I feel like fsx is similar to when the automobile must have appeared after horses-different ,compelling but lots of apprehension and lots of differences causing confusion.I have been working with this sim for a couple months and imho Autogen just doesn't look good above 150 agl or so. Yes it did in fs9-but this is a different animal. I have tried to like fsx autogen-as I did in fs9 (I was an autogen junkie)-but it just doesn't look right. Why?-the new high res textures just look better from altitude-period-there is increased tenfold variety of autogen in fsx-but it just doesn't look real once one has experienced the new textures which convey flight from altitude just better.....Here is the problem-while on the ground taxiing around on the other hand-no autogen looks sterile and bad. The new trees/buildings look great at that point of the flight. But get 150 ft. above the ground-the autogen looks awful-not because it is awful but because the high res textures just look better and convey reality better-the autogen looks very toylike from altitude.Would there be/is there a way to have autogen appear only in the taxi/takeoff phase of flight-then have it melt away 150-200 ft. agl and have the photo textures gradually merge in?I have been working with this sim for a few months-and right now if I had to chooose-I'd just turn the autogen off-for the majority of flight it just looks better and performance is phenomenal. On the other hand-while taxiing around the airport and at low altitude-autogen looks great-especially over mountains. Is it possible to get both?I spent hours experimenting tonight and came to the conclusion that I will run the sim as is without autogen permanently. I will be disappointed when taxing at a local airport-or flying low over mountains loaded with trees . But for the majority of flight time/flights I will be delighted with the increased reality of the high res textures and unreal smooth flight that I haven't seen in this sim for years. I would really like both! Is there a way?http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

I am in the same exact boat as you. Except I don't even like autogen on the ground. I really am not impressed with it at all. I think there should be something along the lines of photo-real autogen. Autogen that is based on real aerial photographs just like scenery is done. I want a rich 3d world in and around the radius of the airport for beautiful landing/taking off.

I would really like>both! Is there a way?Well, yes, at least for me. I fly the jets with the autogen off usually, "sparce at the most if used", and use the autogen when ground hugging. I like mountainflying a lot, and it just ain't quite right without allthose trees. Luckily, on my box, the vid killer is the buildings, etc in the cities. I don't get a real bad hiton just autogen trees. I can run autogen max if I'm outin the boonies, and it's very flyable. But the jets, I need smoothness to be convincing. So I turn the autogen off, and live off the landclass. Heck, it's only on the ground and real low you even notice em. Once I'm in the air, I really don't need thatstuff. The textures are good enough. Yes, I would preferto run the autogen all the time, but I can't with this box.It's a fairly small hassle to pay to play both types of flying. I really like that 737-800. I was moaning the lossof my add on 737-700 with VC that I had in fs9, but danged if I don't think the MS version of the 800 is better. The VC sure looks good in the FSX version. MS is starting to churn out panels that approach some of the better add on stuff. The VC cessna caravan panel is much improved over that kinda bunky looking fs9 version.I do miss the caravan float plane though.. :(MK

That really is the problem though. It takes a huge time to load and reset the autogen. I don't fly jets-but I am happier with the photoreal textures from about 150 ft. up. Taxiing on the ground-or flying low thru the mountains though you really need autogen.I am just wondering with the long load times when one turns it off or on if it will ever be possible to either have a utility or patch that will display autogen on a user setting say <150 ft-then turn it completely off (on the fly so to speak) >150 ft. so the great photo textures can show and maximum performance be had. Also-when landing-since your field of view is less-to only have the really close by displayed...http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>That really is the problem though. It takes a huge time to>load and reset the autogen. I don't fly jets-but I am happier>with the photoreal textures from about 150 ft. up. Taxiing on>the ground-or flying low thru the mountains though you really>need autogen.>>I am just wondering with the long load times when one turns it>off or on if it will ever be possible to either have a utility>or patch that will display autogen on a user setting say <150>ft-then turn it completely off (on the fly so to speak) >150>ft. so the great photo textures can show and maximum>performance be had. Also-when landing-since your field of view>is less-to only have the really close by displayed...>>I read in another forum an interesting supposition that this .cfg switching might be accomplished much more quickly once Vista and DX10 is being used, as theoretically it might be possible to place ALL of FSX in RAM, providing you had enough of it, of course. Most of the delay now is texture switching. Puts a lot of faith in Vista and DX10, by who knows? At the very least the switching should be much faster.Another play on Geofs theory might be to limit autogen to some kind of switch within 2-5 miles say, of the airfield chosen for landing via the flightplan. It wouldn't solve the valley flying issue, but it would allow for the display of autogen when it would do the most good - take-off and final phase of flight.Anyone think this might be possible?Allcott

Hi, I am doing the same thing, autogen (even with Matt's patch) just owns my system, I don't know why, in the demo it was much better. Plus, here in Grand Forks, all the autogen trees are conifers....there aren't many pine trees in North dakota...most are deciduous (sp?) They were fine in FS9, it's like it's a step back. Don't get me wrong I loev the dense forests when the trees are right, but like you I like the ground textures (and perf increase w/o autogen) so I will keep autogen off.

If you want, try adding just the trees back in. Add this to your fsx.cfg file under [TERRAIN] section:TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=2250 <=that's the number I use)TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=1 <=this can't be 0.-Stu

I wonder if it would be possible to have a setting in the config file, or a slider, that allows the RADIUS of autogen to be changed.Autogen would then appear only in the set circular radius around your plane eg. 1 mile, 5 miles, 10 miles, 15 miles etc.This way, if you only wanted autogen for landing or takeoff, you would set it very low. (Currently the settings only reduce the density of the autogen per cell, but you can see it for miles into the distance.)

Geofa if interrest I have only trees and that is around airports and a few in the country :-)Just let me know ;-) have customized my FSX + also the default.xml ;-)Andr

Geofa,I fully agree with your every single statement. I also would like to have dense trees around airports but only when on final or on the ground.Michael J.

>Just let me know ;-) have customized my FSX + also the>default.xml ;-)OK, Andre, how? I sent you a PM.Michael J.

>I wonder if it would be possible to have a setting in the>config file, or a slider, that allows the RADIUS of autogen to>be changed.>>Autogen would then appear only in the set circular radius>around your plane eg. 1 mile, 5 miles, 10 miles, 15 miles>etc.>>This way, if you only wanted autogen for landing or takeoff,>you would set it very low. >>(Currently the settings only reduce the density of the autogen>per cell, but you can see it for miles into the distance.)Ah, but David you're only thinking in 2d:) The radius wouldn't be a circle, it would be a ball, if you think about it! Ideally, we'd want some kind of `flatten` effect which not only reduces the visible radius on the ground but also prevents autogen being displayed at a `greater than angle X` to the ground - turning the `ball` into a `dome`, if you will. A tree could be visible at five miles if the the aircraft was say, a hundred feet above it, owing to the very flat line of sight, but not at two miles if the plane was a thousand feet up, as the tree has dropped below the `line of sight` angle.As you get lower AGL and the `look down` angle decreases, the autogen starts to appear. This would also render autogen underneath you invisible, but unless you're flying helos or looking through the Extra's perspex floor panels you'd never notice it. It would also cater for autogen on neighbouring high spots so aiding peripheral speed cues, particularly on finals and at take-off.But before we get carried away in hypothetials, is it possible to define an autogen ojects appearance/disappearance by a relative angle to the aircraft? Anyone from ACES stopping by?I see the new-look canopies on the trees only come into view at close range, but I think that's purely a distance parameter, not viewing angle, but there must be some kind of view angle interpolation going on in autogen, because it already appears and disappears based on more than just distance.Another thing I thought of in the bath earlier (what an exciting life I lead!) was a return to Ed Truthans concept from FS2002 days of defining trees not as an `X` (when seen from directly above), but as `-` flat plane shape. I recall that the flat plane shape provided variation in tree density because the alignment on the grid varied by a non-standard amount - not 45 or 90 degrees, so some trees appeared wide, some narrow, and some you didn't see at all because they were `edge on`. Perhaps we could redefine an autogen tree as an object that appears `edge on` from any angle above near-horizontal, and so effectively disappears? Kind of like taking the `X-with-a-cap-on-it` we have now,, and turning it sideways to make use of the cap as the substantive part of the `tree` and using the `blades` that currently form the vertical column to create the `disappearing` angle, same as it does edge on in the horizontal plane now. Like turning a table on its side?I think I explained that all right? Just dont ask me for pictures!Allcott

That sounds great!-I'd like to try them!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

I like dense trees because it is often the case around rural airports.I still like the very old idea in FLY!2k of representing large concentration of trees by large 3D 'blocks' - the way Marc Stoering did it in his famous add-on scenery for FLY!2k. I think it is a gross waste of computer resources to draw trees individually. Michael J.

These are all great ideas-and ultimately could solve a lot of performance issues for a lot of people, and make the sim look even greater.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg