High Altitude Scenery Rendering...

[JimmiG 244]

I think it's just the way the X-Plane rendering engine works. In FSX/ESP, you have a dynamic level of detail - terrain textures and the elevation mesh have their resolution progressively reduced in the distance, so there's no jarring transition between different levels of detail.

 

X-Plane only has two levels of detail - "normal" high detail scenery and the low-res "orbital" textures. It does some blending at the edge between the two, but the transition is still quite jarring. This also impacts performance since there's no dynamic tessellation of the elevation mesh. 64-bit does allow them to render the high detail scenery farther away, but there would be a significant FPS hit. Another option would be to increase the resolution of the orbital textures, but this would use a lot of VRAM. What X-Plane really needs is dynamic LOD, but that's a major rewrite of the rendering engine - maybe in XP 11...

[jcomm 5,890]

I think it's just the way the X-Plane rendering engine works. In FSX/ESP, you have a dynamic level of detail - terrain textures and the elevation mesh have their resolution progressively reduced in the distance, so there's no jarring transition between different levels of detail.

 

X-Plane only has two levels of detail - "normal" high detail scenery and the low-res "orbital" textures. It does some blending at the edge between the two, but the transition is still quite jarring. This also impacts performance since there's no dynamic tessellation of the elevation mesh. 64-bit does allow them to render the high detail scenery farther away, but there would be a significant FPS hit. Another option would be to increase the resolution of the orbital textures, but this would use a lot of VRAM. What X-Plane really needs is dynamic LOD, but that's a major rewrite of the rendering engine - maybe in XP 11...

 

Very well put!!!!! Thanks for this observations, and how they really explain, so well, what is really happening, I believe...

[FloB 34]

 

 

64-bit does allow them to render the high detail scenery farther away, but there would be a significant FPS hit.

 

Not sure about that. Usually you will see the distant scenery only from high alt and performance is not a problem at 20.000 feet or higher because all the expensive 3d stuff is invisible anyway. I get 70+ FPS at high alt...

 

Flo

[Blaze 102]

This will help a bit but it doesn't solve the problem only makes it a little less obvious and I had a hard time paying for this when I felt it should and eventually/hopefully will be addressed by LR...

 

http://secure.simmarket.com/taburet-xporbit-for-x-plane-10.phtml

 

This blurry rendering at high altitude has all but made me give up on XP10 for the moment, what makes it worse is how it will pirouette around your aircraft as you pan your head using Track IR.   I sure hope they have a fix before the release of the IXEG B732.

[tonywob 4,768]

I don't know about FPS, but loading more DSFs would increase loading times quite significantly. When using orphophotos and OSM it already takes a long time to load up an area. It's something I'm happy to live with as I don't normally go up that high :-). But I can see it's annoying for people who do.  With FSX/P3D, it does look much better, but the blurries at high speeds defeat the point of doing so. I hope either way, they come up with a good solution.