FS9 is STILL the #1 flight simulator for 'heavy' operations!

[ghiom 2]

I wish FX had never existed.

[Groovin_DC-10 51]

Groovin, I wish to thank you for posting the four .cfg items above.  WOW...have they ever cranked up the quality of ground representation. I have never had these in place, and had had some outright bad blurries to the horizon. With your posted tweaks, I now have a very gradual 'soft focus' of textures, that in fact, emulates what you see with the human eye at 18,000 feet and higher. I suggest that all users (if you haven't already) add all the posted tweak settings to their FS9 .cfg file. The difference between not having these settings, and having, are huge.

 

Mitch

 

Hi Mitch,

So glad it worked out for you.  Like you, I also get horrible blurries with the default settings (I think it's 4). 

I started with FSX, and when I got FS9, I went back and forth a few times.  The thing that I really didn't like about FS9 before changing those 4 lines was the blurries.  After my initial climb I'd get horrible looking blurry textures.  Night time textures were really bad when blurred.  It was like flying with psychedelic vision.

Then I found those tweaks on a forum (can't remember which one), I applied them, and it's bye bye FSX.  I finally got sharp textures that extend farther out and it has that "soft focus" look you described.

 

Happy flying :smile:

 

I'm happy to see that a few other members got improvements with the tweaks.

This thread is great with a lot of information on tweaks and add ons.  There's got to be more.  Let's keep it going.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Groovin_DC-10, on 19 May 2013 - 6:24 PM, said:

 

Hi Mitch,

So glad it worked out for you. Like you, I also get horrible blurries with the default settings (I think it's 4).

I started with FSX, and when I got FS9, I went back and forth a few times. The thing that I really didn't like about FS9 before changing those 4 lines was the blurries. After my initial climb I'd get horrible looking blurry textures. Night time textures were really bad when blurred. It was like flying with psychedelic vision.

Then I found those tweaks on a forum (can't remember which one), I applied them, and it's bye bye FSX. I finally got sharp textures that extend farther out and it has that "soft focus" look you described.

 

Happy flying :smile:

 

I'm happy to see that a few other members got improvements with the tweaks.

This thread is great with a lot of information on tweaks and add ons. There's got to be more. Let's keep it going.

Hey Groovin'...I am SO P/O'd! Here, all these years with FS9, I thought (no matter what GPU I had) that the blurries from the plane, on-out, was just an FS9 graphic rendering engine, 'thing'. I thought it was what it was....and learned to zone it out of my virtual space. I have to tell you, that those four VOODOO Magic lines, when the parameters were changed, gave me a whole new sim, and new-found appreciation for good-ol-boy and steady, FS9! The ground scenery looks darn GOOD! It actually REALLY DOES look lifelike with the textures and colors provided by G.E. Pro II. This is even at 3,500 feet now, let alone the FL's!!!!!

 

I mean...REALLY GOOD! So thanks again for posting....they should be a STICKY for sure. Geez...four lines changed in the .cfg, and you get a whole new virtual experience, that no other amount of tweaking in the FS9 .cfg file has ever produced. This hobby, and FS9 IS pulling new rabbits out of the hat! EXCELLENT! Most excellent. Now back to my paused KFNT-KPHX real-time flight tonight...Airbus, you know...gotta get 'em there with FSPassenger, lol! They are watching a movie, eating food, getting loaded, and everybody is happy....

 

Post Edit: ....in fact, my flight tonight out of Flint/Bishop looks SO DANG GOOD, that had I had this visual when FSX came out, I most probably would have sat in the bush regarding it, and merely smiled with each rotation and landing in FS9.99 (with the modified lines in the .cfg) Yeah, that's right,,, FS9.99

 

Post Edit2: In retrospect with my flight to Phoenix tonight, I think I am finally seeing the benefits of having purchased G.E.Pro II those years ago. When not blurry but well defined...G.E. Pro II looks totally lifelike in the way the rural and urban landscape is, as well as the proper real-world coloring of the tiles. So...THIS IS WHY I BOUGHT IT....but franky, up until now, it sure beat me why I did...blurries destroyed and masked any visual benefits of the software purchase. That...is no longer the case! Life is good, FS9 is better, and call me a happy camper to boot!

 

Mitch

[vololiberista 205]

Still weird you guys changing the .cfg lines does anything. I've never seen any evidence of any difference no matter what goes in there. And with different hardware.

 

A certain poster I recall once said that .cfg changes are purely placebo as to their effects. I've spent hours upon hours trying every .cfg change there is with no difference...ever.

 

Same blurries appear with my test at 5000 ft over Seattle with zoom set on 1.00 and checking as the blurry tiles appear just to the left of the cockpit coaming and pillar. They'll be level with the small round gauges under the ASI before they go clear up too the top part of the coaming.

 

Trying every single .cfg fix or letting fs rebuild a new one changes nothing. They appear and clear in the same point regardless.

 

If they appeared only 5 nm in front and side of aircraft I'd me happy. Or happier.

What seems to happen with these tweaks is that instead of there being a sharp definition change between the zone under the a/c and beyond, the change is more discrete. The zone under the a/c is not quite so sharp. At high altitude it does still sometimes want to go back to its old habits but quickly reverts to the slightly softer setting. In many ways this is more realistic as haze more often than not obscures the view at high altitude.

Haze is another issue too. A long time ago I found a haze fix on avsim that did away with the "moving cloud" (can't find it now-it was before the hack). The haze is still there but so tenuous its not apparent. Having that haze layer means my weather engine works really well.

[gwillmot 31]

Quite being facetious people are trying to show us examples in the context of our discussion here. In more examples than I care to list pictures are worth 1,000 words. So to save on typing post a pic.

 

Please excuse me as I could not see where the poster explained anything about the pictures posted.  As the poster had not previously contributed comments to this thread, I was at a loss as to the sceneries, textures, and settings I was observing.

 

Thank you very much for clarifying the purpose and content of the picture.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

What seems to happen with these tweaks is that instead of there being a sharp definition change between the zone under the a/c and beyond, the change is more discrete. The zone under the a/c is not quite so sharp. At high altitude it does still sometimes want to go back to its old habits but quickly reverts to the slightly softer setting. In many ways this is more realistic as haze more often than not obscures the view at high altitude.

Haze is another issue too. A long time ago I found a haze fix on avsim that did away with the "moving cloud" (can't find it now-it was before the hack). The haze is still there but so tenuous its not apparent. Having that haze layer means my weather engine works really well.

Actually, you described the effect very well. I did say in another post about how the focus 'goes' soft, but gently so, right out to the horizon.I do have to say though, that for about 2 or 3 miles out from the aircraft it is actually in the best and most sharp focus that I have seen to date. That is what prompted me to come back with my Post Edit:2 with the flight in pause, to post. In fact, with those four lines now altered I'd have to say that FS9.99 (+ 4 line tweak settings) is the MOST REALISTIC LOOKING FLIGHT SIMULATOR from altitude,I now have in my stable. Last night in my flight, I was sipping on my coffee, and dumb-founded, was shaking my head! The colors (with G.E. Pro 2) are dead on, to the real world at altitude. That new sharp-to-soft (not blurry, choppy, impressionist-painting sort of rendering!) is EXACTLY what you see, with atmospherics and haze/pollution in the real world, and in play. Heck, folks, the bottom line always has been to create a simulation experience that as closely as possible 'simulates' the real deal. I am falling over in stitches, that Life is so strange....here we all spend hundreds to thousands of dollars to find that experience, and visually, for myself, it was always here, in a product coded in the year 2004. Those lines for myself (whether some might think it placebo....let 'em....) have changed the entire game-play for me. With FS9.99, I am of course with my system specs, getting rocking performance from it, and now....I can't see the difference (YEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAW) any longer, when viewing the outside simulated world within FS9.99 and actuality. This statement is amazing, for myself to have the pleasure to even type! If I could have this 'new, at altitude, visual' reality effect, combined with the gorgeous and life-like (best!) depiction of night-time flying you get with XPX 10.21, I'd think that I would have it all, in one platform. FSX has better resolution, but it will NEVER, no matter what they do, no matter what they add to it, look life-like, because of the choices of the designers to run with cartoonish, and pastel color masks within the sim. Even great products like ORBX, STILL has that same 'cartoonish' plastic-polished look to the viewscape. Like I said, I don't think it is their fault at all, it is the rendering engine of FSX that restricts colors to what they will appear as. It is so weird that on the other hand, whatever they coded in FS9, so much more closely resembles the muted-darker and less in-your-face water colors, that FSX puts out. Could it be because FSX provides for higher tile resolution, that with that, comes that color shifting? I don't know....but for whatever reason, I always never liked the cartoonish/pastel effect from the first. Each to their own, of course. Nobody's opinion on this hobby rides roughshod over the other. For myself, with FS9.99 as it is now...will be fired up much more than FSX will, as will XPX for its stellar benefits. I thought this hobby was going dead, a slow drawn out death. I have now totally revised that opinion. With XPX being actively coded, and showing that the developers are bringing a 64 bit sim along the road to maturity for that bit rate, and with this four line FS9 'miracle'....I am beside myself with excitement, hope, and satisfaction....

 

Mitch

[Dillon 2,208]

Sesquashtoo, on 20 May 2013 - 07:05 AM, said:

Actually, you described the effect very well. I did say in another post about how the focus 'goes' soft, but gently so, right out to the horizon.I do have to say though, that for about 2 or 3 miles out from the aircraft it is actually in the best and most sharp focus that I have seen to date. That is what prompted me to come back with my Post Edit:2 with the flight in pause, to post. In fact, with those four lines now altered I'd have to say that FS9.99 (+ 4 line tweak settings) is the MOST REALISTIC LOOKING FLIGHT SIMULATOR from altitude,I now have in my stable. Last night in my flight, I was sipping on my coffee, and dumb-founded, was shaking my head! The colors (with G.E. Pro 2) are dead on, to the real world at altitude. That new sharp-to-soft (not blurry, choppy, impressionist-painting sort of rendering!) is EXACTLY what you see, with atmospherics and haze/pollution in the real world, and in play. Heck, folks, the bottom line always has been to create a simulation experience that as closely as possible 'simulates' the real deal. I am falling over in stitches, that Life is so strange....here we all spend hundreds to thousands of dollars to find that experience, and visually, for myself, it was always here, in a product coded in the year 2004. Those lines for myself (whether some might think it placebo....let 'em....) have changed the entire game-play for me. With FS9.99, I am of course with my system specs, getting rocking performance from it, and now....I can't see the difference (YEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAW) any longer, when viewing the outside simulated world within FS9.99 and actuality. This statement is amazing, for myself to have the pleasure to even type! If I could have this 'new, at altitude, visual' reality effect, combined with the gorgeous and life-like (best!) depiction of night-time flying you get with XPX 10.21, I'd think that I would have it all, in one platform. FSX has better resolution, but it will NEVER, no matter what they do, no matter what they add to it, look life-like, because of the choices of the designers to run with cartoonish, and pastel color masks within the sim. Even great products like ORBX, STILL has that same 'cartoonish' plastic-polished look to the viewscape. Like I said, I don't think it is their fault at all, it is the rendering engine of FSX that restricts colors to what they will appear as. It is so weird that on the other hand, whatever they coded in FS9, so much more closely resembles the muted-darker and less in-your-face water colors, that FSX puts out. Could it be because FSX provides for higher tile resolution, that with that, comes that color shifting? I don't know....but for whatever reason, I always never liked the cartoonish/pastel effect from the first. Each to their own, of course. Nobody's opinion on this hobby rides roughshod over the other. For myself, with FS9.99 as it is now...will be fired up much more than FSX will, as will XPX for its stellar benefits. I thought this hobby was going dead, a slow drawn out death. I have now totally revised that opinion. With XPX being actively coded, and showing that the developers are bringing a 64 bit sim along the road to maturity for that bit rate, and with this four line FS9 'miracle'....I am beside myself with excitement, hope, and satisfaction....

 

Mitch

This post shows why those of us who had FS9 setup properly never saw a reason to switch to FSX and opted to wait until the next/better version came along (which never happened from Microsoft).

 

I doubt it but maybe people will get our reasoning now (new people who've only used FSX will never get it)...

[Dillon 2,208]

Jon_aus, on 19 May 2013 - 10:41 PM, said:

Still weird you guys changing the .cfg lines does anything. I've never seen any evidence of any difference no matter what goes in there. And with different hardware.

 

A certain poster I recall once said that .cfg changes are purely placebo as to their effects. I've spent hours upon hours trying every .cfg change there is with no difference...ever.

 

Same blurries appear with my test at 5000 ft over Seattle with zoom set on 1.00 and checking as the blurry tiles appear just to the left of the cockpit coaming and pillar. They'll be level with the small round gauges under the ASI before they go clear up too the top part of the coaming.

 

Trying every single .cfg fix or letting fs rebuild a new one changes nothing. They appear and clear in the same point regardless.

 

If they appeared only 5 nm in front and side of aircraft I'd me happy. Or happier.

Are you an FSX user or use FS9? To say you've never saw any advantages of a configuration change in FS is odd to say the least. The only way you can make FSX work decently is with modifications like this. FS9 clearly has options in it's GUI that provok change in the actual sim and everyone knows going deeper in the FS9.cfg file does even more. If your not seeing any changes from your edits you need to varify your changing the actual files that correspond to the sim.

 

I found because I've had multiple installs tracking down scenery problems over the years I had FS9.cfg files in two locations and changing one didn't affect the sim in any way. I had to make sure I was in the right file. Even today with a dual boot system (XP/W7) I have two installs of FS9 on one large hard drive. I know this is over kill but I haven't got around to deleting the other install XP is referencing. I found it actually works in troubleshooting problems to have a live version to revert back to. That being said I just found out this weekend some of my scenery files in my W7 install is actually referencing scenery in my XP install. This is an easy cleanup but for the sake of discussion here if I adjust the AFCAD in my XP session of FS9, scenery will show no affect in the W7/sim once I fire it up (hopefully this makes since).

 

Now with all that being said if you are accessing the proper file that corresponds to your install and seeing nothing you might want to look at your hardware and most likely get a new video card. It's impossible to adjust FS9 settings in the FS9.cfg file and see no results in the actual sim. That's like putting gas in your car and your fuel gauge stays in the same place. You need to check what's going seriously wrong on your end.

[Dillon 2,208]

My video card is a GTX 560. Same thing with 9800 gtx+. And the 8800g gt.

 

I'm just of the opinion of a well known tweaker that any changes in the fs9 .cfg and perceived changed are purely placebo because I've never seen any difference myself on various configurations or in any screen shots from anyone else.

 

Always assumed it was written into the fs9 that there has to be blurries!

I put this on the level of being a skeptic that planes can actually fly and it's all most likely a conspiracy. It's amazing to me anyone could feel like this with either sim (FSX or FS9). FSX runs like crap without tweaks and FS9 looks like crap if you don't adjust a few settings. FSUIPC is another example of adjustments that made all the difference on top of that opened up the platform to many add-on possibilities.

[Groovin_DC-10 51]

Jon,

I agree with Dillon here. The visual change is very noticeable and not placebo at all. In fact, before the changes, I couldn't stand the blurries in FS9 and stuck with FSX. Only after applying those changes was I able to enjoy FS9 and be able to use it as my main sim and put FSX aside.

Both FSX and FS9 respond very well to cfg changes that improve the sim.

 

I'm not sure which FS9 tweaker you're talking about, but if you want to see a change in-game after adjusting a value in the cfg file, change Pan Rate to 999. Get into the VC and look around with your hat switch. Even a person who isn't into flight simulation would notice the drastic change in speed while panning. I've never heard anyone say that adjusting the cfg doesn't do anything and is purely placebo.

Other than the 4 lines mentioned already, I have also changed my pan rate and disabled in-game texts using the cfg.

 

I really don't know why you don't get any difference after adjusting your cfg file.

[Groovin_DC-10 51]

I know you've asked for pics, but I don't have any fs9 pics at the moment. I just remembered my FS9 video I posted on youtube. Try it on 1080p full screen. Keep in mind that the image quality has been reduced due to video compression after Fraps.

 

This is with the cfg tweaks. Without it, around 4-5000ft, there would be a blocky/blurry mess close to the aircraft. The tweak extends the border where the blurries begin and gives a very gradual soft focus as the distance increase. Pretty much the equivalent to setting LOD radius in FSX to medium. The only graphical mod I'm using on this is SweetFX with only Technicolor enabled.

 

Also, the head location for this wing view is on the captain's seat and facing the rear to the wings. So there is quite a bit of zoom already in this video capture. There is a lot more sharp texture not being shown.

 

[Dillon 2,208]

I know you've asked for pics, but I don't have any fs9 pics at the moment. I just remembered my FS9 video I posted on youtube. Try it on 1080p full screen. Keep in mind that the image quality has been reduced due to video compression after Fraps.

 

This is with the cfg tweaks. Without it, around 4-5000ft, there would be a blocky/blurry mess close to the aircraft. The tweak extends the border where the blurries begin and gives a very gradual soft focus as the distance increase. Pretty much the equivalent to setting LOD radius in FSX to medium. The only graphical mod I'm using on this is SweetFX with only Technicolor enabled.

 

Also, the head location for this wing view is on the captain's seat and facing the rear to the wings. So there is quite a bit of zoom already in this video capture. There is a lot more sharp texture not being shown.

 

 

He's not going to believe it unless you show him before and after videos/pictures (which I have no time for by the way). I say this only because if he's this far in the game and can't see what adjusting settings do I would guess nothing is going to convince him. If you ask me that video looks like default FS9 right out of the box. We make our minds see what we want it to see and therefore it is. I see nothing special about that video. I would like to recommend Contrails Pro to you to further enhance what's not really there...

[Groovin_DC-10 51]

Dillon,

LOL, I had to re-read that second part of your post.  I will be adding Contrails Pro on my list along with Zinertek Airport environment for my next purchase.  Looking forward to the improvement.

 

Jon,

I'm gonna have to throw in the towel on this.  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  There was no need to for me to take off and look for exact tiles at certain altitudes.  The blurries was very apparent no matter where I flew before changing the cfg values, especially on the night textures.

If it was placebo, it had to be one hell of a placebo effect because the clear changes I saw was enough to make me stop flying FSX and use FS9.

[vololiberista 205]

I think it's the 9.9 that makes the difference as it's not an integer! Before this tweak there was always a marked division between the sharp focus area and beyond. That has definately been "softened" in my setup. I still get a momentary lapse when I pan quickly but it then softens within asecond.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Yes, adjusting pan rate etc, DOES illicit a change.

 

But when it comes to visual differences from the TERRAIN part, I've never seen any in fs9 on 4 different platforms.

 

 

And the comment that the changes are placebo was from a VERY well known poster. I've sat for hours trying every tweak known to man in the .cfg for visuals and never seen a difference as far as blurries are concerned.

This absolutely amazed me, that you personally, on your system, could not/did not see an A/B 'upside-the head' effect on visuals.  I changed those 'Groovin' four lines...and a blind person could have A/B'd the change to simulator visuals, on my monitor.  I'm not saying in the slightest that what you say is not actual for your system, but.....wow....well...like I said about a blind person peeking over my shoulder....amazing.

 

Mitch