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.

 

That video looks fantastic---good job! BTW, again, personal opinions are in play here, but from a guy that ALWAYS insists on a window seat...that is as close to real world, as we are going to get! From the lift-off, it was an 'easy, relaxed' mind-sell that with haze, pollution, whatever...THAT was actual. The hobby rocks! If FS9 had the texture resolution that scales as you gain or reduce altitude, we would have---with this combined an all-time master flight simulator, that could run on any system within the last ten years.

 

Post Edit: ....if you look outward right off the wingtip in Groovin's vid...that is where I always start to see an obscure softening, or a relaxed focus in the real world. Say, off the wingtip, or assign it an absolute angle-of-view, whatever, but there for myself as a frequent flyer...is where the haze and pollution starts to kick in...

 

Mitch

Jon, I have recently been doing low flights (5000-6000FT in a Flight1 172) with FS9, as I've installed the software updates as recommended on here and am preferring the smooth FPS with FS9 over the higher quality textures of P3D. I used have a problem where by if I turned my viewing position quickly (I use Track IR), the tiles on the ground near to the plane would be definitely very blurry and then sharpen into focus over 2-3 seconds which looked weird and clunky. I've made the suggested .cfg amendments and this has definitely stopped, the tiles are always in focus. Unless one of the new addons has somehow addressed the issue (I installed GEPro over the old GE at the same time), the .cfg adjustments have definitely made a difference, it's not a placebo. Paul

Jon, If you install default FS9 and try to fly, then shut down and apply those four lines and try to fly I can assure you the difference is night and day.  Without them FS9 looks like soup...

 

If those 4 settings have no affect something else is going on.  What are your values for those fields?

 

I agree certain changes WITHIN those number the visual difference is impossible to perceive but if you NEVER changed those values then implement the lines referenced above it is impossible NOT to see a difference.  There are docs everywhere even from MS developers outlining what those lines control, what the acceptable values are and what will be read/discarded.

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.

 

 

Awesome video. What texture add-ons are you using? GE Pro II, REX + Overdrive? Zinertek?

 

Thanks for sharing.

 

Cheers,

Billy

 

 

Well, to me its not the quick view....its all crystal clear. Its more how close the blurry tiles appear then clear. If I'm directly over the north end of KSEA right over rwy 16L(heading north), on edge of the water line to left, some tiles blurry. And no more then a runway length in front of aircraft in between KSEA and that next airport a few miles to the north is blurry. And similar distance around aircraft.

 

That's what Ive been working on. To find some fix that'll extend the distance the blurry tiles appear around aircraft.

So I think that is where the conflict of "I see no difference" comes from... I bet you already have similar lines in your FS9.cfg if what you have is crystal clear textures right under your aircraft then softer blurred textures ~10 miles in the distance. THAT is the best FS9 can do (as far as I know) There seems to be a 10-20 mile ring of textures that will be crystal, astonishingly clear, then after that 10-20 miles things start to blur and soften. The BIG difference is that WITHOUT the lines referenced earlier that soft blur where you can still accurately make out your roads, rivers and towns becomes soup with absolutely nothing discernible at all. I think THAT is the difference everyone is speaking about but since you already have that (it sounds like at least) then I agree nothing will make a difference.

 

What those lines create though is textures all the way to the edge of your view. Without them about 25 miles out everything will just turn to a big blob of blur with nothing clear enough to make out... You would never be able to follow a river all the way to the horizon like we do now... What I get at FL350 is a ring of about 10-20 miles right below the AC that are crystal clear. The next ring out is not nearly as clear but still clear enough to make everything out without issue all the way to the horizon. As I fly those textures will "follow the plane" and as you look down you can literally see the textures "move" with you as the next tile will go clear and the one before will go to a different LOD level.  I don't think that can be fixed...  Crystal clear all the way to the horizon WITHOUT differing LOD levels is not something I have been able to see or achieve in FS9.  But then I go flying and notice that in the R/W your depiction of clear detailed landmarks is pretty limited as well.  Hence all the comments about realism.

 

Hope that makes some sense.

Makes perfect sence. And I believe that is what I already get. Pretty clear view even in distance. Even then just deleting the .cfg with a rebuild and then adjusting everything to max still gives reasonable if almost the same distance visibility. Maybe my hardware, drivers etc offers good performance anyway.

 

My .cfg I was running previous was the above mentioned figures.

 

 

It's just that many claim blurries have been eliminated in fs9 with some fix. But that above scenario, PSolk can never be. But which I'm working on.....

I think we are on the same page now Jon!! 

 

This is only my take but when people speak about eliminating blurries I "think" they are pretty much talking about getting to the level we have already achieved with textures you can make out all the way to the horizon, not Crystal clear single LOD textures from right under the plane to the horizon which I would love to see too!!!

Makes perfect sence. And I believe that is what I already get. Pretty clear view even in distance. Even then just deleting the .cfg with a rebuild and then adjusting everything to max still gives reasonable if almost the same distance visibility. Maybe my hardware, drivers etc offers good performance anyway.

 

My .cfg I was running previous was the above mentioned figures.

 

 

It's just that many claim blurries have been eliminated in fs9 with some fix. But that above scenario, PSolk can never be. But which I'm working on.....

Before we chock this up and say we are all on the same page why don't you post a video or a few pictures to show us exactly what your talking about. Second FSX/P3D has the same issue with the detail ring around the aircraft your flying.

 

 

Post a video! I can barely operate the default Cessna, Dillon!

 

Seriously? After all that and 226 posts and being here in the forum for almost two years, you can barely operate the default Cessna? I think you're pulling our leg Jon.

I'm just paused in flight a half hour departed from Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and headed for Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada.

 

FS9 (of course, in my personal opinion...) STILL gives the best visual rendering of colors and scenery output that you do see operating in the real-world FL's. Because FS9 will never exhaust its 32 bit VAS limit, you know that you will touch down, even 12 continuous hours flight, in real time. No FSX'ish CTD or OOM in this simulator! This fact alone would never have me delete it off of my hard drive, or not fire it up, for 'heavy' operations. It is simply too good at what it does...

 

FS9 is not old, will never be old, and again, gives the user a fantastic commercial/heavy user session, when loaded up with all the great, and mature 3rd party support programs out there for it. You'd think that there would be no new visual tricks, I could see in using it...but that is not true. Since having put a GTX 680 card into my system, and with some mod'ed settings to nVidia Inspector putting Anisotropic settings to 16 (you don't have in-app anisotropic options, but can drive your card with this setting via N.I.) and SG at 4x, it appears to be a whole new sim, yet again. The visuals are real-world for any flight level operation that I have ever seen. The colors are more life-like than anything you can ever get in FSX. It simply is the truth in that. FSX's color still, no matter what you do, has that cartoonish pastel quality to it. FS9 with 3rd party scenery packages looks the part of being viewed at FL180 and up. It's too bad that water depictions are not up to the same 'snuff'' as the land tiles, but it is what it is. FSX will always be the clear winner for water operations and viewing. So...back into the cockpit of the WestJet 737...I have to get there on-time. Some good seafood is waiting for us out of the Bay of Fundy!

 

Bottom line, if you own FS9, FSX, and also Xplane (x)....use 'em! Keep using them for each strength segment they shine at. If you are a true sim-head, there should be no user-camps...just fire up the sim that best emulates the flight or visuals you wish in your session. My two..ok,ok...ten cents...

 

Cheers!

 

Ses

Unfortunately, FS9 was rendered virtually moot by PMDG's NGX. The 777 and 747 v2 will drive the nail into the coffin, I'm afraid, if flying heavies is your thing. And FSlabs will throw the coffin off a cliff. If you want serious high fidelity aircraft, you must find your way to FSX (or Aerowinx, when PSX comes out). All development is taking place there--not with FS9.

 

It does require great hardware and a ridiculous amount of tweaking, but FSX is the place to be for flying airliners.

Mitch,

 

Thanks. I agree. I also like the way FS9 does visibility a lot. I used the fair weather theme on the video and changed visibility to 30mi.

The view has some zoom already, so there was more sharp texture not being shown.

Yeah, it would be one hell of a sim if we could get sharp textures everywhere. But for airliners, I don't think I'm really missing much at all. With payware airports, there is always some sharp textures around the scenery, so by the time you're flying low on final, you're very close to the upgraded textures and the transition from low to high res is very nice like Aerosoft's Ibiza.

 

 

Billy,

 

Thanks. I used REX (standard), Zinertek Water, GE Pro II, Ultimate Terrain Europe and Aerosoft Madrid Barajas.

 

Jon_aus, on 21 May 2013 - 9:22 PM, said:

 

Well....thank goodness for the ifly because I'm happier in fs9!

+1

 

Doesn't matter if PMDG is releasing their next aircraft after the 777. I'll still be flying FS9 and the PSS 777 if I want to fly that plane. There is no final nail to the coffin for us FS9'ers. Scenery and textures (payware/freeware) are still being released for FS9 too.

I also have FSX installed and I'm in no rush to get the NGX or 777 when it comes out.

Long live FS9!

 

 

Doesn't matter if PMDG is releasing their next aircraft after the 777. I'll still be flying FS9 and the PSS 777 if I want to fly that plane. There is no final nail to the coffin for us FS9'ers. Scenery and textures (payware/freeware) are still being released for FS9 too.
I also have FSX installed and I'm in no rush to get the NGX or 777 when it comes out.
Long live FS9!

 

Hi,

 

that's the point! I fly FS2004 not depending if there will be a certain plane for FS2004 in the future or not (nevertheless I hope for the SSJ-100), because all the planes I must fly are already there, may they be payware or freeware.

 

Cheers to our FS2004!

Harald

Presently flying the PSS 777 in Emirates livery between Dubai OMDB (old version) and Heathrow EGLL (UK2000 version.). 

 

Currently at 36,000 over Regensburg, scattered at 4,000 and 7200. Trying out FS Global Real Weather but pretty much CAVOK the whole way. Ultimate Terrain Europe assisted by GE Pro 2, Rex cloud and sky  textures and FS Global Mesh 2008. Additionally Radar Contact, AES, RAAS, and Multi Crew Experience have also made their presence felt.

 

Sim life is good.  :lol:

Unfortunately, FS9 was rendered virtually moot by PMDG's NGX. The 777 and 747 v2 will drive the nail into the coffin, I'm afraid, if flying heavies is your thing. And FSlabs will throw the coffin off a cliff. If you want serious high fidelity aircraft, you must find your way to FSX (or Aerowinx, when PSX comes out). All development is taking place there--not with FS9.

 

It does require great hardware and a ridiculous amount of tweaking, but FSX is the place to be for flying airliners.

The options may be older but still viable when compared to similar offerings/platforms. PMDG's original 747 rocks in FS9 so I don't need the latest one coming from them. We have iFly for the 737 and PSS\Posky for the 777. I also don't need to buy the same aircraft every time a new version comes out from said developer especially if that particular developer could care less about the platform many of us use... If arrogant developers want to work exclusively with FSX so be it. The only thing anyone can point to at this point that FS9 doesn't have is the 787 and 717 (speaking of the 717, no one is doing that bird for some reason). The main goal is fluid flight and FSX has never been able to do that well on any machine. Hopefully P3D has success with getting 64Bit optimized in their version and just maybe down the road Microsoft reintroduces Flight Simulator (heck their hording the code anyway). FSX by far is not the end all answer for anything aviation sim related. We always have new developers come along with surprises and they usually go FS9 first. Either way it doesn't matter at this point.

If arrogant developers want to work with FSX only so be it. The only thing you can point to at this point that FS9 doesn't have is the 787 and 717 but who cares (speaking of the 717, no one is doing that bird for some reason). The main goal is fluid flight and FSX has never been able to do that well on any machine. Hopefully P3D has success with getting 64Bit optimized in their version and just maybe down the road Microsoft reintroduced Flight Simulator (heck their hording the code anyway). FSX by far is not the end all answer for anything aviation sim related. We always have new developers come along all the time with surprises and they usually go FS9 first. Either way it doesn't matter at this poi

Most of Dillon's words do make sense to me. Dillon is a right-wing FS9 loyalist.

:p0504:

Most of Dillon's words do make sense to me. Dillon is a right-wing FS9 loyalist.

:p0504:

I'm curious, what doesn't make since?