Yes there is very little noticeable difference with the slider, so having it all the way off may sound like its a big compromise but it really isnt. In fact the FPS gained far out ways the small amount of detail you get in far away mountains.Speed.

"9.6m mesh is LOD12 but FS9 doesn't recognise any higher resolution than LOD11 (19m), so having LOD12 mesh in the sim is a waste."Actually, FS9 doesn't recognize anything higher than LOD10/38m. This was first obeserved by John Farrie at VisualFlight, developer of the VFR Photographic Scenery and VFR Terrain. He put up this page to show it:http://www.visualflight.co.uk/vfrterrain/t...ution/index.htmI've talked to him over email and in their forum and can confirm that there's no benefit to setting TMVL to 21 in FS2004. It does change texturing slightly. In fact, texturing and lighting seems to be calculated based on the 19m mesh but spacing between elevation points is 38m. The actual terrain polygons remain identical between 20 and 21, except autoflattens, which do not work correctly with TMVL=21.

"Actually, FS9 doesn't recognize anything higher than LOD10/38m."I'll take Justin's Tyme's position on this... he was told by MS themselves that FS9 will show LOD11 and nothing higher.Greg

"I'll take Justin's Tyme's position on this... he was told by MS themselves that FS9 will show LOD11 and nothing higher."Yes, it initially it looks like FS2004 supports LOD11 but upon closer inspection one finds that it does not. There seems to be some conflict because texture and lighting reflects the 19m mesh, but the terrain elevation points are 38m. It's very possible that the MS developers *think* FS supports 19m, because this is essentially a bug in the scenery system.There was a similar discussion at Flightsim not long ago and eventually the same conclusion was reached there - max resolution: LOD10.You can find out for yourself easily. Install a 19m mesh. Make sure you install one which does not contain an additional 38m mesh like some sceneries do. This will cause you to use a different mesh when you change TMVL and they *will* look different because of the location of elevation points and averaging between them (FS seems to average differenly than the mesh tools do when compiling). Now compare screenshots with TMVL=20 and 21. The polygons will look identical except autoflattens, but texturing/lighting will change.Compare these pictures taken with a 19m mesh in FS2004. It's probably best if you open them in separate windows so you can switch between them.- In the right side of the image, texturing changes. However, terrain polygons remain identical. The truth is that texturing *does* reveal additional detail, but terrain polygons do not, no matter how close you get to them.- Look at the railroad. There's a big change here between 20 and 21. What we're seeing is not actually more detail, because polygons *only* change around auto-flattens (roads, railroads and streams). I could post a shot with no VTP lines and it would show 100% identical mesh. This "bumpy" railroad is caused by the same confusion - FS *thinks* it's doing LOD11 and does lighting and texturing, as well as autoflattnes according to this, while some internal limit results in LOD10 being displayed.-Try this for yourself with any LOD11 mesh and tell me your results. It's important that this limitation is understood so that it won't stay in FS2006.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/83555.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/83556.jpg

So why do mesh vendors (including Justin) sell 19.2m mesh for areas such as grand canyon?Speed.

"So why do mesh vendors (including Justin) sell 19.2m mesh for areas such as grand canyon?"I believe it's because that add-on was originally made for FS2002 (which could show up to LOD12 mesh).JimmiG as usual presents a convincing arguement. I wouldn't doubt that his hypothesis is correct, but we agree on this much... hopefully we'll be able to take advantage of the higher LOD add-on meshes in FS2006. Places like the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, and the Grans Tetons look stunning at LOD12.Greg