Just out of curiosity, If the TrueEarth series contains it's own LC and Vector could I not just install Global and the current TrueEarth Netherlands? Currently I have all the regions, LC, Global, Vector, etc. and of course TrueEarth Netherlands sits on top of everything. I'm thinking all that bloat would not be necessary IF I were just to fly in the Netherlands.

I understand of course that if I install only those two products that the rest of the world would only be affected by Global scenery, however as each iteration of TrueEarth gets installed, I can add those and have a new area to fly in (eventually there may even be global coverage over the years).

For example, Lets say there TrueEarth Germany exists, wouldn't installing OPENLC Europe, Vector and Germany North/South region become redundant? Thinking I could save some space that way and perhaps cut down on the scenery loading time.

If you know where you want to fly.. yes you can cut down the scenery packages.  If you have the disk space, you can leave them installed, but deselect them in the Scenery manager.  That way they do not get loaded.

Quote

For example, Lets say there TrueEarth Germany exists, wouldn't installing OPENLC Europe, Vector and Germany North/South region become redundant?

If you only wanted to fly in Germany, then yes.....you are correct. I am interested in the TrueEarth UK, Ireland and Netherlands products for P3D, but I have zero interest in any of the landclass based stuff like Global or Vector.

Edited May 23, 20188 yr by Christopher Low

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

If you only wanted to fly in Germany, then yes.....you are correct. I am interested in the TrueEarth UK, Ireland and Netherlands products for P3D, but I have zero interest in any of the landclass based stuff like Global or Vector.

That's what I was thinking. I don't mind just flying in the Netherlands at the moment, as they expand their TrueEarth product line there would be more areas to fly in without having to install any LC or Vector. IMO I think it would be better on framerates just with TrueEarth and Global alone (assuming of course Global is still a pre-requisite at the moment).

22 minutes ago, AAN1718A said:

IMO I think it would be better on framerates just with TrueEarth and Global alone (assuming of course Global is still a pre-requisite at the moment).

I don't think it will be better on the frames. It will mainly save you disk space. It may be better on the frames near borders though (when OpenLC and Vector are actually being used). But anyway, OpenLC and Vector and Global are all completely surpressed and not used when flying over TrueEarth scenery.

And Global isn't a pre-requisite for TrueEarth: I do have it installed but only because it makes the borders look better: the borders of TrueEarth are very sharp and there zero coverage in the bordering countries: seeing default scenery across the borders is utterly awful. 😉

So, if you plan to fly in TrueEarth only you might as well uninstall OpenLC, Vector and any FTX regions you have. Global could be removed too but as I said the borders will look ugly without Global.

Edited May 23, 20188 yr by Guest

Agree, keep Global!

I have to remind people this in nearly every thread.  ESP is nearly 20 years old this is the core engine no matter how many lines of code have been added. No matter how you market it and sell it,

It's like trying to Ford cortina engine In a eon musk tesla car, oh it will look good in pictures but put it on a straight road and put your foot Down you'll find deep down its still a ford cortina. 

Especting ground breaking scenery in a dinosaur is and was always asking for problems. 

 

Edited May 24, 20188 yr by tooting

43 minutes ago, tooting said:

I have to remind people this in nearly every thread.

Well, you don't have to do that in every thread, you know... 😉 I do wonder why you did so anyway in this in this topic because it has nothing to do with what was asked. 

46 minutes ago, J van E said:

Well, you don't have to do that in every thread, you know... 😉 I do wonder why you did so anyway in this in this topic because it has nothing to do with what was asked. 

its got everything to do with it.  the sim can only handle so much because its based on 20 year old coding.. plain and simple.

1 hour ago, tooting said:

its got everything to do with it.  the sim can only handle so much because its based on 20 year old coding.. plain and simple.

I hope LM is able to modify the engine so that the main thread will run on multiple cores. Even 2 would be a difference ...

Now with TE Netherlands I have to do a lot to be able to use shadows and a wider LOD range..

Edited May 24, 20188 yr by GSalden

2 hours ago, tooting said:

its got everything to do with it.  the sim can only handle so much because its based on 20 year old coding.. plain and simple.

True, but the OP asked this only because of disk space and maybe loading times. He wasn't talking about performance so why bring that up. 

 

1 hour ago, GSalden said:

Now with TE Netherlands I have to do a lot to be able to use shadows and a wider LOD range..

Which is why I am waiting for the Aerofly FS 2 version. It will run TrueEarth Netherlands with >120 fps easily. 😉 

2 hours ago, GSalden said:

I hope LM is able to modify the engine so that the main thread will run on multiple cores. Even 2 would be a difference ...

Now with TE Netherlands I have to do a lot to be able to use shadows and a wider LOD range..

 

Am with Tooting on this one,I seriously don't think LM are interested in doing this, we are up to V4.2 now with this product. Using 2006 data, poor AA with shimering unless you want performance dropping to it's knees and no proper full screen support these things have  been on my wishlist since V1 came out. Most people have 4,6 even 8 core systems and yet its still primarly driven by the main core.

 

9 minutes ago, Dazkent said:

Most people have 4,6 even 8 core systems and yet its still primarly driven by the main core.

Honestly, while my core 0 is always way above 90 % and often close to 100 %, I don't see much room for redistribution given my other cores (except core 1) are between 80 % and 90 % under heavy terrain loading conditions as well. (Thats' a 4+4 processor, HT on.)

Maybe there's more spare resources on a 8+8 cores processor, though.

Kind regards, Michael

4 hours ago, tooting said:

its got everything to do with it.  the sim can only handle so much because its based on 20 year old coding.. plain and simple.

Oops, my bad...! I thought I was posting ina new topic...! I didn't notice Michael posted his question at the top of the 2nd page of an already existing topic. SORRY! 😉

1 hour ago, pmb said:

Honestly, while my core 0 is always way above 90 % and often close to 100 %, I don't see much room for redistribution given my other cores (except core 1) are between 80 % and 90 % under heavy terrain loading conditions as well. (Thats' a 4+4 processor, HT on.)

Maybe there's more spare resources on a 8+8 cores processor, though.

Kind regards, Michael

Here I have a triple view setup so the main thread core is always at 100%.

I even changed things a bit to gain 20% fps by using NVSurround on the front and right monitor and only 1 extra view on the left monitor.

The issue with TU Nl is that all seasons are in each photo bgl file. Total a whapping 77.2 Gb. Also the AG is 1.59 Gb ! And the objects are very detailed. 

I will dl the NL2000 photo lay-out and try that one icw Orbx..