Some good comparison screenshots

[styckx 1,871]

Bill,

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

 

Read the explanation I posted from LM (five posts above this). Can't get much more clear than that.. It's from the horses mouth

[MikeT707 1,181]

Read the explanation I posted from LM (five posts above this). Can't get much more clear than that.. It's from the horses mouth

As I read the explanation it seems that the two settings could be used in a complimentary fashion or in a way to nullify the other.  I will check it out at home.  Seems that a user could set the config setting to 9, which is low density, and the in-app setting to very dense.  Wonder which one would win.  I will try that out later tonight.  It is a very good find.

[styckx 1,871]

As I read the explanation it seems that the two settings could be used in a complimentary fashion or in a way to nullify the other.  I will check it out at home.  Seems that a user could set the config setting to 9, which is low density, and the in-app setting to very dense.  Wonder which one would win.  I will try that out later tonight.  It is a very good find.

 

That's basically how I summed it up..  Setting to =1 introduces a new layer of auto-gen while the sliders control the density of said layers. Higher number in the cfg removes layers. Figuratively speaking. 

[Guest]

 

 

Seems that a user could set the config setting to 9, which is low density, and the in-app setting to very dense.

 

Hm, because LM said "since both the slider and the config option do similar things" it seems to me that you can't do what you describe. I read it as this: in addition to the settings in the sim you have an extra option (we left one in the config for our more adventurous users to play with), which is setting the cfg entries to 1. It also seems to me that setting it to 1 sort of restores the autogen density around the plane to what it was in FSX (in P3D you see a bit less autogen). Of course you still have the larger amount of rock solid autogen in the far distance.

 

 

 

Can't get much more clear than that.. It's from the horses mouth

 

It might all come from the horses mouth but most horses I know aren't very good at communicating something clear… and this also seems to go for LM in this case. 

[exodus1977 37]

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! 

 

Not that it really matters, but that definitely isn't Chicago. (I live in Chicago).  Good comparisons though.

[styckx 1,871]

Yes, I posted the San Fran link next to Chicago and vice versa..