Hi smith,To change the visability like Koorby illustrated, starting at the Create a Flight Screen, click Change under the Selected Weather, select User-defined weather and you'll see the screen he referenced.Jim Karnhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_pf.jpg

>3. Make sure your section of your fs9.cfg file has these last>3 entries in the section:>>>TERRAIN_ERROR_FACTOR=100.000000>TERRAIN_MIN_DEM_AREA=10.000000>TERRAIN_MAX_DEM_AREA=100.000000>TERRAIN_MAX_VERTEX_LEVEL=19 (20 for 38m mesh, 21 for 20m>mesh)>TERRAIN_TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=8>TERRAIN_AUTOGEN_DENSITY=5>TERRAIN_USE_GRADIENT_MAP=1>TERRAIN_EXTENDED_TEXTURES=1>TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=3.500000>TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=4.000000>TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=4Ummmmmmm, can the FS9.cfg file be called anything else? I have had a look a couple of times, but I can't find it. Any ideas anyone?Thanks in advance...Cheers,Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern Australia

>Hi smith,>>To change the visability like Koorby illustrated, starting at>the Create a Flight Screen, click Change under the Selected>Weather, select User-defined weather and you'll see the screen>he referenced.>>Jim>Karn>>http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_pf.jpgThanks for your help jdk2 - appreciated!

Chris - fs9.cfg isn't in the FS9 directory - its actually in c:documents and settingsuserapplication datamicrosoftfs9cheerssmith

>>3. Make sure your section of your fs9.cfg file>has these last>>3 entries in the section:>>>>>>TERRAIN_ERROR_FACTOR=100.000000>>TERRAIN_MIN_DEM_AREA=10.000000>>TERRAIN_MAX_DEM_AREA=100.000000>>TERRAIN_MAX_VERTEX_LEVEL=19 (20 for 38m mesh, 21 for 20m>>mesh)>>TERRAIN_TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=8>>TERRAIN_AUTOGEN_DENSITY=5>>TERRAIN_USE_GRADIENT_MAP=1>>TERRAIN_EXTENDED_TEXTURES=1>>TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=3.500000>>TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=4.000000>>TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=4>>Ummmmmmm, can the FS9.cfg file be called anything else? I>have had a look a couple of times, but I can't find it. Any>ideas anyone?>>Thanks in advance...>>Cheers,>>Chris Porter>:-outta>>Perth>Western Australia>It's in your C:Documents and SettingsXXXXApplication DataMicrosoftFS9 folder. Note XXXX = name of your username on your computer you are logged in as.If you still can't see it, make sure you set to view hidden files.

Thanks a lot, much appreciated...Cheers,Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern Australia

Thanks a lot guys, much appreciated...Amazing what one forgets in 2 years :-)Cheers,Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern Australia

Hmm, I have an ATI X300 on my laptop. Is sharpness the same as Gamma? Under the color page, I have Gamma (1), Brightness (0), and Contrast (100).Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com/FC_StartJava.html] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

Hmm,On my FS9, the minimum sight distance is 60 mi/96kmCloud Draw Distance minimum is 30 mi/48 km I have heard that it is the 2D cloud textures that eat up frames and you actually want to increase your 3-D cloud percentage on 3-D capable cards. I haven't tested this myself so I can't say, but I set mine at 80% and do ok on a 64MB card with 1Gb mem and 1.83 GHz Pentium M.What should cloud coverage density be set at?Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com/FC_StartJava.html] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

I don't think he ever said 25 fps is smooth as video/film. What he said was that, given all the tradeoffs (and based on things Mike Gibson has said), 25 fps will likely give you the best overall performance and fewest stutters.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com/FC_StartJava.html] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

As noted above, I have heard that 100% 3D clouds actually improves performance, and it is the 2D clouds which detract most from performace as far as clouds go.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com/FC_StartJava.html] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

>As noted above, I have heard that 100% 3D clouds actually>improves performance, and it is the 2D clouds which detract>most from performace as far as clouds go.>>Thomas>Hmmm, interesting Thomas, need to check that out myself.If you guys want to see what sort of performance I am getting out of a mid-spec Dell laptop using my tuning, check out the "LIFT!" video I posted up earlier today. Only a few segments have the video sped up, the rest is all what-you-see-is-what-you-get performance complete with the FRAPS overhead needed to shoot the video.http://jaykae.org/koorby/LIFT!.zip (Warning 150MB video)The laptop specs: Dell Latitude D610 - Centrino (P3M) 1.87Ghz, 1024MB RAM, 1400x1050 LCD panel running at 1280x768, ATI X300 64MB video card, 60MB 5,400 RPM HD, Windows XP SP2.

Have you tested at full resolution? I have found on my previous C840 then D800 and now D810 that I get the best performance running at full resolution (1920 x 1200). But that was more subjective than objective testing on my part.(as a side note, Dell's Complete Care is a really good buy. My first laptop got spilled on, I sent it to them to be fixed, and they lost it. They sent me the D800. After two years, it wouldn't boot anymore, seemed to be a heat problem (I had dropped the laptop several times, twice from 4 ft). Turned out the bottom was bubbling due to heat, so, rather than just replacing the MB (which had already been done a while back), they sent me another new computer. I gotta say, however, that the sound on the D810 S***S compared to the sound on the D800 (which was much better than the C840).)Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com/FC_StartJava.html] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

>Have you tested at full resolution? I have found on my>previous C840 then D800 and now D810 that I get the best>performance running at full resolution (1920 x 1200). But>that was more subjective than objective testing on my part.>>Thomas>Yes, I always run FS9 on the laptop at the full native resolution of 1400x1050 - but when recording videos I revert to 1280x768 to get as close as possible to the aspect ratio of WMV-HD 720p video format.