Hi Chaps,

 

Sorry if this is the wrong section of the forums, but I have a question regarding my setting of the cloud resolution in REX 2.0. I currently have it set to 4096x4096 but I have a feeling this may be leading to my dissapointing performance in the NGX.

 

My GFX card is a GTX570.

 

Kind Regards,

Hi James, sure, that is probably one of the main reasons for anyone experiencing poor performance. Like most guys, I too jumped at the chance of using hidef textures, but hey, for what reason. Unless you're busy staring at each cloud that whizzes past, I see no point. The only thing that happens is that it costs you performance. If I may offer some advice, simply run all your clouds at 1024, besides, for me personally I don't actually like the look of the HiDef clouds anyway. Another perfromance saving thing you can do with the NGX is to alter the livery textures, these too are HiDef (think I'm right, they are either 2048 or 4096 anyway). I changed them all to 1024 using a free texture editor and voila, the external textures now load far quicker than before when changing views. BTW, don't forget the perfomance manager. I can't remember which one I unticked, I think it's the middle texture for the VC, simply untick it. There is little change visually, but it does help texture loading. BTW2, the NGX is a hungry aircraft, although for what it offers, is incredibly efficient. Nevertheless, I suggest you set your FSX settings accordingly. I hope I'm not trying to teach my grandmother to suck eggs and if so then please accept my apologies. BTW3, looking at your sytem, it's virtually identical to mine, there are not too many guys around here running at 4.6ghz. and apart from a few changes you could make with the hardware, none of them would return very much in the way of extra performance. So what I'm trying to say is that to increase your performance at this stage it's mainly about carefully balancing FSX itself, by adjusting the FSX settings conservatively and tweaking your cfg and getting it 'just so.' If you still experience what you deem as poor perfomance, after making the changes, then drop by another post and we can go through things in a little more detail.

Hey Srdan, have you ever tried 512 clouds?

Sure, more or less what I thought, cheers...

I love 512. ^_^ I don't like flying through oversharpened Photoshop pictures.

Hi Chaps,

 

Sorry if this is the wrong section of the forums, but I have a question regarding my setting of the cloud resolution in REX 2.0. I currently have it set to 4096x4096 but I have a feeling this may be leading to my dissapointing performance in the NGX.

 

My GFX card is a GTX570.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Every size above the max size of 1024 (as Aces intended) is asking for troubles (blurriness / slow loading / less FPS / OOM etc...)

Every size above the max size of 1024 (as Aces intended) is asking for troubles (blurriness / slow loading / less FPS / OOM etc...)

 

That's always been my take on things too. In fact I much prefer some of the older VC's compared to some of the newer ultra HD textures. The same applies to external textures and liveries. I don't see the point of having whopping 4096 res textures. OK, they look good, but at the end of the day how much time do you spend so close up to the outside of an aircraft that you couldn't really tell the difference anyway. I changed all my NGX HD textures to 1024 and while there is a small difference, it's only if you zoom right in, but not during any normal flying conditions.

That's always been my take on things too. In fact I much prefer some of the older VC's compared to some of the newer ultra HD textures. The same applies to external textures and liveries. I don't see the point of having whopping 4096 res textures. OK, they look good, but at the end of the day how much time do you spend so close up to the outside of an aircraft that you could really tell the difference anyway. I changed all my NGX HD textures to 1024 and while there is a small difference, it's only if you zoom right in, but not during any normal flying conditions.

 

So true :-)

I'd have to say I prefer 512 at most (maybe even a good set at 256). I just don't see such detailed clouds, at least where I live. Sometimes as the sun sets I can look off East towards the mountains and see some thunderheads forming with some detail but here in SoCal the clouds tend to be more on the less defined, blurry. Which works great for me as I can set the distance off to beyond my eyesight and its very immersive.

 

When I see 2048/4096 screenshots I can pick them right off as it reminds of aviation paintings I see. Very dramatic but not realistic for me.