Hello everyone,Check out these two pics I just took just outside of KLAS. Sorry, had to squeeze them down to nothing to hit the attachment limit. One is without autogen, one with. All other settings identical. Went from 60 to 30 fps by going from "none" to "sparse" autogen. Take a look at the pic with autogen. Notice anything? There are hardly any trees or buildings displayed. I don't believe for a second that the additional burden of a couple more textures and polygons would result in such a severe performance hit. I have to conclude that the performance drop numerous users have reported is a bug, a flaw of some sort in the graphics engine, and should be immediately addressed by ACES, as it is quite severe. What do you think?Until the autogen performance is addressed legitimately without the use of config hacks and whatnot, I'll enjoy FSX with autogen OFF (which is easy since the mesh and textures look so much better).Specs: AMD64 2Ghz, Geforce 7900GT, 1 gig DDR400 RAM

Look at the size of the autogen fsx xml compared to fs9...huge compared to almost nothing in fs9.Even though they aren't displaying-there are hundreds of different objects vs. only a few in fs9-and I suspect they are still "displaying" even though you can't see them all. I agree-autogen takes the biggest hit on my machine(I can turn everything else to the right full maxed and it doesn't matter except water and ai which also take hits-but less than autogen). I prefer the look for anything over 150 ft. agl without the autogen so the sharp photo textures can show up-and since you can't really see it why take the hit? I posted a shot of the Tetons a week ago with and without autogen at altitude-you can tell no visual difference-yet the frame difference was about 30 fps.Still looking for a utility or way to have autogen on only <150 agl-then magically turn it off-I think that would make everyone happy? I do like those beautiful trees at ground level/low level.An idea for a patch from Aces?!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>Still looking for a utility or way to have autogen on only>>150 agl-then magically turn it off-I think that would make>everyone happy? I do like those beautiful trees at ground>level/low level.Amen! Those trees are gorgeous, but we could use processing power for other things up in the air, untill our hardware catches up. I like this idea. -Jeremy Burchhttp://home.earthlink.net/~dawgfighter/sit...es/swvasig1.gifSWVA4806 http://www.virtualswa.com/home.phpThe Ozark Dogfighter http://forums.avsim.net/images/wedge.gifCurrent system:Pentium 4 Cedar Mill 641 (3.40GHz), Abit AW8D, Gigabyte GeForce 7900GTX (512MB DDR3 PCI-Express x16),Corsair XMS2 Pro 2GB PC2 6400 (DDR2 800), 2 SeaGate Barracuda 250GB hard drives, Sound Blaster X-Fi PlatinumKlipsch ProMedia Ultra 5.1 speakers, NEC 20" CRT, Microsoft SideWinder Force Feedback 2Please note: System specs are for reference in tech forums only and are not to be taken as meaning anything else.Doing so will result in eye-rolling, possible teeth grinding and perhaps mild internal chuckling.Happy Flying!

>Still looking for a utility or way to have autogen on only><150 agl-then magically turn it off-I think that would make>everyone happy? I do like those beautiful trees at ground>level/low level.>>An idea for a patch from Aces?!Oh God, the last thing I want is my frame rate to drop on short final when FS loads the autogen (causing a stutter) and then the bad frame rate for the remainder of my landing.Sounded like a good idea until I thought about it for a minute, heh.-stefan

I can see your point-but low to the ground you should be seeing less autogen objects in your field of view-thus better fps?!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Maybe if it slowly started cranking it up? Or maybe set it to not touch autgen while on final? Good grief I'm glad I'm not on the dev team!!! :)-Jeremy Burchhttp://home.earthlink.net/~dawgfighter/sit...es/swvasig1.gifSWVA4806 http://www.virtualswa.com/home.phpThe Ozark Dogfighter http://forums.avsim.net/images/wedge.gifCurrent system:Pentium 4 Cedar Mill 641 (3.40GHz), Abit AW8D, Gigabyte GeForce 7900GTX (512MB DDR3 PCI-Express x16),Corsair XMS2 Pro 2GB PC2 6400 (DDR2 800), 2 SeaGate Barracuda 250GB hard drives, Sound Blaster X-Fi PlatinumKlipsch ProMedia Ultra 5.1 speakers, NEC 20" CRT, Microsoft SideWinder Force Feedback 2Please note: System specs are for reference in tech forums only and are not to be taken as meaning anything else.Doing so will result in eye-rolling, possible teeth grinding and perhaps mild internal chuckling.Happy Flying!

The strange thing is that I don't notice nearly as much of a performance hit with 100% traffic in a big city as I do with just a handful of autogen objects. This tells me that it isn't the objects themselves which bog the engine down, but the overhead involved in placing autogen on the terrain. Perhaps the calculations involved in making the autogen match the textures are gruesome as MS implemented them. Then again, take a look at some of the latest FS2004 addons which match autogen to the textures .. haven't people reported basically no framerate hit? I'm stumped on this one, but am convinced that MS can fix this if they'd spend some time investigating it. Makes me wonder what the heck was going on during Beta testing ..

I can assure you that lots was going on during the beta testing...http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>I can assure you that lots was going on during the beta testing...I don't think some people will ever realize that, though..They're too used to getting everything they want when they want it, maybe?-Jeremy Burchhttp://home.earthlink.net/~dawgfighter/sit...es/swvasig1.gifSWVA4806 http://www.virtualswa.com/home.phpThe Ozark Dogfighter http://forums.avsim.net/images/wedge.gifCurrent system:Pentium 4 Cedar Mill 641 (3.40GHz), Abit AW8D, Gigabyte GeForce 7900GTX (512MB DDR3 PCI-Express x16),Corsair XMS2 Pro 2GB PC2 6400 (DDR2 800), 2 SeaGate Barracuda 250GB hard drives, Sound Blaster X-Fi PlatinumKlipsch ProMedia Ultra 5.1 speakers, NEC 20" CRT, Microsoft SideWinder Force Feedback 2Please note: System specs are for reference in tech forums only and are not to be taken as meaning anything else.Doing so will result in eye-rolling, possible teeth grinding and perhaps mild internal chuckling.Happy Flying!

Very true-you must be my age :lol.Are you from the Ozarks? I have flown to Walnut (cant' remember exactly) Ridge Arkansas airport 2x on my way to pick up my son in La-they have a restaurant on the field that is the carcass of a 737-and it has been closed every time! Ever been ther?e-I really want to try it out? But I digress.....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Man I'm glad I'm not bothering dealing with FSX at this point. No thanks--FS9 runs and looks great with all the fine addons. In fact it looks alot better than those screenshots. I'll wait for as long as I can before plunging into this sort of stuff. New rig, DX10, Vista, then FSX.

I've been doing a lot of messing about with autogen textures over the past few days, and I have to agree with the first poster, that there may be a bug of some sort in the autogen rendering. Even with a bare minimum of autogen (controlled by cfg tweak) on I too see a halving of my framerate on a good day. I think I know why cities are fairing far worse though, and that's the complexity of the building models.It seems a lot of the autogen buildings are using beveled roofs now which adds quite a few polys per structure. Original fs9 autogen buildings were by and large simply boxes, essentially made of 10 triangles. The normal autogen "box" buildings now often contain at least 26 triangles. Doesn't sound like a lot, but load a lot of those into an already stressed out graphics engine and you have a problem, especially when the stock minimum setting produces more of them than fs9's max. As well trees have canopy polygons on them now to improve their display from directly above (still can't figure that out, who looks straight down at them?), for a gain of at least 2 to 4 polys per tree. Plus forests, with their new variety are calling on a lot more textures than FS9 did. FS9 just had one texture for all possible trees really, with one variation for each season. Caching that one texture and replicating it a few thousands times is cake for a videocard. Toss in another 10 of them? Not so cake. The odd thing though is that by reducing the textures of all autogen objects down to basically 4 pixels each, I haven't seen much improvement in fps at all. So that leads me to believe that fill rate isn't nearly as much of an issue for autogen as it was in fs9. Dropping those textures down before caused quite a performance gain with fs9, at least for me.Personally I think we'll need a MUCH simpler collection of autogen models and textures from Aces, or some other kind soul who has the time to produce them, to have a hope of decent framerates with even modest autogen settings. We'll probably need something like this for at least the first year of FSX life, until the hardware can catch up.High quality water is also a problem when combined with dense autogen. Having to render even some of those things twice? ouchies!