Hello everybody, I upgraded from a Radeon x1950 (256MB) to GTS250 (512MB). Of course I de-installed the ATI driver and catalyst.I installed the 260.89 nVidia driver for Win XP and the Inspector. I did the settings exactly as described here, tried both 8xS and and 8xSQ variant. I could clearly see a difference to when Inspector was not installed, so I know the changes were applied. But on MS Flight Sim 2004 I'm not happy with the result. it's MUCH worse than with the 256MB GPU, the text is blurry and the scenery is loaded for maybe a mile distance only.I did not change any FS9 settings.Any suggestions?

Hello everybody, I upgraded from a Radeon x1950 (256MB) to GTS250 (512MB). Of course I de-installed the ATI driver and catalyst.I installed the 260.89 nVidia driver for Win XP and the Inspector. I did the settings exactly as described here, tried both 8xS and and 8xSQ variant. I could clearly see a difference to when Inspector was not installed, so I know the changes were applied. But on MS Flight Sim 2004 I'm not happy with the result. it's MUCH worse than with the 256MB GPU, the text is blurry and the scenery is loaded for maybe a mile distance only.I did not change any FS9 settings.Any suggestions?

I'm not one of the resident experts, but here goes:What settings/tweaks are you using in the fs9.cfg file?What do you have texture filtering set to in FS9? Inspector? <------I think these will solve a little of your problems.

I'm not one of the resident experts, but here goes:What settings/tweaks are you using in the fs9.cfg file?What do you have texture filtering set to in FS9? Inspector? <------I think these will solve a little of your problems.

I used the inspector settings as provided in this guide. FS9 hardware / scenery settings:FS9.cfg (part):

[GRAPHICS]FULL_SCREEN=1PERFORMANCE_MODE=0DEF_PERF_MODE=6TEXT_SCROLL=0AUTO_LOD=0DETAIL_TEXTURE=1WATER_EFFECTS=1TERRAIN_USE_VECTOR_MAP=1TERRAIN_USE_VECTOR_OBJECTS=1EFFECTS_QUALITY=2GROUND_SHADOWS=0SMOOTH_VIEW=1IMAGE_SMOOTHING=1TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=512COCKPIT_HIGH_LOD=1AIRCRAFT_SHADOWS=0LANDING_LIGHTS=1IMAGE_QUALITY=0TEXTURE_BLDG=1TEXTURE_GND=1TEXTURE_WATER=1AIRCRAFT_TEXTURE=1SEE_SELF=1TEXTURE_QUALITY=3LOD_TARGET_FPS=28NUM_LIGHTS=4[TERRAIN]TERRAIN_ERROR_FACTOR=60.000000TERRAIN_MIN_DEM_AREA=10.000000TERRAIN_MAX_DEM_AREA=100.000000TERRAIN_MAX_VERTEX_LEVEL=19TERRAIN_TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=8TERRAIN_AUTOGEN_DENSITY=4TERRAIN_USE_GRADIENT_MAP=1TERRAIN_EXTENDED_TEXTURES=1TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=9.500000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=9.900000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=40[sCENERY]IMAGE_COMPLEXITY=4DYNAMIC_SCENERY=1DYN_SCN_DENSITY=4DAWN_DUSK_SMOOTHING=0SUNGLARE=1LENSFLARE=0

EDIT: PC specs: AMD Athlon 64 x2 dual 5000+; 2,61GHz; 2GB RAM

Adjust "Max global texture size" and MIP mapping quality to max. See if it helps any. Also using DAWN_DUSK_SMOOTHING=1 makes for prettier horizons. I'm sure you card can handle those changes.If FPS is an issue, try unlocking the limiter. As you didn't share your other system information I can't decide just how far you can push it, but I'm sure you can make the above changes with little impact.EDIT: Also play around with the "Texture Filtering" option under FS2004's menu. Set it to anistropic.

Thanks, I will try that. I added my computer specs in the above post.

Post your results! Good luck!

So I adjusted "Max global texture size" and MIP mapping quality to max and turned DAWN_DUSK_SMOOTHING on. Unfortunately it's only slightly better, still much worse than the 256MB card.The fps is not a problem, actually.

Also play around with the "Texture Filtering" option under FS2004's menu. Set it to anistropic.

the options in the FS menu are trilinear, bilinear and none. I can't see a difference between the first two, but using "none" results in complete bluriness.By the way, do I have to apply the Inspector settings everytime I start FS?

By the way, do I have to apply the Inspector settings everytime I start FS?

No.And texture filtering should be set to trilinear. Sorry about that mistake as I didn't have FS9 in front of me and couldn't remember the options. I still believe your "blurry" issue is a texture filtering issue combined with typical blurries. I'll play around and post back as I haven't messed with my fs9.cfg in a while.

TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=X <-- Set to "40" Some claim using 400 helps, I use 40 but try both.[TERRAIN]TERRAIN_ERROR_FACTOR=60.000000TERRAIN_MIN_DEM_AREA=10.000000TERRAIN_MAX_DEM_AREA=100.000000TERRAIN_MAX_VERTEX_LEVEL=19TERRAIN_TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=8TERRAIN_AUTOGEN_DENSITY=4TERRAIN_USE_GRADIENT_MAP=1TERRAIN_EXTENDED_TEXTURES=1TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=9.500000 <--"4" No more no lessTERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=9.900000 <--"4" TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=40 <--"4" TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=512 <--"1024"This is the absolute best I can get FS9 to look. I've tried other settings but these work the best FOR ME. Joachim wrote a document I read years ago, so these tweaks are not my own work, but rather used because of my own testing. These settings work with the right hardware and inspector settings.

Thanks for your efforts. I have tried your tweaks as well as some others from different forums, with no success.Actually I reverted to my ATI Radeon 256MB just now. The overall quality is MUCH better which I don't understand, but see for yourself. It's the same flight, same weather setting, etc. but half the memory! :Thinking:

I do not believe this has anything to do with 256 or 512k.ATI and Nvidia handle rendering/filtering differently..I'm not sure I see that much of a difference, especially since the ATI shot is taken at a lower altitude.If you want better scenery - suggest upgrade to FSX from FS9..

I do not believe this has anything to do with 256 or 512k.ATI and Nvidia handle rendering/filtering differently..I'm not sure I see that much of a difference, especially since the ATI shot is taken at a lower altitude.If you want better scenery - suggest upgrade to FSX from FS9..

The OP has a legitimate question. I believe there is also a lack of quality/clarity of textures at a 4 mile range in the first screen when compared to the second screen and my on shots. What you say about ATI and Nvidia is correct, but I've used Nvidia products in FS9 for years and have had much better quality on weaker cards.His question pertains to quality of scenery on his newer graphics card in FS2004, not rather or not he should upgrade to FSX... As he would have obvious problems in FSX on that PC and image quality wouldn't be any better with that hardware. I'm sure he's quite aware of FSX.

I'm not sure I see that much of a difference, especially since the ATI shot is taken at a lower altitude.

actually it's the same altitude; the flight was saved with AP engaged. I think it's zoomed in a little more. And I'd expect a little more than "not much of a difference" with such an upgrade!And of course I know FSX, but for the above reasons and considering the tons of add-ons I have, that's not an option now.

The OP has a legitimate question. I believe there is also a lack of quality/clarity of textures at a 4 mile range in the first screen when compared to the second screen and my on shots. What you say about ATI and Nvidia is correct, but I've used Nvidia products in FS9 for years and have had much better quality on weaker cards.His question pertains to quality of scenery on his newer graphics card in FS2004, not rather or not he should upgrade to FSX... As he would have obvious problems in FSX on that PC and image quality wouldn't be any better with that hardware. I'm sure he's quite aware of FSX.

Fair enough - lets forget FSX.The OP seems to have expected better image quality with a new 512M card than his previous 256M one.In my experience, FS9 does not need more than 256M, and any differences he is experiencingare related to the card design (ATI - Nvidia), not the memory size.

actually it's the same altitude; the flight was saved with AP engaged. I think it's zoomed in a little more. And I'd expect a little more than "not much of a difference" with such an upgrade!

As mentioned above, more memory does not equate to better image quality.It could have benefits when you change views, in that more textures can be stored in memory.

In my experience, FS9 does not need more than 256M, and any differences he is experiencingare related to the card design (ATI - Nvidia), not the memory size.It could have benefits when you change views, in that more textures can be stored in memory.

Agreed. But my old 9800GT (similar if not identical to the GTS 250) was "perfect" for FS9. Guess I just had the correct combination of settings/hardware. :Thinking: