting:1. It causes FS2004 to use a fixed default value.2, It equates to an AUTO setting in which the value is set based on a number of other factors.I've no idea which of these it is, but the third option, that is disables the associated functionality can probably be discounted.For what it's worth, I think there's probably hard-wired maxima for these values, which may explain why some of the more extreme values that have been touted haven't had as serious a negative impact on performance as they might otherwise have done. This is just a hunch though. If anyone can demonstrate otherwise, I'd be interested to hear about it.By the way, has anyone tried setting these values to zero in FS2002.CFG?JohnVisual Flighthttp://www.visualflight.co.uk

bump