C:\Users\Your Computer Name\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft Flight Simulator\UserCfg.opt

(path is different to this UserCfg.opt file if your MSFS isn't from Steam)

I edited UserCfg.opt as follows:

 

((ORIGINAL))

{Terrain
        LoDFactor 1.000000
    }
    {ObjectsLoD
        LoDFactor 1.000000

((MY CHANGES))

{Terrain
        LoDFactor 5.000000
    }
    {ObjectsLoD
        LoDFactor 5.000000

 

(and then I set file Properties to Read Only)

it flies fine with no issues and no drop in fps, no increase in stutters.

but I don't see enough changes in scenery popping in and out to know if it even did anything at all that shows up as visible changes in the game.

Any comments?

 

It has not effect on popping. 

Thanks for the true clue. I am off to give it a whirl.

Already posted this in the official forums but somehow I get ignored: I guess that, as Rob says, increasing the LOD to much will result in side effects even though FPS numbers stay almost the same. I did definitively observe more LOD pop ins with LOD increased to 4.0 in the UserOpt.cfg...

Do people really forget that fast? I mean, in FSX/P3D days, it was perfectly known that you can overload your rig (basically the CPU) by using to high settings without actually seeing low FPS, resulting in blurry ground textures...

I am running with LOD 4.0 for both and don't see an increase in loading times. But definitely see a visual difference in how much detail I can see from afar. Looks stunning! I did a test at KJFK and I can see the buildings in Manhattan all out in the distance.

12 minutes ago, captain420 said:

I am running with LOD 4.0 for both and don't see an increase in loading times. 

Be aware that you have a top-notch rig with lots of RAM and the fastest possible GPU. It might very well result in no issue at all for your rig when increasing the LOD to 4.0, while it might already be to much for my rig for example. 

I was running LOD 4. Load times from the Welcome screen were 23 seconds running stock files after the update. With LOD at 2.00 it was 35 seconds. About 43 with LOd 4.000.

FPS decreases with higher LOD but remains way above pre performance update.

There are green pastures around ESSA flying towards ESSB (Sweden) that turn green ahead of you. Ditto in the Big Valley (San Joaquin) down thru California. Grass seems to pop in and out of view a whole lot more than the trees. Good for testing.

Approxomate both areas:

37 fps pre patch.

56 fps after Asobo performance patch

53 fps with LOD 2.000

48-50 fps LOD 4.000

LOD 4.000 looks the best.

Ryzen 3600 cpu, Super 2060 gpu, 16 GB RAM (very modest rig). The whole desktop only cost me $1200 (IbuyPower brand).

I think for me personally, 4.0 is the sweet spot. I like testing it out in dense areas like NYC, with dawn, dusk, or night settings with clouds for a basic stress test to see how it performs.

But like Fielder mentioned, even at it's lowest performance it still miles ahead of what it was pre SU5. Which is amazing.

I'm hoping that when AIG Offline Traffic comes, that it won't put too much of a dent in my performance. If I can have that with fps at least 30 and above, I'll be happy.

Edited July 29, 20214 yr by captain420

I think I'll stick with LOD 4.000 until someone comes up with a utility that drops into the Community folder using.json files or whatever the gurus use to alter file behavior during flight without changing the actual files. A utility to just set the LOD with a slider or something.

1 hour ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Increasing that value will strain your system even more and likely make batch rendering more obvious (the popping).

Setting the UserCfg.opt to read only is definitely NOT a good idea ... MSFS updates can and will make modifications to that file.  If MSFS updates can't modify that file because you set it to read only could trigger problems.

Then your settings approach didn't work and you are likely running the same settings as before hence why you didn't see any visual changes.  I posted this elsewhere, if you manually change LoDFactor above 2.000000 you MUST set the Preset = Custom ... example:

{Graphics
    Version 1.1.0
    Preset Custom
    {Texture
        MaxAnisotropy 16
        Quality 0
    }
    {SuperSampling
        SuperSampling 3
    }
    {Terrain
        LoDFactor 5.000000
    }
    {ObjectsLoD
        LoDFactor 5.000000
    }

Using the Preset name "Custom" should negate the desire to set the file as Read Only.  AND, you must NOT have the simulator running when making any changes to the UserCfg.opt.

You should see a increase time to load a flights and you will definitely see an impact to FPS if done correctly.

Cheers, Rob.

Higher LOD > 4.0 don't have any effect on my system. At least the tree radius is not further increased. I have even tried values like 8.0 or 12.0 with no improvements for tree distance but no performance penalty either. It seems that there is an internal limit of 4.0 or maybe 5.0 for LOD values.

I tried LOD 9 and it was a slide show until i was in the air. Then it stabilized at around 30fps and i could see trees out to the horizon. Almost zero pop ins. 

16 minutes ago, RobJC said:

I tried LOD 9 and it was a slide show until i was in the air. Then it stabilized at around 30fps and i could see trees out to the horizon. Almost zero pop ins. 

That's interesting. Where did you fly @ which altitude? My usual test flight is from KFHR to KTIW with a TBM 930 @ 3500 ft. With the distance rings in the G3000 I can clearly see that the tree distance is never more than 8 or 9 nm, no matter what LOD>4.0 I've set. With LOD=2.0, the tree radius is around 6 nm.

LOD 4 is about the limit for my PC - better but still not great as SU5 stuffed the LOD in general. Large areas of terrain pop in and out and blurry textures in the distance.

My tests are at 15000 and above - low and slow it's probably not noticeable.

Edited July 29, 20214 yr by Mark_A

Rob,

I changed the UserCfg.opt for getting rid of the washed (terrible!) colors (EyeAdaptation and ColorGrading from 1 to 0). I did made that file read only. Do you think I can insert the Preset Custom entry you mentioned with these changes avoiding therefore the read only file attributes? 

Thanks!