This is the best thatFSX has to offer?.

[Dirk98 354]

>Does autogen really add more realism? Once you get over 1500>ft with this scenery, photo-realistic scenery buildings and>trees look more realistic than autogen. But that's just my>opinion...>>Cheers,>>Noel.>It sure does, I don't even look out of the window above 1000ft. First/Last 1000f is all that matters.

[McCrash 3]

Try UNLIMITED and BILINEAR settings.No reason to use 1600 X 1200.

[Manny 1,293]

I had the Blurries too.. The problem was not just that I had blurries but the blurries were abandoned. It didn't get refreshed..even if I Pause the sim.After reading this entire thread... I tried your settings and that didn't do it for me. But I tried a few mods from your settings and I got rid of the blurries for now. Not exactly sure what did it. But here are the changes I have now in my FSX.cfg.I have a Core 2 Duo E6600 (Dual core)Post SP1==========[JOBSCEDULER]AffinityMask=2//where// n num of cores scheduled//1 = 1 core 0001//3 = 2 cores 0011//7 = 3 cores 0111//15= 4 cores 1111[TERRAIN]SWAP_WAIT_TIMEOUT=120 (I have not tried to make this any higher)LOD_RADIUS=8.00000 (This used to error out before)[MAIN]PerfBucket=70 (This alone didn't do it)[Display]TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=360TextureMaxLoad=10Turned off-----------------//FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.65[bufferPools]//PoolSize=10000000//PoolSize=5000000http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/171861.jpg

[Mike_CFII_MEL 789]

Hello,Why would I want to go down from Trilinear to Bilinear and reduce my resolution below 1600x1200x32. My system can keep me in the 20+ FPS area all the time?. As a matter of fact I see FPS in the 60's during parts of my flight.What benefit would I gain by doing this?.

[ryanbatc 12,835]

Uhhh, if you're at 16, and your target is 45...you'll get more blurries (or you should) because the cpu isn't making its target...and will trade off quality for performance.

[Guest jshyluk]

I'm going to go on a bit of a tangent here. I find that talking about visuals in FSX is different with full motion video (FMV) versus stills (screenshots). On the forum, we are restricted to using a screenshot to describe video, which is like using an apple to descibe an orange. Pointing to a picture and saying "I like this/I don't like this" does injustice to the FMV. Still, it's what we got, and it's gratifying to see that folks here were intuitive enough to solve the problems based on the still pictures.For my two cents' worth, the biggest problems I saw in the before and after pictures were in terms of composition, which had been mentioned already:+ Use "atmospheric perspective". Air is made of particles, and when you get enough particles, they will diffuse and refract light, which is why stuff in the distance looks hazy and bluish. I do think FS9 did a better job of providing atmospheric perspective than does FSX, at least in urban areas. The FSX haze is too blue-ish and not thick enough, which will make your pictures look "rendered" rather than realistic. + Watch the sun! In photography, bright noon-time sun is one of the worst times to shoot pictures. Shoot in the morning or afternoon, dawn and dusk will have the most dramatic palettes. In the "before" shots, your aircraft is backlit, whereas in your "after" shots, the aircraft is key lit from the front. Use back-lighting (rim light) if you have a whitish, plain subject, and you want it to stand out from a detailed background, like a white jet against puffy clouds. Otherwise, your aircraft will tend to look dull. MSFS allows you to control exactly where the sun is in relation to your subject; if you want effective screen shots, you can't afford to miss this trick.+ Pay attention to your histogram. You will need some kind of photo processing software to look at your histogram, which is a chart that shows you a bell curve indicating how many light pixels you have versus dark pixels. The top of the curve should be in the middle of the chart, indicating your pixel gamma is balanced (you have the ratio of light to dark pixels). If the curve is skewed one way or another, you need to adjust the gamma. I have a theory about this. Many of my FSX pictures are slightly on the dark side with respect to their histograms, which will tend to make the textures look dull and less vibrant. I turn on light bloom, and viola! The histogram is centered! Is it magic? No. I suspect that the palettes in FSX are designed to look their best with bloom on. Trouble is, most folks leave bloom off, as it is a performance killer. In the shots, it looks to me like you have bloom on, at least in the "after" pictures, which will make a subtle but important difference to visual appeal in screenshots. Jeff ShylukAvsim Product Reviewer

[Mike_CFII_MEL 789]

Hello,Bloom is "OFF" in every screenshot I posted. Atmospheric perspective, terms of composition, histogram, and converting FMV to Screenshot has nothing to do with the screenshots posted and FSX's inability to set itself up to my computer. I've tweaked FSX for the past 20+ hours and have it to where I like it.Take a look at the ground textures in screenshot one and screenshot two and tell me that atmospheric perspective, terms of composition, histogram, and converting FMV to Screenshot has has anything to do with FSX's inability to generate the ground textures prior to my tweaking FSX.

[McDaniel 48]

Hey Mike great to see that you are goiing forward.I have almost the same setup like you, until today I had no will to tweak FSX, so I was still using FS9, but now with your post, I am back in business with FSX.I would like to see your newest tweaks you did.ThanksDaniel

[CanadaOne 36]

I just loaded up Holger's Bella Coola custom tewrrain for FSX, installed it on top of my 19 meter FSX Genesis mesh of B.C., played with the weather a bit and...It's gorgeous! I'm having some fantastic flights.Yes, FSX has problems, but it's also an unpainted canvas as was FS9 in its infancy. Touch it up a bit and it's a great sim. I don't buy all the negativity that is espoused solely for the sake of being negative. To anyone who sees an inherent greatness in FS9 that is lacking in FSX, load up FS9 with no patch and no add-ons and see how long you stay interested. I'd give it about ten minutes before you're cruising for add-ons like a hungry dog.I enjoy both sims and I'm flying both sims. Just... for... fun!

[Mike_CFII_MEL 789]

Hi,For me its the end result. It dosen't matter how I get there, as long as I get there.If FS9 with all its addons gives me what I want, I will use FS9. If I can get FSX to do/look the same I will upgrade to FSX, because of the added features. To be honest, right now FS9 with Level-D, Ground Environment Pro, Activesky, and all the airport scenery I own from the various designers, gives me what I want.I'm giving FSX a fair shake against FS9 with all my addon's, I will continue to tweak away until I can no longer find anyting left to try. Then, and-only-then, will I make a decision as to which sim I will use most of the time. If and/or when Level-D, Ground Environment Pro, Active Sky, and airport designers makes the move to FSX will FS9 be removed from my computer.Right now FSX is looking nice, but I can get just about the same result in FS9. However, I not done tweaking FSX.

[Mike_CFII_MEL 789]

Hello Jeff,I installed fresh copy of FSX and SP1 on another drive in the same computer to run this test comparison. Just so noone can say there are major differences between the first and second screen shot and that

[Manny 1,293]

Mike.Your LOD setting to 8 was a FPS killer for me. I toned it down to 4.5 or 4.0 and it seems ok. [TERRAIN]SWAP_WAIT_TIMEOUT=120 That did the maximum for reduction of blurries.PerfBucket=7 (Chaning this to 70 did not help 1 bit)Manny

[LAdamson 240]

>It sure does, I don't even look out of the window above>1000ft. First/Last 1000f is all that matters.Then I'd stick to computer generated IMC, which is a "whole" lot cheaper than real! :D Can't imagine flight, without looking down! For a while, the IFR/IMC challenge is fun I suppose, yet so many of my retired commercial and military pilot acquaintances & friends, now fly VFR in high performance sport aircraft to look at the scenery below, a lot more often, than not! Anyway, I'm in the camp that says autogen can sometimes kill the look of good photo-real scenery. IMO, autogen is great for flying over the fence with my FS9 FlightScenery Portland, but takes away from my FSX MegaScenery Hawaii. As has been previously mentioned, autogen trees to a certain low level altitude would look good, Then get rid of them!And once again, in case anybody missed it, I'll post my infamous FSX MegaScenery Hawaii photo. When in motion, flying over this canyon gives an overwhelming sense of three dimentional depth and the look of being real. Cartoon autogen houses destroy the effect.FSX MegaScenery Hawaii -- with no fps hithttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/171894.jpg

[LAdamson 240]

I'm still not running SP-1. However, I've never done any tweaking whatsoever to FSX. My flights are as clear as the two in these screenshots, and have never been the blurred mess as in your second photo. I now use FSGenesis, and have moved water effects uo a few notches.L.Adamson Athlon 64 3800/2Gig/Geforce 7600GS 256MB/ 1600*1200*32http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/171895.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/171896.jpg

[Dirk98 354]

>>>It sure does, I don't even look out of the window above>>1000ft. First/Last 1000f is all that matters.>>Then I'd stick to computer generated IMC, which is a "whole">lot cheaper than real! :D >>Can't imagine flight, without looking down! You're missing the point, LAdamson. I still look out from the window at 10000ft or 36000ft all the same, in FS or in real life. But I do it below 1000ft much more frequently, trying to see or make up some details on the ground. And that's when the FS's autogen is really more important than barren painted textures. Another example, did you notice when passangers tend to press their faces at the windows more? I'll tell you - at low altitude. In MSFS world that's when the autogen kicks in. Bought once full collection of Photorealistic UK,VFR terrain and put them on the shelf not long after the purchase. The main reason was lack of 3D objects on the ground and lifeless textures at low altitude. Not that I like FS's autogen too much, say, vs. unique objects manually placed in add-on sceneries. But autogen still gives a huge coverage in MSFS world.