Does anyone know what Microsoft did in FS2004 that keeps it from rendering all the little elevation data points in the distance--I

I haven't played with it, but in the fs9.cfg there is a min and max distance at which frame mesh complexity comes into play. It's not adjustable via a slider--you have to edit the fs9.cfg directly. Have you tried bumping the numbers up? They default to 10 miles and 100 miles. I'd change the 10 mile figure to 25, and see if that makes a difference...-John

Ok john, run that by me again???? 10 miles is when the mesh goes detailed?? and 100 would be where it is not??? Im thinking this could have a large impact on frame rates if you mess with it a lot. Set me straight if Im wrong.hornit

This is what he is talking about:TERRAIN_MIN_DEM_AREA=10.000000I tried increasing it all the way to 100, and still no change. I've really tried everything in the "TERRAIN" section of the fs9.cfg file already. I'm just hoping this is adjustable somewhere, and not hard-coded into 2004.Best,Carlyle

Although mountains directly in front of you aren't increased in detail when putting in a higher number for TERRAIN_MIN_DEM_AREA, you will see that they dramatically lower in detail if you change the TERRAIN_MAX_DEM_AREA to something like 10. This is where it appears that "100" in 2004 isn't the same as "100" in 2002. This goes for the TERRAIN_ERROR_FACTOR as well. "100" in 2004 seems to appear to be more like the equivalent 75-85 in 2002. So we have better framerates but lower detail. Really frustrating for those of us that just built new, high-end systems so that we could run 2004 with high detail AND great framerates! :(Best,Carlyle

Only other thing you may try is adjusting the TERRAIN_MAX_VERTEX_LEVEL all the way up to 21 from its default. -John

I'm already at TERRAIN_MAX_VERTEX_LEVEL=22. Great for ground textures, but doesn't enhance the jagged peaks along the tops of the ranges at all.Best,Carlyle