I again am unsure wonder what EXACTLY the meaning of the following parameters is (I know what they're good for, but only from a very global view, so I'd like to hear the most precise answer possible), and what value ranges are allowed (and make sense?):TERRAIN_ERROR_FACTOR=TERRAIN_MIN_DEM_AREA=TERRAIN_MAX_DEM_AREA=TERRAIN_TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=Andreas

http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=177Search and you shall find...

Unfortunately not.Quote from one of the entries I found:"TERRAIN_ERROR_FACTOR=96.000000This is a value from 0 to 100 that control the DEM radius (it is linear in area)"What means "it is linear in area"? What is DEM here? Am I right when I say the unit for that parameter is NM or not?You see, a little too less explanation, but I guess I won't getting more...Andreas

Digital Elevation Mesh`Factor` typically denotes percentage, as here. Linear as in directly proportional rather than logarithmic progression. Most of the parameters are simply the digital evocation of the slider settings in the menu system. These in turn are explained in the FS help files and over at the MSFS website.Not rocket science. Just common sense and a little research. FS is a mature product and all these questions are likely have been covered on numerous occasions and there really isn't any need for us to cover old ground again and again when you can find the answers for yourself. As advised, just put the appropriate word or expression into the search engine and see whata you come up with - it will be much more than you need.We're not trying to be difficult, but it will benefit us all if you use the forum correctly.Allcott

What's not correct? I think it's a good question and searching the forum has never helped me much with the answer. There are many of us who would like to have the exact description of those parameters. I've been around as long as anybody and have never seen anything that fully describes the TERRAIN functions in the fs9.cfg file. If someone has that information I'd sure like a link to it.Doug

Use GOOGLE:Put `FS9.cfg` and `terrain` into the search engine, go to the fifth answer down, click on the link. You'll get it.Other search engines can also be usedOr in this forum search engine type `Fs9.cfg modification` and read the results. If you just type `fs9 terrain` you will get around 8 pages of references. Should be more than enough information.Hope this helpsAllcott

Maybe, but also I was never satisfied with the "answers" in those threads. The answers are all just theory, so far nobody could really tell me, what will be different in the display, when I chnged one of the parameters. And I have played with the parameters a lot, but never could see any difference in the display.Wolfgang

Howdy,here's a thread in which I summarize my knowledge about some of those parameters: http://portal.fsgenesis.net/index.php?name...holger+extendedThat TERRAIN_ERROR_FACTOR parameter is a pretty odd one because it doesn't reduce the visual quality of the mesh until one reduces it to less than 50% or so. In FS2002 it was pretty important to keep it at less than 100% because there was a noticeable fps impact between 96 and 100%. However, I never noticed the same issue with FS9.(there's an "old" screenshot gallery of mine at FSGenesis with a couple comparison shots that show the (small) influence of the TERRAIN_ERROR_FACTOR: http://portal.fsgenesis.net/modules.php?se...lbum.php&page=2 )Also, TERRAIN_MAX_VERTEX_LEVEL should only be set to 21, its highest useful value, if you actually have 19-m (LOD11) add-on mesh installed. Otherwise it's a waste of system resources (because the foreground will be rendered with 19-m resolution) and you'll also notice odd terrain shading issues.Cheers, Holger

But none of those sources provide a concise and exact definition. Some folks, like Holger, have come up with some very good assumptions but the fact remains that there is stil no definitive source as to the exact definitions.

There can be only one definitive source: Microsoft.Go ask them!Allcott

wow could you be any more rude to the guy?

I guess we are back where we started: We don't really know much more about these parameters then when they were looked at right after FS9 appeared. One thing that has always been vexing for me is the terrain extended levels. I see all kinds of recommended values. I don't recall anyone doing any experiments ater FS9.1 came out. Maybe the assumption was no significant difference.I remember once someone was doing some experiments that involved creating specialized textures with different colors for different mip levels.scott s..

Strange thing is that I played recently a lot with those values, and didnt got much satisfying results.The main impact was the vertex level of 21, and suprisingly, setting the mips to 5 gave the best results, performance wise.The rest of the settings give more or less blurries. But you can play with them and depending on your computer, milage may vary as they say.Johan[A HREF=http://jdserver.no-ip.com]Personal Server[/A]A LITTLE LESS CONVERSATION, AND A LITTLE MORE ACTION PLEASE!

Howdy,"I don't recall anyone doing any experiments ater FS9.1 came out. Maybe the assumption was no significant difference."Those settings that I mention in my FSGenesis post are based on experiments, my own as well as those of others. The question is whether you or your system ("you" being meant in general terms) likes those settings.While we may never know the exact definition or functionality of those parameters what counts to me is whether I can figure out what impact - visuals and resources - they have on my setup. And that's easy enough to do for anyone: pick a complex (mountainous) location, save a flight situation that highlights the terrain (i.e., with lots of shadowing), then change the parameters in a systematic fashion and take screenshots from the exact same location and take notes while flying around a bit.If that's too much effort than one is indeed stuck with picking one of the many contradictory recommendations. I've done my own tests and am happy with those settings ;-)Cheers, Holger

Thank you for the answers so far.I didn't expect that so many others would like more precise informations as well.My impression in general (by posting questions in various forums) is that many simmers aren't really interested in the backgrounds of more complex things, they're happy if a pre-defined solution is delivered without asking for the why and what (e.g. they replace some cfg file with another that gives the desired result, but they don't even think about looking at what has changed and why the changes were made, let alone what the parameters stand for where the changes were applied).That's why I seldom get satisfying answers on the various forums, 'cause nobody really cares, so nobody really knows and simply cannot give an answer.The meaning of the terrain parameters seems to be hidden in the dark to a great extent, and since MS didn't deliver a description (is there a description of fs9.cfg at all?) I guess they're the only ones who can answer correctly.Andreas