Sign in to follow this  
styckx

Some good comparison screenshots

Recommended Posts

I wanted to do some FSX-P3D comparison shots of the ground textures w/ max auto-gen  and scenery complexity on both.. While the textures themselves looked the same, there was something VERY different about the look of everything and I couldn't put my finger on it.. I set out to bring to light what the differences I was seeing actually are. 

 

 

FSX and P3D with auto-gen and scenery complexity maxxed on both. Same date, time, season, hour, minute, second with both. I'm not setting to prove "What is better" just providing examples of what is different. 

 

WARNING: FULL SIZE ANIMATED GIFS.. EACH IS OVER 2MB PER GIF..

 

 

Philly: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3718/11399202544_6b91518273_o.gif

 

Chicago: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7349/11399302473_f2f1c89240_o.gif

 

San Fran: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5475/11399204654_b6e00d4cd9_o.gif

 

 

Enjoy! 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Hm, that's odd… You say both are maxed out but P3D clearly shows LESS autogen…?!? While afaik LM said P3D shows MORE autogen? Other than that the main difference seems to be the light: P3D has more light in it. But again, I am really surprised to see less autogen in P3D…!

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, there is less autogen and this leaves a lot of white spot in P3D compared to FSX. I'm surprised  by the fact that all missing buildings are over very light color (white or close to it). Is this due to an algorithm used by P3d developpers to "position" each autogen buildings by analyzing an underlying scenery geometrical forms and colors?

Share this post


Link to post

And I thought it was the other way around, but after looking at these comparisons, clearly FSX loads more autogen. Regardless, the autogen in P3D looks better, not sure why, but it does.

Share this post


Link to post

OK that was helpful.  More autogen in FSX, and darker in FSX.  I actually don't like the "white" roofs and lighter texture of P3D in those shots.  All you need with FSX it ENB or SweetFX and for that matter your monitor lighting settings to adjust to your particular preference.

 

I would love to see some comparison shots of non urban areas.

 

Thanks for this work.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, after what I was reading, not unexpected. LM reduced the autogen near/below the aircraft and increased the autogen further away. I believe I read it somewhere on the forums after release of v2... FSX renders more autogen near aircraft, and this is what's visible here. However, farther away, P3D wins hands down.

Share this post


Link to post

Ah interesting "concept".  Personally since I fly low and slow, mostly GA I like lots of stuff closer.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, after what I was reading, not unexpected. LM reduced the autogen near/below the aircraft and increased the autogen further away. I believe I read it somewhere on the forums after release of v2... FSX renders more autogen near aircraft, and this is what's visible here. However, farther away, P3D wins hands down.

 

Yes, Word Not Allowed picked that one up a few weeks ago. If you look out of the cockpit (which is where most of us spend our time), the increased autogen with P3Dv2 viewable in the distance is quite substantial. It appears to be a trade off that I believe makes sense, because it has managed to greatly reduce or even stop the "popping".

Share this post


Link to post

I have to say though that in some circumstances the popping is still very obvious. Like when you fly above large cities: you see large blocks of grey cardboard buildings popup at once... pretty annoying still. Luckily I mainly fly where there are mountains and trees and small villages and there the poping up is far less noticable if not completely unnoticable. You have to fly quite low though otherwise you will see it and you will also see where the autogen ends abruptly.

 

P3D is an improvement because you can see autogen as far as the eye can see during take off and landing but during flying it still isn't perfect and it's a pity LM didn't implement alpha fading.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


it's a pity LM didn't implement alpha fading.

 

That would make quite a difference - hopefully something they can code in down the road...

Share this post


Link to post

 

I would love to see some comparison shots of non urban areas.

 

 

No problem.. I'm curious about this stuff too so.. I have no problems doing this..

 

I tried to highlight the points made in the other example. This time showing a more long shot instead of a overhead perspective. 

 

WARNING: 2MB+ GIFS

 

Grand Canyon: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3727/11422408736_cb4d0693b9_o.gif

 

Yellowstone:  http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7383/11422545923_834bbba8af_o.gif

 

West Virginia: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3821/11422406964_e0e4d70246_o.gif

 

To reiterate.. The settings are identical as possible. These are not to make FSX look bad, or P3D look bad, or FSX look good, or P3D look good. Purely fair comparisons as doing either of the latter is unfair to the respective users of both. I'm not trying to sell either "brand".. Everything  is maxed scenery wise except LOD which is 4.5 on both.

Share this post


Link to post

Hey Bill,

 

I like this concept...can you try it while sitting in the cockpit. I would be curious on how a city sky line would  look and how a wilderness such as West VA, would look. Also, I thought the water was to look more real in P3D, but from your screenshots FSX looks more natural.

 

Thanks,

Ray

Share this post


Link to post
 

Hey Bill,

 

I like this concept...can you try it while sitting in the cockpit. I would be curious on how a city sky line would  look and how a wilderness such as West VA, would look. Also, I thought the water was to look more real in P3D, but from your screenshots FSX looks more natural.

 

Thanks,

Ray

 

Fair request.. I'll do one of them.

 

Shall we use the greatest city of them all? NYC? :) I was actually really surprised with this one. Probably the most dramatic..

 

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7422/11422883006_55f7434652_o.gif

 

Edit: Just noticed.. I forgot to set clear skies in FSX.. Not that it matters at all.. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I actually have to say that my perception is different. I notice far more autogen, and better looking autogen in certain places. The main difference that I note is that there are fare more white roofs in P3D and to me that looks a bit more realistic than nearly all gray roofs of FSX. To confirm, I went to all three locations in Google Earth. San Fran and Chicago does have quite a few white roofs on average in the areas I looked. Philly has tons of white roofs on average. The other thing that I notice is that P3D has an over-all brighter feel to it, but not cartoony. I guess this may create more contrast. One more thing, I notice in the GIFs that big trees look far more like trees than the four-pointed X's that is shown in the FSX GIFs.

 

What would be a great add-on comparison would be now to add all the ground shadows of P3D in the same manner as what's done here.

Share this post


Link to post

These are by far the best.  The old story a picture is worth a 1000 words in terms of what to expect.  The only thing missing from pictures of course is the performance issues.

 

I can clearly see whats going on with these comparisons.  P3D - LM has changed the texture pallets and lightened up the backgrounds or brightened and therefore the autogen stands out more.  Cant say I like the P3D I prefer the FSX with my ENB (lighting) and FSWC (water shaders).

 

In the NYC I can clearly see an autogen line in the distance where P3D has tons more autogen.

 

Very useful, thanks for all the effort to make these.  Quite a skill you have there.


Agreed on the white roofs Eric.

Share this post


Link to post

To be honest.. I don't know how much of this is because of v2.. A lot of tile changes happened in version 1.0... I jumped in at 1.3 and never really compared the two sims enough back then

 

From the 1.0 Change Log

 

 
Upgraded Landclass

10 Million Updated 1km Tiles

 

  • 3 million tiles upgraded from urban/farms to higher density
  • 7 million tiles upgraded from vegetation to more accurately reflect the human footprint in the real world 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Bill,

Thanks for taking the time and making the effort to show us these comparisons. This is the first good apples to apples screenshots that I have seen.  The NYC shots really show the distance factor.

 

Ray

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Really good work and gives everyone a chance to compare on a like for like basis. I couldn't possibly state my preference, because I'm far too biased :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Bill,

 

Your comparison GiFs are so well done and so helpful that I think you should have a stickied thread that contains all of your images. Thanks so much for having the skill and taking the time to make them... they are worth more than a thousand words.

 

Scott

Share this post


Link to post

I try.. I may not always be right in my opinions, I may not always have the right answers, I may even be a hypocrit at times, or even get something wrong.. But I do try to contribute and appreciate the nice words..   B)  Thank you.. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
The 3rd NY city picture clearly shows the superior way in which P3D is handling autogen and LOD. 

 

Bet shot I've seen that shows the differences. 

Share this post


Link to post

I played with two new settings in the config.. Oh lordy.. You can amp up the auto-gen to ridiculous amounts.

 

Max auto-gen / LOD 6.5

 

Default = 

 

AUTOGEN_BATCH_LOD=2
AUTOGEN_TREE_LOD=2
 
Edited = 
 
AUTOGEN_BATCH_LOD=0
AUTOGEN_TREE_LOD=0
 
Those are independent from auto-gen tree/building density. 
 
Warning -  2MB+ GIF!
 
:Hypnotized:  SO-MUCH-AUTO-GEN
 
 
Edit: Lockheeds explaination of these settings and how to use them

Hey Mr. Bill,
The updates to the auto-gen system allow us to render greater numbers of buildings and trees without the same performance hit they used to have, which is what enables the pop-free auto-gen. When the new system is enabled, scenery tiles are loaded at the LOD specified by that config option. The numbers go from 9 to 1, with one being the highest. Don't set it to zero, as that might blow up in some areas. As a few folks have noted, the auto-gen directly below the plane is a little less dense by default, because the system only loads the second highest LOD. Experimenting with the LOD in the config just provides another way to adjust the density of scenery loaded, but since both the slider and the config option do similar things, we left one in the config for our more adventurous users to play with if they wished. Be warned that increasing that setting to 1 will in many cases double the number of buildings and trees again, making it potentially very expensive. 
 
Zach Heylmun
Software Engineer - Prepar3D® Team 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for looking at this.

So what would happen if you entered different values such as:

 

AUTOGEN_BATCH_LOD=3
AUTOGEN_TREE_LOD=3
or 
AUTOGEN_BATCH_LOD=9
AUTOGEN_TREE_LOD=9

 

What are you seeing that the number represents?

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this