Hi, all!Has anyone noticed the fact that, regardless of FSX screen resolution and number of FPS reached, the visual models look much more "blurry" and sharpnessless, when compared with FS9?In spot view, for instance, if you zoom in enough to see just a few windows of the aircraft, they appear with low contrast and lines seem to blend with other, giving an appearance of very low resolution - in FS9 I didn't notice this.May be, this can be explained by the type of the files found in the texture folder of each aircraft. I noticed that instead of FS9 .bmp's, now there ares .dds files.By the way... anyone knows what kind of files are .dds? Is there any standard Windows application able to open or edit them?Best regards,Macc1966

>Hi, all!>>Has anyone noticed the fact that, regardless of FSX screen>resolution and number of FPS reached, the visual models look>much more "blurry" and sharpnessless, when compared with FS9?>In spot view, for instance, if you zoom in enough to see just>a few windows of the aircraft, they appear with low contrast>and lines seem to blend with other, giving an appearance of>very low resolution - in FS9 I didn't notice this.>Just the opposite. My visual models are sharply detailed, with a glossy just waxxed look! No blur or crooked lines, unless I zoom right in to look at the rivet pattern! :)Running AA & 1600*1200*32 res.

Mine also look sharp. Have you set Global Texture Resolution to highest?As for the rest of your questions:DDS:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectDraw_SurfaceTool to convert DDS files back and forward:http://eliteforce2.filefront.com/file/DDS_Converter;29412

Nope not here my stock aircraft look tons better in FSX then they every did in FS9.

I get it as well.Trying to remember, but didn't we have the same thing with default paint jobs in fs9? I thought it was something to do with mipmaps. I am not very knowledgable in this area so please bare with me. I do however rememeber that repaints we always better. (less mipmaps?)The following pic shows what I mean. Its hard to point out unless you are panning around the A/C. If you look at the line you can see the window trim to the right, but not to the left. (Does this with the text on the bird as well) This lines moves as you rotate. In the second picture I drew lines where the Textures go from hi/med/low, as I get this low and slow (more visable) in the city regions ground texture. Especially the roads. Maybe its the angle?http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161456.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161457.jpgI posted about this before to no avail. I wonder if its the un-sharpness mask or something. I wish I knew if there was config line we could "increase the distance". (tdragger or any other aces guys please feel free to jump in anytime here) ;) (BTW I emailed them on this - no answer to date)I have a few ponies left under the hood left I figure, as I am very content with my 20-25 fps at KSEA (notice the density), and although locked at 30 - it well exceeds it outside of town. So I don't think its a case of "texture loading", but more of the program itself.Sorry about the screenie sizes, I tried to compress as much as possible without preventing you to see what I mean. I'd appreciate some ideas, or maybe I'm alone on this? I sure don't think its my rig or setup though.Regards'Garett

are your video setting at performance or quality and set anisotropic to 8 or so. Will make a difference.

Yes, I noticed blurring on all default aircraft.

Hi, all!Many thanks for your replies.I think I can't set global textures resolution to MAX, otherwise the poor performance of my PC, would still be worse.As for video settings for Performance versus Quality, which do you think is better: set it for performance, quality or something in between?Where do you "set anisotropic to 8 or so"? In the game the only options I have for this are: None, Bilinear or Trilinear.The fact, is that my "oldie" Pentium 4 @ 1.7 GHz - Nvidia MX440 64 MB and 1 GB of RAM stuck reasonabily with FS9.I think we must live with the fact that, every time a new release of FS comes out, we have to spend a lot of money for upgrading "specs" of our PC's.Best regards,Macc1966

turn your mipmap setting up for your vidio cardChuck

Yes, you are right.I checked my settings on Global Texture Resolution, and they were set to "low".I changed them to "very high", and visual models are now looking sharply detailed and shinny.What is weird, is the fact that FPS seem to have increased (!) after this change - well, before that I had changed too, the settings on my NVIDIA control panel from Quality to Performance.The game now is playable, although some "shaking" and "stutters" remain, especially on Spot View.Thank you,Macc1966

Anistropic filtering (via the controlpanel - I leave FSX at bilinear but I tried both just to see) does reduce the apperance of it - but does not eliminate it. (for the aircraft) So in that regards it did help with the aircraft. Thanks, I found that 4x was all that was needed.However it does not do help for the ground texture pics as shown. Basically the textures go "hi res" when you are right on top of them (or close to it.) I noticed I get more texture popping instead of rolling however with anistropic on. I have tried various things (I ran FPS unlimited to make sure I was not at the limit resulting in it "being" texture loading - so unlimited was 39 so I locked it at 22 to test.) Heck I even set fiber at 47 just to see if forcing the cpu to work more on the terrain would help - nope. I don't see it as a problem, but more of a quality setting preference that should be maybe adjustable?Just have to keep fiddeling around, it just would be nice sometimes if you asked a "how to" you got a "this way" from they guys that made it or know how so anyways ... I'm not complaining or anything, but I'm sure you know what I mean. But I'm loving FSX for visuals, there's no doubt about that.Regards'Garett

I'm not sure what kind of computer you have. I have a laptop with similar specs (1.86 GHz Pentium M, 64 MB ATI Mobility X300 graphics) and upping it to 2 GB of memory really helped the performance, made it very "comfortable". I highly recommend doing this. www.newegg.com is an excellent source for this.This is really pretty much the only upgrade I could make to the computer, as both the other things are part of the motherboard, and to replace them would mean replacing the motherboard. Still relatively slow, not really near the performance of FS9, can't really max sliders, but it is smoother and easier to use. I also recommend using the task manager to kill any unnecessary processes before you start FS. This is very important. Especially killing those things that occasionally kick in and eat clock. I don't even run virus scanners and the XP firewall. To me, they are Waayyyyy more trouble than they are worth. Stick to trusted sources for downloading, and virus scan EVERYTHING you download from unknown sources with any of the free virus scanners you can find on the web, and you should be all set (also making sure to activate the firewall in your router). I haven't had any problems running like this.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

My experience-if you want to see photo quality ground textures-all the time-not just below you:Set: trilinear, high quality, anti 2xq, anisotropic 16x on your card driver, unlimited on the fps.Set fs at anisotropic, anti on. Turn autogen off-add a few to the frame fiber in your fsx.config-me at about .50.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Well I tried it,But I just have to have my autogen :), so I did with autogen on (but I use the reduced xml file & cfg line entries at 2000/1000) While the visuals are better, not sure if I like the performace hit with it. Its not too bad but the lag ends up giving me a little bit more popping - so I still am playing around with it. So far best "all around" quality/perfromance with no studders is still "bilinear" in fsx, with the card set at 4X & 4X. Its very fluid, and as I said I only notice it with the city textures. I can go higher, I just don't really see much of a quality increase (worth the perf hit). BTW Texture bandwidth 360 & fibre at .27 (any lower fiber and gnd textures don't keep up - higher setting's ends up being about the same (loading/displaying), but with a few fps hits.The one thing I really like about FSX is the ability to make and load custom graphic config saves - depending on the flight. If I'm flying heavies from city to city, I can just load the tailored cfg. Don't need my mesh complexity at 100 for FL360 etc. But for low & slow GA stuff, (especially in the mountians etc) crank everything back up. I sure this will prove to be a very welcomed addition as paywear birds with complex fms & modules etc are released.Regards'Garett