Recorded flight to demonstrate autogen visiblity distance bugHi gang :)As some of you know, there appears to be a serious problem with Autogen in FS2004. I have posted several times about it, both rants and more professional attempts to figure out what's going on. This time, I'll try to be professional :)Often, people have replied that they don't see any problems and even suggesting that it's a system-specific problem or user-error.I have now recorded a flight, which I hope will once and for all prove that this bug exists, and also show just how serious it can be and how easy it is to trigger it.The recorded flight will take you from Portland-Troutdale, give you a brief tour of Portland town then head off to a small airfield south of the city (Aurora). On final, the plane will be pointing towards Portland, and the area you just flew over. I think you will all notice the extremely low framerate on final.Download here:http://home.swipnet.se/~w-84952/test/autogen%20test.zipInstructions:Install the recorded flight into the Flight Simulator Files in My Documents. This flight uses the default Baron and the default scenery so it should work for everyone. Tell me if you can't get the flight to work and I'll try to fix it.In the display properties of your videocard, disable Anti-Aliasing and AF (just to reduce the effect of videocard performance and level the playing-field). Set your FS2004 like this, again, just to make sure everyone uses the same settings. I compressed the images heavily to reduce loading-time but they should still be readable:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/57281.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/57282.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/57283.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/57284.jpgI don't know how much of the setup information is saved in the actual recorded flight, so make sure you:-Disable AI traffic (uncheck GA and Airlines)-Weather to Clear theme-Viewpoint: Virtual Cockpit, looking straight forward (hit space to center), zoom: 0.60Start playback and enjoy the flight. It's just a short trip. Keep the same viewpoint for the entire flight.Things to look for:-To reduce file size, the record interval is 5 seconds for this video. It will be a bit

>This is what makes it even more frustrating. It>would take less than an hour for Microsoft to change the>distances and upload a fix. Instead, we've had to live with>the low framerates for 7 months now because MICROSOFT DOESN'T>CARE!I'm not to going to dispute that there's a bug, but how can you possibly claim to know how long it would take MS to fix it? Nothing is that simple in coding a hugely complex program, least of all a 3D game engine. I do wish they'd patch this an other issues (bridges, wild wind swings, and the detrimental changes to the FDE to name a few) but there's no way they're gonna do it - it's become pretty apparent that FS has become a fire and forget product for MS until the next version...

This is a very careful and well presented discussion of the problem and you should be commended for that. My question is, what do you hope to accomplish? We've known about this issue and the workaround for some time--and presumably so has MSFT--do why beat a dead horse? Folks here interested in performance know how to tweak their installation to get it.<>I can appreciate your frustration but this just shows an ignorance of software development and testing which is not likely to help your case with MSFT. No change in any remotely complex piece of software takes an hour to fix. Your speculation seesm to indicate this is controlled by some simple constant somewhere in the code that just needs to be changed. I doubt it's that simple. And even if it was, MSFT can't just fix the value, recompile, and post a patch.The same designer you call out in the Discovery video also spoke at the AvSim conference last year on testing and patches. Specifcally he made the following points: (a) all software ships with bugs no matter how much testing you do and (:( MSFT does look at issues that arise after shipping and do post patches when the problem is serious enough. (Anyone remember FS2000?) That measure of seriousness is derived mainly from their formal support line. How many users here have actually called the support number to report this? We certainly all should, but I suspect that even if every active member of AvSim called it would amount to no more than a blip on their radar.So what to make of all this? Basically those of us that use FS *a lot* are in the minority in the grand scheme of FS users. I think that's actaully a *good* thing because all those other people who use 20% of the product help subsidize an amazing development effort that gives us a great core sim with lots of opportunites for third parties to add on to it for those that use 90% of ths sim. The downside is that when we expose a bug that the average user doesn't run into we're the ones that need to find the solution and hope MSFT will factor the fix into the next version of FS. But, heck, isn't that part of what makes it fun to part of this community? I mean, imagine how quiet these forums would be if FS was perfect and met everyone's needs in every way!! I'm not trying to get down on you or otherwise pick a fight, but the whole notion that MSFT "DOESN'T CARE" just because they don't issue a constant stream of patches to solve *our* most important issues just detracts from efforts to workaround the issues. It also shows a lack of the "big picture" from MSFT's perspective. It's a business, after all, and I'm sure the MSFT team has to answer to someone in the chain of command on a business (i.e., $$$-making) basis who doesn't know anything about flight sims and doesn't give a hoot about the real hardcore enthusiasts. So, IMHO, we should (a) try to work within their system by calling product support to report issues and email [email protected] to suggest new ideas and (:( recognize that we're a unique and talented group that does a really great of job of supporting our own.Just my $0.02.

JimmyGI have d/l and run your flight video(Your settings- but with the various "friendly autogen addons) and agree the fps drop into single figures on the finals (7-9fps).However,running the same flight as a new flight ,following as near as I can the same flight path etc produces vastly differing results.Using the default Baron the fps on finals are nearly double (13-16fps)Using the default C172 adds a couple of fps to that most of the time but also produced a momentary low of 11 fps on very short finals.Using A P-51D Mustang(addon) that normally seems to hit my fps by about 10% gave virtually the same result as my Baron flight (rather than yours if you see what I mean) but this was with the 2D cockpit.All this for what it is worth.............Be interesting to see results from others.System is K7S5A/XP2000/512MB DDRAM/Ti4200 nothing overclockedDave

I logged the framerate for the entire flight with normal autogen settings, and with default.xml renamed and vector objects = 0.I think the results speak for themselves. Framerate is cut by a third when using the full autogen, and you can clearly see the steep dip when turning final.Without the extra autogen, it's close to the 25FPS limit all the time with just a few dips to 20 FPS.I was surprised to see the impact on framerate even before the 180 degree turn. Clearly, the high "on" distance plays a part here as well. This kind of performance hit certainly isn't normal.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/57315.gifdaveg4otu, what zoom setting did you use for the other flights? Also, if it weren't for this issue, maybe you wouldn't have to use low-quality framerate-friendly autogen? Just a thought." My question is, what do you hope to accomplish?"I'm hoping to make more people aware of the issue. It's quite possible Microsoft as well as many simmers haven't realized the extent of this problem. Many are under the impression thata) The framerate hit isn't very big:( you have to slew 20 times back and fourth over a city just to trigger the bugThis flight shows the extent of the problem nicely."Folks here interested in performance know how to tweak their installation to get it."Yes, and part of the tweaks most apply is to delete the default.xml file. BOOM - there goes all the new autogen features Microsoft put into the sim. It's like buying a car with A/C and a CD player and find that they drain the battery too much because of a design error, and then the car manufacturer just tells you to remove them.If it weren't for this bug, the tweaks we do wouldn't have to involve deleting things and reducing quality of the scenery."Your speculation seesm to indicate this is controlled by some simple constant somewhere in the code that just needs to be changed."This is the conclusion that most scenery designers have come to as well. There's even a fair chance that we'll eventually be able to change it ourselves once the full object SDK's are out. If they are right, it's truly is just a matter of changing a few constans in a bgl file or similar."That measure of seriousness is derived mainly from their formal support line. How many users here have actually called the support number to report this? We certainly all should, but I suspect that even if every active member of AvSim called it would amount to no more than a blip on their radar."That's exactly why I did this post. I'm sure a LOT of normal users suffer from this problem, but they don't realize exactly what's going on. They probably just assume that their computer isn't powerful enough and set Autogen to Sparse. It's possible that if more people realize what's actually going on, MS might take a closer look at the problem.Also, I have my own reason to belive that MS IS listening. Let's just say I read a few "encouraging" things several months ago and leave it at that :)

I commend you for your efforts and have sympathy for your distress.But the reality is, I'm afraid, that this issue isn't going to be "fixed"...now for FS9 or in future versions of FS. It may be best for your sanity to just forget about it and delete the default.xml file like I've done.May I also suggest that for someone that has put so much effort into this, that you may be of benefit in the development of FlightGear.The flight sim market needs more competition - open source or otherwise - to push things forward like what was happening around '99-2000. In the case of FlightGear, there is a distinct possibility that your efforts will have a positive impact on something. You simply aren't going to to get any results from MSoft for your efforts.That's just the way it is.Landing in gusting crosswinds should be frustrating - autogen should not be...

Not a huge fan of FlightGear.Everything is "work in progress" - flight model, weather, atc, scenery. It's like stepping back 6 years in time to FS98. I'd have to program a new scenery engine, new 3d engine, new ATC and new weather myself which is a bit too much work especially since I don't remember a word in C and I wasn't exactly fluent in it to begin with.I still play FU3 a lot. Looking Glass shut their doors over 4 years ago, but FU3 has an amazing community that has developed FU3 to the point where it really is Flight Unlimited 3.5. We have an incredible amount of planes and two new high-res scenery areas and virtually every airport in the sim has been redesigned. And, best of all, on modern computers the thing runs at 30-50 FPS.X-Plane and Micro Flight are kind of interesting too. They are both made by only one developer so it should be easier to get suggestions and bug reports through. I've sent some suggestions and bug reports to the deveelopers of both sims so it will be intersting to see how seriously they take them and how quickly the suggestions go into future versions of the product(s). X-Plane is getting very close to becomming my primary flight simulator. All that is needed is a few more high-detail scenery areas, and a few small improvements and fixes.

>Not a huge fan of FlightGear.>Everything is "work in progress" - flight model, weather, atc,>scenery. It's like stepping back 6 years in time to FS98. I'd>have to program a new scenery engine, new 3d engine, new ATC>and new weather myself which is a bit too much work especially>since I don't remember a word in C and I wasn't exactly fluent>in it to begin with.>Well, I wasn't by any means suggesting that you take on the task of developing FlightGear all by yourself. My point is that it is a flightsim on which your efforts would have an impact. Just because it's "behind the times" now doesn't mean it will remain so.I still fly Flight Unlimited 3 also. There has been a tremendous amount of creative work done with it, by many talented people. But there is virtually no chance of improving the core engine, like there is in FlightGear.X-Plane is coming along too. Maybe someday it will put the pressure on MSoft to improve the flight model in FS. I had hoped Fly!/Fly!2 would push to improve the systems model in FS; but so far it has been left to 3rd party developers to push that envelope on FS.Long live FU3!

Just curious - I knew about renaming/deleting the default.xml file, but what does setting vector objects=0 in the cfg do? What do you lose by setting that?

X-Plane is getting very close to becomming my>primary flight simulator. All that is needed is a few more>high-detail scenery areas, and a few small improvements and>fixes.How about a few more "thousand" high detail scenery areas! Since my own personal taste for flight simming involves the entire western United States including mountainous & desert areas; X-Plane doesn't, and probably won't come close to duplicating the flying enviroment that I so highly enjoy in FS2002/FS2004.I own X-Plane also, but it's more of a "tinkering" simulation as far as I'm concerned. The "code" changes about every other month which seems to make half the users happy & the other half upset. And what's with the "few" small improvements & fixes for X-Plane? You say that MS doesn't care; but IMO, X-Plane would require much more programming to catch up with MSFS in terms of creating a world-wide enviroment such as FS2004 does. And I doubt that will ever happen.L.Adamson

>X-Plane is coming along too. Maybe someday it will put the>pressure on MSoft to improve the flight model in FS. I had>hoped Fly!/Fly!2 would push to improve the systems model in>FS; but so far it has been left to 3rd party developers to>push that envelope on FS.>It's the same in X-Plane. The 3rd parties develope new aircraft & then Austin changes the "code". So then the 3rd parties re-design, etc, etc.......Even at that, 3rd Party aircraft for MSFS such as the RealAir SF260 seem to have all the "other simulation" flight dynamics beat, in my opinion.L.Adamson

Not to mention that if you ask the average FS user about "flight models" they'll likely think you mean Christie Brinkley in a stewardess uniform! No, flight modeling will never the feature that causes FS to change...

The vector objects controls the objects that get placed near roads etc. - telephone poles, streetlight poles, signs, high voltage towers etc. The XML file places the red barns and fast food houses. Both types of autogen suffer from the same bug, but usually disabling just one of them is enough to prevent unacceptable loss of framerate.

"How about a few more "thousand" high detail scenery areas! Since my own personal taste for flight simming involves the entire western United States including mountainous & desert areas; X-Plane doesn't, and probably won't come close to duplicating the flying enviroment that I so highly enjoy in FS2002/FS2004."Well it depends on what you do. For the type of flights I do, I'd be happy with a few 10,000 - 20,000 sq. mile areas of 2-5 meter satellite scenery. After all, I enjoyed FU3 for four years with only two ~12,000 sq. mile areas before we got UK-South and Switzerland for it. The beautiful thing with such scenery is that every airport - every mile of scenery - is unique, instead of just a few vector roads, some pointy polygon lakes and generic textures. Exploring a 10,000 sq. mile area of high quality satellite scenery is almost as exctiting as exploring a whole continent of generic scenery."It's the same in X-Plane. The 3rd parties develope new aircraft & then Austin changes the "code". So then the 3rd parties re-design, etc, etc......."This appears to be a problem, true. However, when a new version of FS comes out the same thing happens. Even worse, it can take a YEAR for new SDKs to come out. I'm still waiting for VCs that show the new rain effect that the default aircraft do in FS2004."Even at that, 3rd Party aircraft for MSFS such as the RealAir SF260 seem to have all the "other simulation" flight dynamics beat, in my opinion."The SF260, DF Archer and C152, the FSD aircraft etc. are great. But remember that they cost $20-30 each when new. Most X-Plane aircraft are freeware those that are payware are usually very cheap (less than $10).

JimmiGI used zero zoom on the other flights- which is my normal setting.Also I don't use VC normally - I prefer the 2D panel.However for the check flights I did use VC except for the P-51D.Dave