ok so I took a good long look at the new version of FSX. The 1m terrain is excellent for VFR flying and for overall scenery. I love the new water, the new airport environments, the detail on the new default planes...so I thought to myself....why not turn off autogen so you can get good performance where you need it most...taking off and landing.when I am up high I dont really see a need for autogen and I dont do much bush flying...so I turned it off...I really miss autogen cause it adds soooo much to the game...especially now with real forests.I have a modestly good system so I could use some autogen but the performance increase is incredible and the 1m terrain is wayyyy more sufficient that any previous version of FS.so my question is, does anyone else fly exclusively with autogen off?? do you miss it?

I certainly keep autogen off in the demo, because of the performance bug. I did slew around an island up high with autogen on max, and it looks superb. I can't wait to hit heavily forested areas:These are large, so just cut and paste (I'm not sure if 1024x768 images are ok in here)http://static.flickr.com/73/222293907_3b61c1532b_o.jpghttp://static.flickr.com/90/222293858_d7a6c84c21_o.jpgBut for the time being, I am missing it, and loving the 1m textures instead.

those are some great shots! I just fear that with the high complexity of the aircraft and airports, I may have to revert to no autogen...you know 6 years ago I would not be having this problem!! Its just 15-20 FPS is attainable with max autogen for me but I just dont like the fluidity that it gives...I like 30+ FPS...so its a matter of performance versus autogen....performance is winning this battle largely due to the excellent new textures.

Of course we have been advised there was a bug in the autogen coding for the demo. Should be fixed by the release date.I've been flying the demo with autogen off and 7m terrain. Looks tremendous and my performance increased manifold times at 1600x1200 32 bit locked at 15 fps. Conversely, when autogen is increased the lifeblood is slowly sucked out.Personally, with FSX because of the great looking terrain and water, I see no need to even have autogen on if I'm flying heavy iron.On the other hand, VFR, GA and bushpilot flying it definitely should be used so hopefully the fix will cure the fps problems.

I agree that for the heavies the autogen is not so important. The new hi res textures look great without autogen. They should look amazing when third parties start customising (ie VistaOZ etc).

>I agree that for the heavies the autogen is not so important.>>>The new hi res textures look great without autogen. They>should look amazing when third parties start customising (ie>VistaOZ etc).I keep seeing people saying that, but I can imagine how it can look much better than the default textures.But then again, I recall saying that about the game Unreal way back in the day.

i think the key to a lot of us with performance issues is frankly going to be staying with the defualt aircraft as much as possible, i love pmdg stuff but man i cant imagine that with all the other eye candy in fsxi like what a few posts up - flying addon iron, autogen has to be low or off all together, i wouldn't mind i guess if im doing some co-pilot in mp mode.but im pretty much a bush flyer anywho, so i hope they have it all fixed.ciao!Brian S

I think with the terrain textures the way they are in the demo you dont need autogen except for one time. Once you get below about 1500-2000 feet you start "noticing" the lack of 3d detail and it rapidly becomes very unrealistic. Even flying the heavies it looks bad once your on final. Those objects add tremendously to the feeling of reality and also peripheral vision. No matter what I do, I have to have some autogen on or once your close to the ground any illusion of flying rapidly goes away.Hornit

I don't see that much difference in performance between NO autogen and having it set at NORMAL but the difference in look is significant. I wished I had a single option that I could simply turn off and get magic increase in performance - it aint't so. And my computer is only AMD 3500+.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gifhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

The increased autogen is the one feature I was hoping for. I have spent most of my flights in Owens bell cruising around the dense forests in the sim skimming the tree tops, truly a great experience. I rarely fly high enough to not see the autogen so it is an important feature for me.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/ambanner.jpg

I disagree, one of my greatest thrills is seeing all the scenery on final approach or on takeoff not a desert landscape. This doesn't matter if it's a Cessna 172 or a 747. In FS9 I fly with full autogen and fly more heavy jets than anything else. I am currently running the demo on full autogen but have some stutters when the scenery loads. I know there is a bug but really it's the raw number of objects being rendered especially trees so I don't know how much this can be alieviated without faster hardware. It's amazing it runs as well as it does. As usual the sim really won't reach it's potential until the hardware catches up (maybe a couple of years) which is not necessarily a bad thing.Regards, Carlos

i managed to install flight1 atr72 into the demo. you know this is also an fps eater. although a few gauges didn't work the framerates were about the same as with the fsx default. when this plane and pmdg aircraft are optimized for fsx my guess is they perform excellent.Regards, Gerrit