I really really REALLY want to thank you for this. You,ve made me a great service. I'm simply stunned by the overall improvements: the airport blends very well with the surrounding area, the town of Caselle at the end of the runway is properly placed and populated, the countryside finally looks as if there was human intervention of some kind rather than a huge arm from above sprinkling a once barren wasteland with a handful of fields and crops.

Wonderful, simply wonderful. I'm sold.

 

Thanks again, as I said it was very very kind of you to take your time for this : )

Well given that there is no Landclass in the FTX product right now the town of Caselle being at the end is purely down to the default landclass, FTXG is simply offering a different texture/autogen set to display in the same 1.2km Landclass square.

I thought J van E had UTX installed as well.

Yes, I have UTX installed but if you also have UTX installed you should more or less see the same as I do, execpt with other textures. The location of the city shouldn't be totally different.

Thanks so much for posting these...they are terrific. Any idea of how different the same shots would look on a DX9 rig with the same hardware?

 

Well, atleast for the time being, and in certain area's, DX9 shots will look better... :smile:

 

There seems to be a bug in DX10 mode that shows black poly's where nightlighting is supposed to be rendered. A fix is being worked on (so i have read). Here's an example. The situation is Norway around Bergen.

 

This is in DX10 mode:

 

 

And in DX9 mode:

 

 

 

Same DX10 shot of Bolzano i posted earlier:

 

 

And here in DX9 mode:

 

 

Remarkable here is that in the DX9 shot there is some autogen missing at the right lower edge of the airfield...

 

Here are a couple more shots in DX9 mode, also Norway:

 

  

 

 

 

 

In screenshots there's really not much difference to see between DX9 and DX10. That's quite a different matter when actually flying the sim in DX9 or DX10. I think it is fair to say, atleast with my system, that the performance of FTXGlobal is about half as good in DX9 mode as it is in DX10 ( with Steve Parsons shaders fix applied of course). In DX10 it is all fluid and smooth with very acceptable fps everywhere and no in between texture loading whatsoever.. In DX9, whilst slewing around a bit i'll immidiately get these dreaded spikes reaching up into the high multitude, texture loading too. In normal flight fps drops down an average 10-15 compared to DX10 and microstutters all the way. This is with all sliders maxed ( no road traffic) so i'm not saying that FTXG is unflyable in DX9, just lower the sliders a bit.

 

I'm hooked on DX10 so i hope the nightlighting fix will arrive soon.

 

cheers,

jan

@Jan

 

1. Do you use any LC packages ?

2. With UTX roads off don't you miss the highways ?

3. Could you try with UTX with only highways and the other roads / streets disabled ?

4. Is there a big difference in colors at the borders when having NL2000 enabled ?

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Gerard

I think it is fair to say, atleast with my system, that the performance of FTXGlobal is about half as good in DX9 mode as it is in DX10 ( with Steve Parsons shaders fix applied of course). In DX10 it is all fluid and smooth with very acceptable fps everywhere and no in between texture loading whatsoever.. In DX9, whilst slewing around a bit i'll immidiately get these dreaded spikes reaching up into the high multitude, texture loading too. In normal flight fps drops down an average 10-15 compared to DX10 and microstutters all the way. This is with all sliders maxed ( no road traffic) so i'm not saying that FTXG is unflyable in DX9, just lower the sliders a bit.

 

That's indeed fair to say for YOUR system. ^_^ I spend all friday doing tests (good reproducable ones) and in the end I settled for DX9. Performance was about the same, DX10 maybe had a few fps's more in certain very heavy situations, but DX9 had a more steady stable image quality. DX10 also had a little bit later loading textures (so loading more obvious nearby) in certain locations. I never have spikes btw with my graphics settings quit high (all to the far right except water at High 2x and mesh at 5).

 

All in all the difference between DX9 and DX10 depends 1. on the system and 2. on the setup of DX9. Without my favorite bufferpools tweak DX10 rusn a lot better thean DX9 but with the tweak there hardly is a difference  and if there are any they are in favor of DX9 (which is a subjective matter too btw).

Dick,

 

Specifically terrain.cfg in FSX root; AutogenDescriptions.spb, default.xml, Extrusions.spb, Materials.spb and RoofDescriptions.spb in the Autogen folder; lclookup.bgl in scenery\base\scenery; roofs.bgl in scenery\global\scenery. Some of the changes appear to be additional entries to support the new autogen etc. so won't affect anything else but other changes are modifications to existing entries and will have an effect. A number of textures in scenery\global\texture and the root FSX texture folder also appear to have been updated, although whether actually changed or simply having a different file date and time stamp I can't say. The main ones I've listed were definitely changed though as I did a binary comparison. Interestingly the texture backup made by the FTXG installer seems to contain a number of textures that aren't actually changed like some of the special UTX textures!

 

The point is that the bgl files above (particularly lclookup.bgl) are key to what textures are displayed by the FSX landclass program code. If these are changed in ways outside of the scope of the FSX SDK landclass specifications then the results may be unpredicatable for other products that do rely on the SDK, hence the warning by Nick. Provided the user can go back to their original files if they wish then all is well (for the user at least, though whether any product should do this is another matter). I assume that the forthcoming FTXG uninstaller will rectify this situation but Orbx have said it will be a stand-alone tool rather than integrated with FTX Central so perhaps not as clean to use if you wish to switch between products easily.

 

It's just an inconvenience for me as I'm aware of the underlying issues but looking at the posts in this thread it seems that many people are not! I think Nick's comments should be read carefully and not simply from the point of view of a competing product. GEX has been around for as long as Orbx and works fully within the scope of the FSX SDK assuring compatibility with any other add-on which does the same.

 

Many thanks for this Rob. So if I understand correctly, the 'texture backup' option offered by the FTXG installer just backs up the textures, not the other FSX files. If so, those who have installed FTXG without backing up the other files (and why would they) cannot go back to their previous setup without re-installing FSX. They can uninstall FTXG and restore their textures, but changes to the other files will remain. Which may or may not cause them problems, depending on what other scenery addons they have now or in the future. Correct ?

 

Even when the uninstall program is available, it can't help these folks, since the files were never backed up. Or I guess if they are standard FSX files which are not (normally) changed, they could be copied from a vanilla system ? 

 

Major case for doing a full system image backup before install methinks. Even when the uninstaller is available. Thank goodness for Acronis True Image  :smile:

 

 

Major case for doing a full system image backup before install methinks. Even when the uninstaller is available. Thank goodness for Acronis True Image :smile:

 

Which is exactly what I did, with Acronis True Image working perfectly for putting FSX back to the way it was before I had installed FTX Global. :smile:

@ Javiz,

 

To prevent those black 'blobs' in DX10, you just have to rename the file :-

 

C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Games\Microsoft Flight Simulator X\Scenery\Global\scenery\3D_Light_NEW_DDN_1_5.BGL

 

This will fix that issue, but it will disable FTX Global native night lighting too.

 

However, a genius guy called Oliver Ooi has just PM'd me with a full fix for the DX10 problem (day and night).  

 

I now have DX10, and lovely FTXG Night Lighting.

 

I hope decides to share it wider!

@Jan

 

1. Do you use any LC packages ?

2. With UTX roads off don't you miss the highways ?

3. Could you try with UTX with only highways and the other roads / streets disabled ?

4. Is there a big difference in colors at the borders when having NL2000 enabled ?

 

 

 

Hoi Gerard,

 

No i don't use any further LC packages, just UTX. Re roads, i've always thought they stick out like a sore thumb. Getting worse as the scenery gets more beautiful like now with FTXG. I mean, see for yourself :

 

 

 

Meshes up 'the pretty picture' quite a lot don't you think ?.... :smile2:

 

Imho vector roads look terribly unrealistic, like something out of FS5. I have just temporarely deactivated them because screenshots look better without them. During a normal flight i'll get them back in.

 

Sorry i cannot answer your question about NL2000 as i do not have it installed anymore. I think FTXG sits very nicely between GEX Holland and NL2000.

 

Groeten,

Jan

 

@ Javiz,

 

To prevent those black 'blobs' in DX10, you just have to rename the file :-

 

C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Games\Microsoft Flight Simulator X\Scenery\Global\scenery\3D_Light_NEW_DDN_1_5.BGL

 

This will fix that issue, but it will disable FTX Global native night lighting too.

 

However, a genius guy called Oliver Ooi has just PM'd me with a full fix for the DX10 problem (day and night).  

 

I now have DX10, and lovely FTXG Night Lighting.

 

I hope decides to share it wider!

 

 

Fantastico!! Thanks a lot, Dave ! B)

 

Haven't done any nightflying yet, keep that for later. I'll keep a look out for Oliver's final fix.

 

Thanks again!

 

Cheers,

Jan

That's indeed fair to say for YOUR system. ^_^ I spend all friday doing tests (good reproducable ones) and in the end I settled for DX9. Performance was about the same, DX10 maybe had a few fps's more in certain very heavy situations, but DX9 had a more steady stable image quality. DX10 also had a little bit later loading textures (so loading more obvious nearby) in certain locations. I never have spikes btw with my graphics settings quit high (all to the far right except water at High 2x and mesh at 5).

 

All in all the difference between DX9 and DX10 depends 1. on the system and 2. on the setup of DX9. Without my favorite bufferpools tweak DX10 rusn a lot better thean DX9 but with the tweak there hardly is a difference  and if there are any they are in favor of DX9 (which is a subjective matter too btw).

 

Hi Jeroen,

 

Yes, all very subjective of course. I tried DX10 only once and didn't know how fast to change back to DX9. Never tried it again. Until Steve Parson came to the DX10 rescue.... I was immidiately blown away by the positive difference in performance. Loved the shadows in some of the VC's too.

 

In addition to my brief system specs above i like to add that i run FSX on a 30" monitor at 2560x1600x32 and use Bojote's tweaks with full satisfaction. Can always be better ( just recently bought Drzewiecki Design NYC X, looks totally breathtaking but totally unflyable for me, even with low settings) but i keep getting amazed about the enchanting views and relatively great performance.

 

You *do* use Steve's DX10 shaders fix, Jeroen ?....

 

Cheers,

Jan 

 

 Re roads, i've always thought they stick out like a sore thumb. Getting worse as the scenery gets more beautiful like now with FTXG. I mean, see for yourselfmho vector roads look terribly unrealistic, like something out of FS5. I have just temporarely deactivated them because screenshots look better without them. During a normal flight i'll get them back in.

 

 

 

Absolutely agree with Jan. I've been flying without UTX roads for years. You can still fly VFR based on rivers. lakes, coastlines, towns, cities etc.

 

 

Many thanks for this Rob. So if I understand correctly, the 'texture backup' option offered by the FTXG installer just backs up the textures, not the other FSX files. If so, those who have installed FTXG without backing up the other files (and why would they) cannot go back to their previous setup without re-installing FSX. They can uninstall FTXG and restore their textures, but changes to the other files will remain. Which may or may not cause them problems, depending on what other scenery addons they have now or in the future. Correct ?



Even when the uninstall program is available, it can't help these folks, since the files were never backed up. Or I guess if they are standard FSX files which are not (normally) changed, they could be copied from a vanilla system ?



Major case for doing a full system image backup before install methinks. Even when the uninstaller is available. Thank goodness for Acronis True Image :smile:

 

Yes, all the above is correct. Backing up and restoring those key FSX non-texture files is what FTX Central used to do with FTX default mode. So far this option is missing with FTXG and is presumably what the uninstaller will address, although not from the new FTX Central I'll bet.

 

There are a number of other add-ons which make changes to the autogen description files etc. such as Earth Simulations products and interestingly they have just released compatible versions of these for use with FTX which presumably contain the necessary definitions for both products. I think this is being extended to Aerosoft products which also make changes to these files.

 

However, FTXG also makes changes to the global landclass system in lclookup.bgl in order to extend the range of textures that can be displayed and this will cause problems with other texture replacement products which expect the FSX default landclass to texture mapping.

 

I expect the FTXG uninstaller will restore default versions of these files where possible or undo edits to the other files such as autogen and terrain descriptions. However, there's a well known fixed version of the original lclookup.bgl which corrects the landclass shown on slope elevations (I use this myself) which would probably not be the one FTXG restores. So this is the problem with FTXG apparently not backing up all the files that are being replaced!

 

This might all seem overly complicated and not worth worrying about which is probably true if the user is going to stick with FTXG but if not...

 

BTW - I've been imaging my entire system for many years (using Acronis like you) but after installing FSX to a dedicated PCIe SSD I kept the old mechanical drive as a mirror of my FSX install which is how I can see what changes an add-on makes. Restoring images isn't a very practical long term solution if say you want to use both FTXG and GEX as what happens when you want to install other add-ons - do you keep multiple images at the point your FSX installation split? This is a classic problem in change management of software and there are no easy answers. My solution is to keep copies of what has been changed and use a script to restore these files when necessary - FTXG will of course take care of itself.

You *do* use Steve's DX10 shaders fix, Jeroen ?....

 

No, I went back to DX9. DX10 performs similar to DX9 (on MY computer ^_^ ) but it has some sort of odd tearing effect. And it also performs WORSE in certain situations. In my tesflight through a narrow valleys with lots of trees DX10 seems to be somewhat smoother and DX9 is struggling a bit, but in my testflight above London DX10 stutters terribly all the way while DX9 is almost smooth... You always have to compromise and make choices with FSX but my tests made the choice to stick with DX9 quite easy.

 

EDIT

In case you only meant to ask if I did use the fixes when I was testing DX10: yes, I did. However, those fixes don't improve performance afaik: they only fix graphic errors.