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:Uploaded 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!!!)Uploaded 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 culpritUploaded 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 culpritUploaded 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? :-)

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?

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:Uploaded 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!!!)Uploaded 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 culpritUploaded 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 culpritUploaded 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

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

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.

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

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. :(

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

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 ? Happy Tinkering ! :( GaryGB