I'm a little confused as to why I have three entries for Day scenery 0.6m, 1.2m, 2.4m? 

 

I'm going to delete the 1.2m and 2.4m unless someone can tell my why I need them?

 

If you delete them, you will see default scenery a short distance from your aircraft.

Yes, don't delete them!

 

They are used.   You can install and run 2.4m only, but you cannot run without 2.4m.

 

:smile:

Ok will not delete.

 

I've never seen any scenery packages setup this way ... so if I understand you gents correctly, there are basically 3 LODs for day and one LOD for night?  So I guess the question is why? 

 

The reason I looked at this is that it seems to me that 0.6m isn't always loading, especially when rotating around in external spot view (viewport).  In contrast, MSE scenery and other 3rd party scenery that uses 60cm/pixel source but at LOD15.

 

keep in mind I run a FSX.CFG LOD of 9.5, so I expected to see more 0.6m ... I must be not understanding something obvious here and why VFR scenery is setup this way?  So please excuse my ignorance ... maybe this is a MibBias setting issue.

Photo scenery is a very heavy hitter , running lid 9.5 is way to high , depending on how powerful your pc , the recommended lod is a max 6.5 . I have struggled over the years to get photo scenery to display without blurries tried tweaking cfg , eventualy bought fsps extreme fsx pc & finally started getting some decent results , the higher entries , ie 0.6m will give you a clearer picture when you are low.

Robains,

 

0.6m per pixel photographic scenery takes up a lot of hard disk space. That means that it takes longer to load. This resolution is not required beyond a certain distance from your aircraft, because you will hardly notice the difference. The 1.2m and 2.4m per pixel scenery increases performance, because it takes up less hard disk space, and therefore takes a fraction of the time to load into memory when compared to the 0.6m scenery. That makes perfect sense to me.

 

As for a LOD radius of 9.5, that is incredibly high. I assume that you are not using lots of other addons at the same time, otherwise you would be risking OOM errors on a regular basis?

0.6m per pixel photographic scenery takes up a lot of hard disk space. That means that it takes longer to load. This resolution is not required beyond a certain distance from your aircraft, because you will hardly notice the difference. The 1.2m and 2.4m per pixel scenery increases performance, because it takes up less hard disk space, and therefore takes a fraction of the time to load into memory when compared to the 0.6m scenery. That makes perfect sense to me.

The above would make sense to me, if FSX wasn't capable of loading and displaying multiple LODs from a single file. I guess I could do a test to see if having lower LODs in their own file resulted in smaller files overall, but my first impression is that it shouldn't. Maybe the developer found that reading from multiple files resulted in better FPS? Dunno, but some day I'll do a check.

Thanks all for the input, maybe my expectations are too high.

 

Here is a video I made ... Blackpool to Manchester -- what do you folks think?  Seems a little less clear than my MSE areas.

 

 

Rob

You should be able to find answers to all your questions here.....

 

http://forum.playsimspublishing.com/

You should be able to find answers to all your questions here.....

 

http://forum.playsimspublishing.com/

 

I get "General Error" when I attempt to visit that link?

The site is undergoing a revamp, members were notified. Should be back up and running in a day or two.

 

Bad timing I guess, but plenty of valuable information available. You may well be interested in using the AIO install option (All In One). Takes a bit of time to create once the default install has been run. But well worth the effort. Then save it at another location for future use; new machine, FSX reinstall etc.

Robains,

 

I have just checked out your video, and the blurry ground textures when you are on final approach are NOT normal. Are you sure that you have the 1.2 metre per pixel textures installed (or enabled in the Scenery Library)? My ground textures are much sharper than that, and I use the standard LOD radius of 4.5.

 

What exactly does a LOD radius of 9.5 do? Is it possible that you have it set so high that your PC doesn't get the chance to sharpen the close range textures before you are past them? My understanding is that increasing the LOD radius increases the range at which high levels of detail are displayed, but I don't know what effect this has since I have never tried it.

 

 

Are you sure that you have the 1.2 metre per pixel textures installed (or enabled in the Scenery Library)?

 

See my original screen shot ... you can see that 0.6m and 1.2m and 2.4m are all enabled in the Scenery Library.

 

PC has no problem keeping up (see my system specs), all other scenery I have from Hawaii to MSE USA show very good crisp/clear details.  However, just to be sure I went ahead and changed my LOD back to 4.5 and it made no difference in the close range texture details, however long range details did indeed get worse.  I have my FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.99 which will make scenery texture loading a high priority.

 

Like I said, this issues seems to be specific to VFR UK scenery, all my other scenery looks great.

 

Has me stumped ... but I don't have ANY other scenery package that uses this method of 0.6m, 1.2m, 2.4m directory separation ... not sure why they aren't all just put into a single directory (I checked the filenames, they are all unique).

 

I've also noticed that when I fly from say Paris to London, my default FSX textures in Paris actually look better than when I reach VFR UK London.

 

All my drives are VERY fast SSD (6GB SATA III) ... I've even tried putting VFR on different SSDs to see if that made a difference, sadly it didn't.

 

Has me puzzled, everything else looks and performs great except all the VFR scenery. :(

 

I haven't given up on this scenery just yet, but I'm running out of "things to try" and am looking closely at the ORBX scenery and uninstall VFR to see if that will work for me.

 

Rob

In case anyone questions my system/configuration ... here are some screen shots from MSE Hawaii with FSDT Honolulu:

 

http://www.robainscough.com/images/2761fb21bb01f6159d8d3b0f62df5795.jpg

 

http://www.robainscough.com/images/9bcef0cf90f761ee7fa7efb8aba86270.jpg

 

Using same FSX.CFG on the same system, clearly there is something specific to VFR that isn't working well. 

 

Note: I do run DX10.  Haven't tried in DX9, but I'd be VERY surprised if that made a difference and if it did make a difference then VFR will get uninstalled and I'll go with ORBX ... so in other words going back to DX9 isn't an option for me.

Thanks all for the input, maybe my expectations are too high.

 

Here is a video I made ... Blackpool to Manchester -- what do you folks think?  Seems a little less clear than my MSE areas.

 

 

Rob

 

From what I remember of my experience with my Horizon scenery you will only see the 0.6m resolution in specific areas, IE not all areas like Blackpool are 0.6m resolution. Some areas will be lower resolution hence the need for multiple resolution directories. High resolution photographs are expensive so I guess they only wanted to pay for the larger cities or more popular areas to be 0.6m. Having them in different directories probably won't change anything as the sim loads them all the same but you might have problems if the whole thing relies on a specific priority order.