Sign in to follow this  
Guest steve43

Yes I know another FPS & autogen post

Recommended Posts

Hi Rob,I totally agree with your post. You chose your words carefully :"educated guess", "we can assume",... which are probably much closer to reality than some blunt unverified statements heard recently. Some pretend that Vista + DX10 will be the Holy Grail for FSX. Yes, we can expect improvements with the upcoming patches but no one knows what their scale will be. We just don't know and there is nothing wrong with that. It is not unmanly to admit it and when you know that you don't know, you try to educate yourself. But I'd better stop now otherwise this thread will be moved to the Hangar chat forum :)Jean-PaulAsus P5W DH Deluxe - Core 2 Duo E6600@3.2Ghz - Leadtek 7950 GT TDH 512 - 4 x 1GB Kingmax DDR2 667 CL5 RAM - 2 x 250GB Hitachi T7K250 SATA2 AHCI - Creative Audigy 2 Value - Antec Sonata 2 Case - 450W Antec SmartPower 2.0 PSU - Samsung SyncMaster 204B 20" - Windows XP Pro SP2 - TrackIR 4 Pro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

That's ok, I'm not religious either ;)But I do have cautious "hope" for DX10 update of FSX. But for DX9 patch, I have no idea -- profiling seems to show a problem so maybe the DX9 patch will address that.Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>http://www.megascenery.com/megasceneryxphoenix.htm>>Looks good huh -- but as always the shots are taken from>"optimal" altitude -- looks like AutoGen is OFF (no surprise>there).>There are two ways to look at it. As I do use Megascenery Hawaii for FSX, I'm more than willing to put up with no auto-gen for a short duration on the climbout, because textures do come into focus much more quickly than FS9, and are sharper altogether. I still have many 3D objects that are not standard auto-gen, so the effect isn't bland flatness by any means. I'm going to assume that MegaScenery Phoenix would appear to be the same.Perfection would be plenty of auto-gen trees at low altitudes, but houses would need to look more realistic. IMO, auto-gen houses on this photo-scenery actually takes away from the realistic look, by adding a cartoon effect that isn't needed. At a thousand feet altitude, "authentic looking" auto-gen houses would need to disappear completely, as they look rediculous when placed on top of photo-real scenery in FSX. The advantage of FSX here, is sharper textures at much lower altitudes, than in FS9. This DOES make quite a difference when using photo-real scenery such as FSX MegaScenery. I've tried FSX Megascenery Hawaii with and without auto-gen, and I'd still turn it off, even if it didn't help frame rates.Now, on the other side of the coin, is FS9 with full auto-gen and well done airport area addon scenery. While on the ground, the trees and specific buildings which are part of the actual scenery areas, add much to making it a realistic experience. However, once airborne and away from these 3rd party areas, FS9 just doesn't have the same appeal to me as FSX, because the surface isn't near as focused, and I still have a problem with "cartoon" looking auto-gen subdivisions.But I'm convinced, that FSX doesn't have the overhead to handle excellent after market airport scenery along with it's crisper and clearer texturing. I don't want to fall below 25 fps, which I get 95% of the time. In the end, I'm just going to continue to compromise between using FSX and FS9.At this point, I'm certain that FS9 won't ever look like MegaScenery Hawaii which is very smooth on my machine with auto-gen OFF; and that FSX might take a long time to like the FS9 FlightScenery Portland, at least with acceptable frame rates. If possible at all.Nevertheless, based on my enjoyment of MegaScenery Hawaii for FSX, there is no doubt that I'll purchase the new Phoenix title. And BTW, MegaScenery Hawaii has no frame rate hit at all.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the MegaScenery Hawaii for FSX is actually just a re-worked FS9 version. The Phoenix title is ground up using higher resolution data.But I agree, autogen is good upto a certain altitude, then it sticks out like a soar thumb -- it doesn't blend well with altitude change -- but this is true for FS9 and FSX.Hmmmm...but you have given me food for thought -- I wonder if this is why FSX does what appears to be twice "normal" rendering -- are the Ace's team trying to blend better?For me, that other 5% of the time where I need good frame rates (like during landing) I don't get -- but I guess it depends what you are into -- for me, the landing is the most enjoyable and challenging part of the flight (espeically with real weather).Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea about your "twice the rendering" idea but I think FSX autrogen should completely disappear after a certain altitude - it should dissapear much closer then it does right now. ACES should try experimenting with the LOD for autrogen a bit more. It would probably help performance considerably (less things to render) and it would look more realistic. I'm not to educated about how this stuff works but it's just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be happy if they made the Autogen blend a little better with the background textures. I agree with many of you such as LAdamson who say the autogen sort of "stands out" too much as it is.Maybe aftermarket autogen will appear that will blend a little better.Also the autogen tends to "pop" into and out of view, rather than fading in and out of view, which would be VERY nice if it faded. Maybe that is a hardware issue I have?RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>i get smooth frames at 9 to 10 fps, but im also running>eight>>monitors to and that is a resource killer.>>> I am really tired of seeing this. Not one person in here>would say 9-10 fps is smooth. I dont care what game or sim you>play or fly, 10 is not smooth. 15 isnt either. If you mean>ACCEPTABLE than say that. I can understand that. Saying 9-10>fps is smooth is just false, incorrect, and bad information to>be handing out. No program does low frame rates smoother than>another. There is no such thing. Frame rate is frame rate,>period.>> Saying anything else is misleading. I dont find any fault in>folks enjoying FSX, just with this constant sponsoring of the>idea FSX somehow smooths out crappy frame rates.>>Hornit....needs at least 20 and likes over 30 fps in any game>:)Your saying that it's not so, doesn't make it not so. While I prefer to have the highest frame rate possible, the difference between a consistent 10fps and a consistent 20fps is not that noticeable. When there is no stuttering or wild fluctuation, it is very smooth. Before getting my new machine, I flew on an older machine with fps in the single digits, but it was smooth. Drivers, tuning your system and your installation of FSX helps as well. Just please don't make assertive statements that presume to speak for everyone. If your experience sucks, then I guess I'm glad I don't have your experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I do know:Blending has been accomplished in other products without taking major fps hits.Whomever decided on final spec of FSX, grossly under estimated end user "acceptance".The hard decision wasn't made.Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this