Just a Heads-Up..

I just noticed that my CPU load increases substantially when choosing 7cm over 1m in Options/Graphics/World.

Visually, cannot really see any difference, but my CPU core loads double..  something to be aware of!

I typically use 5 m Mesh / 1m Textures as my standard setting in Orbx land.

4770K @ 4.1 and GTX 1070.

Good info, cheers brother Bert.

I think some scenery products use higher resolution such as 30 cm for instance.

Won't you miss out on the details if you set a value higher than 7 cm?

Or rather higher (less resolution) vs what's in a scenery product featuring 30 cm ground resolution? 

Any vector item (not Orbx vector but things like roads, coastlines, rivers) have 7cm textures - so they would look a little blurrier if you fly low and slow.

As a Heavy Driver I don't usually see a whole lot of terrain close up.

OK since this was never really an issue for me this has me now wanting more information.

Can anyone explain the interaction between these three settings and what impact they have on scenery quality, there are infinite possible settings, each can be set in a max mode the others are low and everything in-between.

UNDER WORLD

- Texture Resolution; of what, objects, terrain, planes, autogen...

- Tick Box, Use High Definition terrain textures; so if you have this ticked does the other setting texture resolution mean anything?

UNDER DISPLAY

- Texture Resolution; is this just your monitor resolution? If this is set lower than max, then what difference would it make by having world textures set high because the screen display would overide.

Can anyone elaborate?

Bryan

 

Some quick tests I did didn't seem to change the quality whatsover, inside and Orbx Region. Perhaps results would be different outside a region.

 

14 hours ago, 1st fltsimguy said:

- Texture Resolution; is this just your monitor resolution?

 

This is not related to your monitor resolution. Texture resolution mainly affects how much VRAM your video card will be using. Textures are typically 1024x1024, 2048x2048, 4096x4096 and so on. If you choose max resolution of 1024x1024, all textures bigger than this will be scaled down and use less VRAM. 

1 hour ago, Ebs said:

This is not related to your monitor resolution. Texture resolution mainly affects how much VRAM your video card will be using. Textures are typically 1024x1024, 2048x2048, 4096x4096 and so on. If you choose max resolution of 1024x1024, all textures bigger than this will be scaled down and use less VRAM. 

Would that then mean that the other resolution settings become irrelevant?

19 hours ago, Bert Pieke said:

Just a Heads-Up..

I just noticed that my CPU load increases substantially when choosing 7cm over 1m in Options/Graphics/World.

Visually, cannot really see any difference, but my CPU core loads double..  something to be aware of!

I typically use 5 m Mesh / 1m Textures as my standard setting in Orbx land.

4770K @ 4.1 and GTX 1070.

Interesting. Does it have an impact on performance or fps too?

20 hours ago, Bert Pieke said:

Visually, cannot really see any difference

It depends on how the source was created and if you're using PR (Photoreal).  

I've shown this video before and big thanks to Chris Bell for doing this experiment ... the brown square patch is PR summer time done at LOD19 (that's a whopping 2.2GB of data for that small area).  You easily see the contrast between standard LC (in this case FTX Global) based textures and Chris's PR based textures.

But if you have texture res turned up you'll see just how nice LOD19 can look.  This was more a proof of concept that LOD19 can be done in P3D V4 (obviously can't be done in a 32bit based simulator, but for 64bit it is doable).  Due to youtube compression the video doesn't actually do the real 4K flight experience justice, but it still provides a good enough exposure of what LOD19 looks like:

The downside, 2.2GB for such a small area ... if LOD19 PR were to be used we're probably looking at 1TB (one season, lets hope winter so it's green an lush) for the entire state of CA.  It would be visually stunning (especially if using TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=10) but selling and deployment of a 1TB scenery set is going to be "difficult" for an end user (expensive) and for those with slow ISP they'd have to receive the data on a USB drive or something.

But, as hardware marches forward and storage continues to be cheaper and bandwidth speeds continue to increase (I'm running a real 1Gbps down and 25Mbps up out of my home for only $99/mo and every year my bandwidth options seem to double).  My prediction is that such impressive LODs will start to become a viable reality.

This test was more proof of concept that it can be done with the right hardware.  But I hope in the near future we see some scenery developers start to use higher LODs for P3D V4 around the airports (mountains around Orbx LOWI would be a good place to start).

Cheers, Rob.

 

 

38 minutes ago, J van E said:

Interesting. Does it have an impact on performance or fps too?

Not as long as your CPU can handle it... but in my case, it doubles the load on the scenery loading cores.

Why waste the electricity? 

58 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

Not as long as your CPU can handle it... but in my case, it doubles the load on the scenery loading cores.

Why waste the electricity? 

Yeah and those resources might come in handy at night for Dynamic lighting? 

At night ORBX lights is what i like. 

Thanks Michael Moe

7 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

It depends on how the source was created and if you're using PR (Photoreal).  

I've shown this video before and big thanks to Chris Bell for doing this experiment ... the brown square patch is PR summer time done at LOD19 (that's a whopping 2.2GB of data for that small area).  You easily see the contrast between standard LC (in this case FTX Global) based textures and Chris's PR based textures.

 

This test was more proof of concept that it can be done with the right hardware.  But I hope in the near future we see some scenery developers start to use higher LODs for P3D V4 around the airports (mountains around Orbx LOWI would be a good place to start).

Cheers, Rob.

 

 

Rob,

I didn't see a thing there that I would spend $1 to achieve. Maybe I was not able to identify "the brown square patch" which is why I didn't see anything of value. I did see PR with flat buildings, which look REALLY bad at low altitude. Could you maybe help me out with what, or where I'm supposed to see the dramatic comparisons in the video?

Thanks

10 minutes ago, somiller said:

Maybe I was not able to identify "the brown square patch"

Is this a serious question or agenda driven?

load up MSE CA at the same location (near KCCR) and take a screenshot at 600 ft in 4K res and compare ... the difference should be extremely apparent.

Cheers, Rob

Oh for gosh sakes Rob, what agenda are you accusing of having. I asked a simple question, maybe yours wasn't a serious post...or maybe you are being overly sensitive. I was under the impression, based on your description, that there was an area of scenery in the video covered by the high-res PR, against an area of only FTX Global, but it sounds like one would have to create the normal res version to be compared to the video.

I watch your posts regularly because you obviously know infinitely more about P3D than I do, and I've been fascinated by some of your hardware benchmarking, not to mention the fact you must have spent a ton of money for hardware and software, which I can truly appreciate. Helps the rest of us make reasoned choices when considering equipment and software upgrades. You have spent time, expertise, and considerable $$$ to go to the bleeding edge, and all of us benefit. I've seen you jump in to help many people on many threads, and we're all grateful for your knowledge.

I wanted to say these things so you know I'm an ally. I don't have an agenda, I don't have a dog in the race. Just a flight simmer who doesn't have the time or money to go to the edge myself. For goodness sake, I got the evil eye just for buying a new ASUS PG279Q monitor last week!

Thank you.