Jump to content

Archived

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

DMullert

High altitude graphic issue with XPX

Recommended Posts

Hello Gang!

 

After months of tinkering and practicing with XPX, today I decided to try my first FMS based flight from DFW-MIA with a nice flight plan created courtesy of FSBuild. I am using the wonderful XPFW 757 converted to XPX and real weather from X-Plane. Things are going well but I have noticed that ground textures turned very blurry at 37,000 feet. The immediate textures around the aircraft are ok but far in the distance they look blurry. Please take a look at the attached screenshot for reference. Anyone run into this issue before? Is it a setting issue or a bug?

 

Thanks for any insight.

 

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been like that for quite a while, can't remember if it was like that when if first came out or not. Anyways, because of this issue it's ga only for me until they "fix" the issue. I have a feeling it's the 25 mile visibility limitation. Put some damn sliders in the graphic or weather settings so we can adjust to our own liking, so frustratiing. Might be ok if you set your own "fake" weather with greater visibility, can't comment, never fly with anything other than real weather.

 

Glen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this is something about X-plane that's Number 1 on my list of things I hate. The 25 mile limit should be an easy thing to fix (especially when 64bit comes out). It seem to remember way back in fs2002 that their detailed terrain went out to 70miles and that was still noticeable. FSX renders terrain all the way out to the horizon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm looking forward to purchasing XPX later on this year. Hopefully i will have the coin saved up to replace my computer coinciding with X-Plane being 64bit capable at the time of purchase.

 

The way XPX looks graphically at 37000 feet is deplorable. I didn't think it was that bad. The question i ask is, why is it that bad?

 

Fair Dinkum, i hope this gets sorted out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its due to the way XPX draws the clouds. When consumed with clouds, the nearer ones get drawn better than the ones far away so that you don't see how bad the distant clouds are as the near ones obscure the far ones. In those shots, it is a near severe clear day and the nearest clouds are far away and are being drawn as if there are other clouds nearer to obscure their low detail, but there isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Aaron!

 

Nope. Clouds is not the issue. Is the ground textures. I've already replicated the issue several times today without any clouds and the same thing happens. Hopefully LR will address this in a subsequent release.

 

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the ground textures are another problem, but the clouds in that are also not so good either and to me, draw your attention to the horizon where you see the empty, undetailed textures at a distance with no 3D overlaid and no farmland or variations of the underlying landclass. Its either green or brown and without any 3D world on top, empty as the minds of some people I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jajajaj You got a point! Yes, you're right. Cloud quality is also degraded in the distance - I guess I'm willing to live more with that than the ground issue. Talking about clouds, yesterday on this same flight while approaching te west coast of Florida I ran into some nasty weather that included hail - the weather event was accurately depicted by XPX (which FSX never does even with addons such as REX), but right after passing this area, when going to outside view and looking back at the clouds all you see is a bunch of nice looking clouds instead of the nasty cumulonimbus type tower or anvil related to a nasty thunderhead that I just flew through. That was a downer!!!!!!!!!

 

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't there a setting in XP10 which makes the scenery out beyond 25 miles look better and some sort of global scenery issue with the installer which has been fixed which clears this up?

 

I could be wrong, but I recall there was some sort of issue with the installer a few months ago which prevented the needed scenery elements for views out beyond 25 miles from being installed - thus, even when you have the proper settings selected, it was blurry.

 

You may wish to see if the needed scenery elements are all there, or perhaps kick a message off to the folks at Laminar Research for support.... I think this is taken care of any you shouldn't have to see soup beyond 25 miles...

 

-Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember that post greggerm, indeed I think I was the one that raised the issue. The problem back then was that there was no scenery depicted *at all* beyond 25 miles. I seem to remember a re-install was needed and that sorted it out to the level where we are now seeing the global textures beyond 25 miles, which are too blurry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sending e-mails to Austin directly, or at the Bug section of the X-Plane.com website is probably the best way to get this fixed, believe me, they read all trhe messages, I sent one time something I want to get fixed, and they replied a very nice e-mail to me. The more people talking about it, the best chances are they're going to look into it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I just have to bump this one as I am having the same annoying issue. Does anyone know if this is getting looked at?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric says:

June 26, 2012 at 8:13 pm

 

If you fly past FL20 the ground textures on the horizon start to get really blurry, the higher you go the worst it gets. Is this on your bucket list ?

Reply

 

Aw, it seems like it's a long way from getting looked at.. Not good. More night flying for me, then..

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 2 issues here, the 1st is scenery draw distance over 40km. The way X-Plane handles scenery is the first 40km is high-res local scenery, for scenery beyond that it transitions to low-res scenery located in the Resources/bitmaps/Earth Orbit Textures folder (which comprises of about 740MB worth textures). If I recall correctly Alpilotx (Andres Fabien) mentioned that moving to 64bit would allow X-Plane to handle over 2GB of Earth Orbit textures without crashing the sim. Having high-res textures will improve the quality of the long distance terrain.

 

The 2nd issue seems to be their 3D art assets (houses and building) transitioning to grassy 2D textures which are not representative of the urbanize areas. Fortunately you can use UrbanMaxx textures to compensate for the lack of urban textures until Ben & Friends find a proper solution (which sadly probably wont happen for a while).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, upping the planet texture res could be an option here. But the other option Ben is hinting at is, to just load more DSFs (until now XP10 always loads 2x3 tiles surrounding you) when we are at 64bit one day. Because, with 64bit we won't have the hard RAM limits of the 32bit world any more (you all know the "bad alloc" crashes ... which are because of this limit) ... And even then, it will "help" to have at least 8 GByte physical RAM in your machine to back it up (and who knows what other parts of the 3D engine will say about the "extra" data :yahoo:) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely I can't be suspected of being an FSX troll, but honestly I must say the hi-altitude rendition of FSX 3D engine, though maybe not perfect, is significantly better than X-Plane (and, for that matter, of any other flight sim I know of), since scenery mesh and textures are loaded much farther away, with more than acceptable performances in terms of loading times and FPS. I'd even go as far as to say this is the only big gap that the core X-Plane 3D engine still has, compared to FSX's one. Hoping the switch to 64 bit will see this issue significantly improved!

 

Marco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the other option Ben is hinting at is, to just load more DSFs

 

Rather than just loading more dsf's, is it possible to apply LOD's to terrain mesh (amongst other tricks), so that you can have a progressively simpler mesh for more distant views? I'm guessing simply adding more dsf's without such conditioning can apply a heavy toll to cpu and gpu load. I don't know if LOD's are used in terrain right now, but it would make sense.

 

I seem to remember reading in Ben's blog that LOD's are of limited benefit to .obj files, because obj's live in VRAM. However I understand that terrain mesh lives in main memory. So I'm wandering if LODs applied to terrain mesh can give some performance improvements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice if we could have in the rendering options a slider to adjust the maximum visibility setting for masking the ugly distant scenery rendering, I would set something like 25 or 30 nm max visibility until a final solution appear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...