Another TP thread, sorry. I just thought I'd share what make this tool so immersive, beyond the obvious realism factor. Quite honestly, the stock MSFSX ground textures blur out to soup beyond the range at which the textures sharpen. While this may be ok in the wild or farm terrain, city environments look like gray smudges. Especially at night, where there ought to be hundreds of little pinprick lights that should just get harder to see farther away, MSFS turns cities into an orange blur.For whatever reason, Tile Proxy tiles, even those that aren't loaded and are blurry, are more 'busy', succesfully emulating what a city might look like from far away. Rather than an abstract smudge, I get busy detail.And finally, having water be different hues of blue and green rather than generic MSFS water also sells the immersion. If only we could have specular maps and reflection on top of those colors, it'd be perfect.Any other reasons this is the direction you think MSFS should go? free of the technical "it's not working/how to" threads? :)

Just tested the software with two different source...First I disagree on the experience with default textures on my system ;-) sharp and almost no blurry textures with default...As for Tile I like the idea and great work however with the two sources I used had a lot of blurry textures above Europe...That's why the software has left my HD...I have a fast system (C2D E6600@2,75 7950GT 512MB + 4GB ram/ etc...) The loading time when flying is also a dis advantage...Also not enough high res texture /12/13/14 etc available from the sources regarding my experience above Europe... Have also a fast Internet connection 6mb :-)Used sources where g***g and v***t earthSo i think the idea is great but still left out a lot of things to think about...- seasons- Night lightning- Quality of textures- etc..Despite my experience I would like to thank the author for his hardwork...Andr

The positives I see is there is no need for landclass, vector roads, proper colored terrain, and autogen objects (trees and houses) which may be placed by a landclass file in areas they don't really occupy in the real world. Every tree, bush, house, land texture/color and road is there (or was there when the shots were taken). Performance increases as these calculations need not be made. Mountains, canyons have realistic shading, deserts finally look correct. Man made earth marks (tracks, mining etc.) that appear on vfr charts as checkpoints appear. The water where it isn't tiled or colored differently from composite images looks totally real. Vegitation is real (love how for instance the mountains of Idaho have trees on one side of the mountain and not on the other-like reality!)Negatives:Lack of seasons and night-though for me the seasons in fs don't look very real anyway and I prefer to fly summer because of this (the most realistic fs season for me).The uneven map coverage-and large bodies of water don't look good. Long loading times and blurries that can occur if you get ahead of it (another reason I'd like to just download permanently to the drive and not stream).However-in the areas that are well done (and there seem to be enough to keep me busy for at least a year or two) I have never seen such a breathtaking realistic viewpoint out the window in a sim. I finally feel like I can fly vfr-following roads that look like roads, and landmarks that look like landmarks.I think it is revolutionary in the same way real world mesh/real world weather was revolutionary in the late 90's, is the future, and is already compelling in the present in this form. I prefer it in its' to the present defaults of fsx and can see it only improving in all aspects in the future.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>can see it only improving in all aspects in the future.>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgGeofa which sources did you used maybe I used for Europe the wrong ones?Andr

The G source seems to work better for me-though I think someone said the other one is better for Europe?http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

> can see it only improving in all aspects in the future.I hope I don't have to do ALL the work myself. The project is now up on sourceforge and the download is available from there as well (no changes made so far compared to the May 1st release). A website will soon be set up under tileproxy.sourceforge.net - right now it shows a blank index page. The project will also offer source code access through a SVN repository.The tileproxy project - being open source - will gladly accept third party patches that add speed, realiability and features when I think these updates are good. Otherwise feel free to fork the project (the license allows that).My future work will focus on making sure everything works with FSX Service Pack 1 (for which I heard through the grapevine that it does NOT) and I hope to provide translations for the manual into French and Italian and German languages soon - as well as a working uninstallation option.Christian

>The G source seems to work better for me-though I think>someone said the other one is better for Europe?>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgYep tested both and in my experience the other had a better res...Do you run with two different cfg files FSX and scenery for disable and enable?Going to do a retry because it can be disabled with ease :-)Any settings which made a difference?Thanks for sharing :-)Andr

I had given up on FSX, because my computer would not allow running it at reasonable performances

Using tile proxy, and FSX road traffic, I was surprised to see nice traffic of trucks and cars on the highways going through my hometown, and elsewhere. Matching is very close to parallel, sometimes the cars are off the rosd by a little, but it adds to the realism especially when the high res is available.Its superb when the res is high, but clownishly blurred elsewhere.When I should be getting high res and was not, using the "refresh scenery" shortcut remedied it,...in time...al

Brilliant! Congratulations and thank you for your amazing and generous contribution to the world of Flight Sim. :-beerchug

I am confused Geofa. Why is there no need for Autogen? Am I the only one who can't forgo autogen, by the way? What was the point of asking for all those dense forrest we asked (and got) of MS?

No you're not. I'm another autogen addict :)Christian

I am confused-where did I say there was no need for autogen? My comment above about autogen was incorrect placement which happens quite a lot (my housing area has office buildings,churches, and farms). The tileproxy has my house with my car in the driveway-and all the correct trees in the correct places. I know that is due to landclass-but I haven't found a landclass that really does justice to the real world. Of course-tileproxy has it perfect.That being said-I do get a greater sense of reality without autogen with the photo real textures showing at altitude (greater than 800 ft. agl) than with it on. My wish as I have expressed before would be to have autogen appear at altitudes below 800ft. agl-then have it evaporate where the more realistic photo textures can take over.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

If I am understanding your question-I just disable the world folders in the scenery folder if I want to turn it off.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>No you're not. I'm another autogen addict :)>IMO, autogen is a must for those trees when using FlightSenery's Portland in FS9, or to help cover those un-pleasing blurry FS9 ground textures that cover default scenery areas!But................I nearly hate the stuff in FSX, where I prefer to get to a 1000' altitude or so, as the default areas quickly sharpen up. Just can't stand those awful cartoonville houses; but still get major buildings anyway, thanks to the global scenery settings.L.Adamson