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.

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.

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 

 

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

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

 

 

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

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.. 

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. 

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

 

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7289/11440272736_deb890fb63_o.gif

 

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 

 

 

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?

The exact opposite.. Auto-Gen starts disappearing in large chunks.. 

 

Can't be stressed enough that those settings aren't intended for everyday use and no guarantees your flights will be crash free.. They were obviously left out of the dialogs for a reason. 

 

Edit: BTW I asked on the LM forums what these settings are actually controlling and how they are different from the destiny sliders. 

Lockheed Martins answer to these two settings and how to use them correctly.. I will update the original post also in-case no one makes it to page 2.  :lol:

 

 

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

It's weird. I actually liked the look of FSX in all those. Default FSX always had that slight cartoon look about it. P3d looks far worse.           

 

Far worse? To each his own. My initial impression was that the first set looked better in FSX but that the 2nd set of shots looked better in P3D because of the added contrast and effect of the lighting on the terrain. When you fly over the grand canyon in the sunshine it's not a dull, drab sight like the FSX shot. The light reflects, things are very bright, and the contrast of trees on the ground is easily seen.

 

And in this shot P3D is clearly superior IMO.

 

 

http://farm8.staticf...5f7434652_o.gif

I personally prefer P3D's brighter and more vibrant look with the more heavy use of white roofs..  Looks more real. The auto-gen has contrast against the underlying textures where in FSX it was as if they were trying to blending the two for less contrast against each other to mask the auto-gen popping.  Contrast is everything.

 

 

Those are independent from auto-gen tree/building density. 

Bill,

So how are you seeing that these settings are different than autogen tree/building density?