April 13, 201511 yr I think you mean 3/2/2015 ? I don't have any that are 3/22/2015 for created date. Is that the Scenery/Global folder? I see files change there, when activate/deactivate Trees HD, but the date with the trees active is 7-4-2015, mostly. Shouldnt that date be the same for everyone? Also I only see "some" not all Veg*.* files (trees ones) that have the new dates. Some files where NOT changed that I expected to be changed ... specifically: veg_Sycamore1.dds (and it's season variants). The same files you mention arent changed on my system, as well as some other files with tree names (no canopy or something like that). Cheers! Maarten
April 13, 201511 yr They're talking about created date and not modified date. Neil Andrews. Fight or Flight - YouTube | Twitter
April 13, 201511 yr But I must admit I'm a little puzzled at how a HD tree file size of 683 KB is going to use less VAS (and load faster) than a default tree file size of 171 KB? Absolutely true. That's why I truly wonder how some enthusiastic folks find an fps increase by using LARGER bitmaps of the double size, which is a mere impossibility. For sure double sized bitmaps take more GPU power and video-memory. BTW, the quality of the trees are definitely worse than the "Natural Tree Environment X" pack, which is available for well over a year. Potroh
April 13, 201511 yr They're talking about created date and not modified date. Ah, I found where to look, it's 22-3-2015, indeed. My bad. Cheers! Maarten
April 13, 201511 yr if you buy FTX Global it has a severe performance hit No performance impact here with FTX Global, why would there be ? the textures are the same size as default
April 13, 201511 yr Absolutely true. That's why I truly wonder how some enthusiastic folks find an fps increase by using LARGER bitmaps of the double size, which is a mere impossibility. For sure double sized bitmaps take more GPU power and video-memory. BTW, the quality of the trees are definitely worse than the "Natural Tree Environment X" pack, which is available for well over a year. Potroh It also depends on the actual tree model that the tree textures are draped over. If they've reduced the polycount of that, the FPS could indeed improve even though the texture resolution is higher. I don't even know whether they have touched the actual 3D models, though. What I'm seeing at my end is a <1 FPS drop and a ~10MB increase in VAS. Don't know why OrbX sometimes feel the need to exaggerate so much in their marketing. "Small FPS and VAS hit" would have been enough, instead of advertising the products as a "CPU upgrade". -
April 13, 201511 yr They're talking about created date and not modified date. Oh, sorry about that. It is March 22, 2015 for me. Júnior Silva
April 13, 201511 yr It also depends on the actual tree model that the tree textures are draped over. If they've reduced the polycount of that, the FPS could indeed improve even though the texture resolution is higher. I don't even know whether they have touched the actual 3D models, though.What I'm seeing at my end is a <1 FPS drop and a ~10MB increase in VAS. Don't know why OrbX sometimes feel the need to exaggerate so much in their marketing. They did not touch the veg-bgl libraries. It's a texture pack only. The drop of fps you see sounds quite logical, the larger size may invoke that. Potroh
April 13, 201511 yr Neil, thanks for those shots. I can see that the new textures take care of the burnt charcoal look of the winter trees. That's enough for me. Formerly Coneman - 900+ ___________________________________________________________ If one ignores the lack of undercarriage, it's actually quite a nice landing.
April 13, 201511 yr If they've reduced the polycount of that, the FPS could indeed improve even though the texture resolution is higher. I don't even know whether they have touched the actual 3D models, though. It would be difficult to further optimize two 2D planes in an X ... it's actually pretty clever optimization "as is" effectively showing 8 images (covering most view angles except top down) ... being "old code/techniques" and all -- it's also why Trees batch so well and buildings don't. the textures are the same size as default definitely not, default is 171 KB, the HD trees are 683 KB ... at least for the veg_savanna1.dds ... but like others, I haven't noticed any significant difference in VAS/FPS up or down. It would nice if someone could work the AutoGen buildings over ... make one building actually appear to look like 50 buildings (with some clever textures) ... isn't that how FT's Dubai was done? Drastically cut down on the draw calls. Cheers, Rob.
April 14, 201511 yr At Lilydale Orbx freeware airport. A closeup of Orbx standard trees Vs Orbx HD trees both at TEXTURE_MAX_LOAD=1024. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/67669830/OrbxStandard1024.jpg https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/67669830/OrbxHD1024.jpg gb. YSSY. Win 10, [email protected], Corsair H115i Cooler, RTX 4070Ti, 32GB G.Skill Trident Z F4-3200, Samsung 960 EVO M.2 256GB, ASUS Maximus VIII Ranger, Corsair HX850i 850W, Thermaltake Core X31 Case, Samsung 4K 65" TV.
April 14, 201511 yr They look better but I hardly notice the difference when airborne. ATP MEL,CFI,CFII,MEI. Type Ratings B-737, ERJ-190,ERJ-170
April 14, 201511 yr Perhaps the Orbx installer is missing some files? Rob those files are unused in P3d and FSX (sycamore, etc.). And look at the Date Created, not modified. They definitely should be 3/22/15. Just checked again They look better but I hardly notice the difference when airborne. LOL. (and I hardly ever say that.)
Create an account or sign in to comment