Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Hirgab

Increasing autogen radius

Recommended Posts

Hello all,My autogen radius is small. I can't see any autogen in the distance (except for high-rise buildings) and the ground textures become really blurry.I have increased my LOD Radius to 8.5, but that made absolutely no difference, and I'm not sure why.I do remember adding "Particle Reject = 3" or something along that line to my fsx.cfg file, but I'm not sure if this is at all related to the problem I'm experiencing.It really would be nice to see autogen/trees in the distance.Thanks in advance for your help.Hirgab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hirgab,8.5 is pretty strong even for the best system. Usually 5.5 which is a 1 mile radius over the default can help considerably. I am not sure why it would not work unless you somehow moved it to a different section. One thing to note is that when you change the radius and you make any changes i.e. to the sliders etc while running FSX, FSX will overwrite your modified entry and put it back to the default of 4.5RegardsBob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi N1G,I have not touched my settings after making the LOD radius change in fsx.cfg, so it did not revert back to 4.5. It's a really strange problem, I saw absolutely no difference when changing the LOD to 8.5. Maybe I should post my fsx.cfg in here when I get home, maybe you can spot something wrong there.Thanks,Hirgab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please try removing Particle Reject and see what happens.Best regards.Luis
He means SmallPartRejectRadius.If it is in there, you can try putting /// in front of it to disable it.And you could also post a screenshot of a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please try removing Particle Reject and see what happens.Best regards.Luis
Hi Luis:I'm wondering within the context of this thread, if it might be a good time for us all to see a new version of your excellent tutorial on the "visual display radius" with associated details of the quad tile system and pertinent discussion of what one may see displayed in FSX at run time... as far as FSX autogen, land class textures, file I/O and resultant impact on rendering engine load etc. ? B) You had previously posted such a tutorial in a couple of forum threads here at AVSIM, which of course eventually lost the helpful JPG illustrations locally posted "in" that thread. B) One thread shortly after FSX RTM had to do with why a flight across the middle of North America showed via FileMon that FSX was 'reading' files as far away as Khrabrovo "in Kaliningrad, Rusian Federation":http://forum.avsim.net/topic/65490-strange-fsx-file-accesses/page__view__findpost__p__464477I don't recall seeing quite the same material covered in the same manner in your other tutorials (although I apologize if I may have missed seeing something in one of those I've read, or one I have yet to read). :( May I respectfully suggest that many here would greatly welcome seeing another such tutorial (with all your wonderful illustrations !) made available either in the Forum Tutorials section, or perhaps better yet, as a 'linked' PDF file in the AVSIM File Download Library ? :( Many Thanks for considering the potential benefit such updated info may bring as better understanding by both FS end users and Developers. :( Regards,GaryGB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again, Luis:PS: I'd also be curious what your thoughts might be as to whether use of larger FSX "Level Display Radius" settings may impact reported issues of FSX terrain mesh display priority "contention" ...as discussed in this thread: :(

Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:34 am http://forums.fsaddon.eu/viewtopic.php?t=2999 "...(there's this problematic aspect that spatial extent matters with mesh files of the same resolution/LOD: if you start a flight at a specific spot then the sim properly picks the mesh with the highest display priority. However, if you fly to an area from the outside and the sim has already loaded the mesh file of lower display priority then it won't switch to the "rightful" mesh unless the user forces a scenery library refresh)"
Holger and others are beginning to make terrain mesh with a "larger" span of LODs in their 1-piece multi-LOD BGLs (ex: LOD4-12 or even LOD 4-14).One might wonder... if the 'visual display radius' from an aircraft is expanded via a full right FSX "Level Display Radius" setting (or an even larger manually-tweaked "LOD_RADIUS" is set in FSX.Cfg), might one be at risk for having 'overlapping' mesh BGLs within the "FSX geographic load and render area" ...get treated by FSX as:1.) "Higher" display priority due to the higher included LODOR...2.) "Lower" display priority due to the lower included LOD in a file ? :Confused:Also, if a FSX terrain mesh BGL is authored with a "break" of source data coverage occurring at (IIUC, from what Holger describes regarding an "overlapping" FSG mesh file in the above thread) ...what is geographically a "non-quad tile vertex" LOD boundary, can that be what 'confounds' the ability of FSX to properly assess the display priority of 2 "contending" terrain mesh BGL files ?
Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 6:50 pm http://forums.fsaddon.eu/viewtopic.php?t=2999&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15(...FSG file dead-ends at the international border, which is a bad idea for two reasons: (1) it doesn't blend with the adjoining Alaska mesh, in fact it overrides the blending that the more recent FSG AK mesh (mesh_LOD4-10_Alaska_N54-58_W129-137_SES.bgl) provides; and (2) not extending a mesh file to a FSX QMID grid boundary leads to odd triangles next to the mesh edges)
Just curious if use of a larger FSX "Level Display Radius" could be complicating that aspect of scenery rendering as well, since the linked thread above raised questions as to optimum quad tile source data processing when authoring 3rd party terrain BGLs which were, IMHO, thus far left unanswered by Phil Taylor and others in that thread. :(http://forum.avsim.net/topic/65490-strange-fsx-file-accesses/page__st__40__p__464477#entry464477 BTW: I believe you also explained some info related to this thread in another informative thread here:http://forum.avsim.net/topic/64781-fsx-sp2-blurries-any-real-benefits-of-limiting-frame-rate/page__view__findpost__p__458906
I suppose that saying that the problem is saturated video memory and that it is poor texturing engine and load balancer is the same thing - plain and simple.Because of the way the game handles texture loading, too many textures will put it over the limit, and lead to the blurries.Whether you think this means that the game is badly designed is a matter of opinion.Still, my real point is that many think they have the blurries when in fact they do not. And particularly, Bob has a very powerful computer so it is surprising that he should think he has this problem. With his system, texture saturation is highly unlikely, as it is with yours. So, perhaps the problem is not the blurries at all.Best regards.Luis
...And Phil Taylor subsequently affirms:http://forum.avsim.net/topic/64781-fsx-sp2-blurries-any-real-benefits-of-limiting-frame-rate/page__view__findpost__p__458881
Even if video memory is not overcommitted, it is still possible to swamp the bus with per-frame traffic if during a particular frame ( or frames ) a lot of geometry and texture is transmitted across the bus.If you dial back Global Texture Resolution and other settings and you still get blurries, that typically is something wrong with the local machine. There are plenty of existence proofs that this is not a global problem.
Might we conclude that for most "textures", we are in part referring to terrain tiles, nearly all of which have an associated bitmap and *.AGN file ?And wouldn't the info in *.AGN files via FSX Terrain.Cfg along with Default.XML and the AutogenDescriptions_[x].spb files, define 'geometry' (including autogen vegetation ex: TREES!) which 'may' be loaded onto most terrain "texture" tiles at run time during a flight ?Additionally, wouldn't autogen be "queued" to load (subject to one's FSX 'Autogen Density' Slider and/or "TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_[x]_PER_CELL" tweaks in FSX.Cfg) in accordance with autogen annotation instructions in *.AGN files associated with land class texture tiles 'intended' to be rendered ?And finally, might we not thus see a correlation between the number of quad tiles to be rendered and (indirectly) their associated autogen, with the FSX "Level Display Radius" slider and/or manually-tweaked "LOD_RADIUS" setting in FSX.Cfg ? B) Thanks again for sharing your insights with us on these intriguing subjects ! :( Regards,GaryGB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello all,My autogen radius is small. I can't see any autogen in the distance (except for high-rise buildings) and the ground textures become really blurry.I have increased my LOD Radius to 8.5, but that made absolutely no difference, and I'm not sure why.I do remember adding "Particle Reject = 3" or something along that line to my fsx.cfg file, but I'm not sure if this is at all related to the problem I'm experiencing.It really would be nice to see autogen/trees in the distance.Thanks in advance for your help.Hirgab
I did some testing with LOD radius a couple of years ago and my experience was that the LOD radius is not directly related to how autogen is generated and displayed. If you increase the load on FSX and the graphics engine, autogen will be generated/displayed at a slower pace. If I slew I've noticed that autogen will be generated/displayed way before the ground and water textures, which indicate that generation of ground textures and autogen is not synchronized.You could try to experiment with lowering your graphics settings, with the exception of autogen, and see what happens.I use default max lod radius (4.5) and a max visibility at 40nm. Gives me good performance and nice IQ. No stutters and no blurries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did some testing with LOD radius a couple of years ago and my experience was that the LOD radius is not directly related to how autogen is generated and displayed. If you increase the load on FSX and the graphics engine, autogen will be generated/displayed at a slower pace. If I slew I've noticed that autogen will be generated/displayed way before the ground and water textures, which indicate that generation of ground textures and autogen is not synchronized.You could try to experiment with lowering your graphics settings, with the exception of autogen, and see what happens.I use default max lod radius (4.5) and a max visibility at 40nm. Gives me good performance and nice IQ. No stutters and no blurries.
Ulf B, That does make sense to me.I don’t believe autoGen uses Level Of Detail.All autoGen models only have one low-poly version - as far as I know.There are no duplicate high-poly models to be swapped (that I've notice).So LOD distance should have no (direct) effect on autoGen.Maybe a scenery designer could explain if autoGen objects have LOD.edit: BTW, LOD logic has a certain amount of overhead per instance.And it wasn’t very long ago that highly instanced objects (like ‘autoGen’) were not LOD’d to optimize performance.Almost sounds counterintuitive. But today's next-gen hardware has likely gotten us beyond that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe a scenery designer could explain if autoGen objects have LOD.
Some do, some don't. It's hit and miss depending upon the complexity of the object.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest PFL

UlfB wrote:"I use default max lod radius (4.5) and a max visibility at 40nm. Gives me good performance and nice IQ. No stutters and no blurries." Hmmm... That´s worth a try, I´m nearsighted so why the heck do I have it at max.?!Thinking.gifEdit no. 2 time: Where´s the max. vis.?I have LOD at 8.5, maybe too much?- and maybe I should log out, too late, too many beers!Whistle.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some do, some don't. It's hit and miss depending upon the complexity of the object.
I see - some do?Do you know any examples of autoGen objects that use LOD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me clarify my remarks by saying there may be multiple LODs in some MDL files, but my understanding is that "in most cases" LODs for scenery is broken in SP2/FSXA.You can check the \Scenery\World\scenery\autogen.bgl file with a decompiler and then load the MDL files into ModelConverterX. Items like the baseball stadium show four LODs, along with a few of the vegetation objects. But other vegetation objects have a single LOD. That's why I said it's it and miss.The spiel about drawcalls vs. LODs in performance has been bantered about. Drawcalls are thought to be the primary concern and I've seen some 3pd testing that gives that some credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me clarify my remarks by saying there may be multiple LODs in some MDL files, but my understanding is that "in most cases" LODs for scenery is broken in SP2/FSXA.You can check the \Scenery\World\scenery\autogen.bgl file with a decompiler and then load the MDL files into ModelConverterX. Items like the baseball stadium show four LODs, along with a few of the vegetation objects. But other vegetation objects have a single LOD. That's why I said it's it and miss.The spiel about drawcalls vs. LODs in performance has been bantered about. Drawcalls are thought to be the primary concern and I've seen some 3pd testing that gives that some credibility.
Meshman, Thanks for expanding on that. I see what you mean :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello all,My autogen radius is small. I can't see any autogen in the distance (except for high-rise buildings) and the ground textures become really blurry.I have increased my LOD Radius to 8.5, but that made absolutely no difference, and I'm not sure why.I do remember adding "Particle Reject = 3" or something along that line to my fsx.cfg file, but I'm not sure if this is at all related to the problem I'm experiencing.It really would be nice to see autogen/trees in the distance.Thanks in advance for your help.Hirgab
Please try removing Particle Reject and see what happens.Best regards.Luis
Hello again:Does anyone recall this thread ? :( http://forum.avsim.net/topic/63986-does-smallpartrejectradius-work-in-fsx-sp2/Also of incidental interest is this thread:http://www.virtualnavairops.com/forum/fsx-support-helpdesk/1199-lod-adjustment-fsx-sb.html#post13122PS: These threads may be of interest to others here as well:"FSX SP2 and LODs and SmallPartRejectRadius"http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13177"SmallPartRejectRadius setting causes disappearing GMAX objects"http://aussiex.org/forum/index.php?/topic/7251-disappearing-gmax-objects/"Some FSX models can be manipulated for pitch and bank angle but they must have an animation (in MDL)"http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?24941-Help-with-Instant-Scenery-Plaese!!!Hope this might prove helpful for the OP... as well as in other FSX.Cfg 'tinkering projects' ! :( GaryGB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all, I did some testing..these are the results:With a fsx.cfg tweaked by *******'s auto-tweaker (with particle reject), this is what I got:1oldconfiglod45.pngUploaded with ImageShack.usIncreasing LOD 8.5, this is what I got: (you will notice that the texture on the ground becomes sharper in the distance as opposed to blurry, but autogen did not increase one bit!!!)1oldconfiglod45.pngUploaded with ImageShack.usNow, I made a fresh fsx.cfg (I let FSX reload it), with LOD 4.5, this is what I got: (I do not notice a difference between OLD fsx.cfg and new fsx.cfg for LOD 4.5). To me, this means particle reject is not the culprit3newconfiglod45.pngUploaded with ImageShack.usI increased the LOD to 8.5 in this fresh fsx.cfg (again, I do not notice a difference between OLD fsx.cfg and new fsx.cfg for LOD 8.5). To me, this means particle reject is not the culprit4newconfiglod85.pngUploaded with ImageShack.usSo from what I can see, LOD removes the blurries in the distance, but does absolutely nothing for Autogen. Also, particle reject does not diminish autogen. Now the question still stands, how do I increase autogen? :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now the question still stands, how do I increase autogen? :-)
You can't.Besides, it's already such a big hog, why would you want to extend it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks all, I did some testing..these are the results:With a fsx.cfg tweaked by *******'s auto-tweaker (with particle reject), this is what I got:1oldconfiglod45.pngUploaded with ImageShack.usIncreasing LOD 8.5, this is what I got: (you will notice that the texture on the ground becomes sharper in the distance as opposed to blurry, but autogen did not increase one bit!!!)1oldconfiglod45.pngUploaded with ImageShack.usNow, I made a fresh fsx.cfg (I let FSX reload it), with LOD 4.5, this is what I got: (I do not notice a difference between OLD fsx.cfg and new fsx.cfg for LOD 4.5). To me, this means particle reject is not the culprit3newconfiglod45.pngUploaded with ImageShack.usI increased the LOD to 8.5 in this fresh fsx.cfg (again, I do not notice a difference between OLD fsx.cfg and new fsx.cfg for LOD 8.5). To me, this means particle reject is not the culprit4newconfiglod85.pngUploaded with ImageShack.usSo from what I can see, LOD removes the blurries in the distance, but does absolutely nothing for Autogen. Also, particle reject does not diminish autogen. Now the question still stands, how do I increase autogen? :-)
Maybe its just me but I dont see any difference between any of the shots. Like Word Not Allowed said I dont know why you would want to increase the autogen but if you want to try you could add this in your CFG:[TERRAIN]TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=6000TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=6000Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi jw.,That doesn't increase the radius, just increases the number of objects possible within the radius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi jw.,That doesn't increase the radius, just increases the number of objects possible within the radius.
Correct. This topic has been done in FS9, now in FSX... it's like someone is off to beating a dead horse. It can't be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again:The test described in the last post of this thread raised the same question about whether default autogen trees can be displayed at a distance greater than FSX SP1's 2 KM "batch" radius:"Is it possible to make trees appear further back so they don't pop?"http://205.252.250.26/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1258679150Reportedly, individually placed scenery objects appear to have been displayed, however this is less efficient to achieve during scenery development... as well as more challenging for FSX to render at run time during a flight.One might just wonder whether custom "autogen" tree placement would be subject to the same apparent restrictions ? :( GaryGB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Digging around on that matter I found old posts of mine on another site that dealt with nearly the exact same matter.My initial grudge with SP1 was that it cut back on the autogen radius and introduced the ugly popping. What I did was simply reverting back to FSX RTMs autogen.bgl (Scenery\Global\Scenery) and that alleviated the problem somewhat.I don't remember if there were any drawbacks (such as loss of the batching) and I've stopped using the RTM .bgl a long time ago, but it worked. So if you can get your hands on the original, pre-SP1 file, give it a try (back up the SP2/Acc one first though).If you see FPS decrease notably, try the different variations of the AutogenDescriptions.spb in "\Autogen". You'll have to rename the original file to make it inactive and make any of its variations ("*_Min", "*_Med", "*_Max") in the folder active by naming it AutogenDescriptions.spb. This will reduce the variety in tree and house types, but it helps saving some FPS.(I prefer medium to minimal variety in trees and houses personally.)Here's the original thread for reference.Ah, the days of RTM...awfully expensive computers and you still had to tweak FSX to death. Somewhat the same with SP1.And now? Four cores, four Gigahertz, four Gigabytes and a GTX foursixty...and still 10 FPS at KORD. I hate FSX...positively. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bjoern:Excellent info in that thread you linked to: :(http://205.252.250.26/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1183998514/90 BTW: For a (real) example of custom "autogen" trees visible from approximately 7 Kilometers away in FSX SP2, see this 'mischievous' thread: :( http://forum.simflight.com/topic/68231-bare-bear-gulch-fritz-filching-filberts/#entry427027GaryGB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again:I found another interesting thread on this topic as a result of inquiries about Spotlope's statement to the effect that FSX SP2 had a hard-coded 14 Kilometer limit for the autogen display radius:"I need help increasing Level of Detail!"http://forum.avsim.net/topic/290366-i-need-help-increasing-level-of-detail/One might wonder if the FSX rendering engine still exercises the option to "cull" display of autogen objects under the duress of a "highly loaded" scenario (ex: in high scenery density areas and/or when a maxed out FSX "Level of Detail" slider enables a massive backlog of data to be processed if Scenery and Autogen sliders are also maxed out.Hmmm... One might also wonder what can yet be done with FSX SP2 via use of custom autogen objects and selected FSX.Cfg tweaks. :( PS: A couple of other fascinating threads turned up some info which may be pertinent to this thread as we consider the load we might impose on our FSX systems... depending on what we're trying to do with FSX sliders and FSX.Cfg tweaks:"FSX Tweaks Demystified"http://www.simforums.com/forums/fsx-tweaks-demystified_topic37948.html"PTaylor's WebLog > Back of the envelope"http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ptaylor/archive/2008/04/17/back-of-the-envelope.aspx...And some links on practical and conceptual considerations in authoring 3rd party content for FSX scenery objects or SimObjects in general, and in particular autogen object display as related to Phil Taylors's mention of 'D3D Batching and Instancing' (...perhaps some topics Bojote may have considered too ?):http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?24941-Help-with-Instant-Scenery-Plaese!!!http://http.developer.nvidia.com/GPUGems2/gpugems2_chapter03.htmlhttp://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee418269%28v=vs.85%29.aspxhttp://members.gamedev.net/jhoxley/directx/DirectX10/VertexBuffersinDirect3D10.htmhttp://www.mvps.org/directx/articles/vcache.htmOh, and this was both a fascinating and humorous look at the "PC versus Console Gaming versus DirectX's Limitations" issue:"Farewell to DirectX ?"http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/03/16/farewell-to-directx/1Remember this DOS gamer credo ? "Game Coders Reserve The Right to Access Hardware Directly (...but can't get MS out of the way)" :(PS: Any Intel Larrabee chips to be had for the future of MS Flight, Phil ? Angel.gif Happy Tinkering ! :( GaryGB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...