Yes, works as designed to simulate detail fade at a distance. The blurries I've seen some are having is the textures never come back clear. Got to be something wrong there along with low frames for some people.Ian.

I did have the major blurries the very first time I started FSX after installing SP1. At that time I lowered "Global Texture resolution" one notch and blurries went away. Then a short time later in another area I got them again. That time I had to close FSX and then restart it again.Eventually I made changes to FSX.cfg to lower the number of trees displayed when autogen is on max. I noramally run most scenery sliders at max. Haven't had blurries since, but not sure if above was the fix.

Tom,Thank you! You're a very good demonstration of tolerance -- "...textures come back fast, within 2 to 5 seconds...". For some of us that is not tolerable, for other's they live with it and all is good.But what if you didn't have to wait 2 to 5 seconds? What if their is a coding method that would reduce that to nothing? What if that method did NOT work with 128MB VRAM? Would you sacrafice the low end and force them to upgrade?I suspect, making FSX work with low end equipment has some what limited it's ability to leverage on high end equipment. The approach Aces' have used to texture detail is now dated and just not scalable to efficiently use more modern hardware. 1-2GB VRAM cards are going to become standard by the end of this year, but end of next year probably 2-4GB VRAM (espeically DX10 cards).Time to update the way textures are handled. Aces have done a great job on updating to get multi-CPU support, now just take it one step more (which I'll guess is actually easier than doing the CPU threading work).This is NOT negative to Aces, they did a great job getting the performance improvements out of SP1. I seriously hope they rethink the texture swapping approach with the DX10 version -- going out the hard drive everytime you change a view to get textures and figure what texture to use and then load just isn't a great way to emulate the experience of flight. When's the last time you went out in an aircraft (large or small) and watched your favorite sight shape shift and morph everytime you looked at it?

SP1 = blurriesRTM = crisp & clearI have spent hours trying to tweak SP1 but just can't find the solution. SO gone back to RTM. Hope MS fix this.

Hi Folks When I first installed SP1 I was really perplexed. My machine is a dual core 6600, 2GB Ram, NVidia GTS 8800 Video Card, which ran FSX really well with all sliders (except water) at least 80% to the right.When I installed SP1(clean install of FSX, than Defrag) I was experiencing most of the anamolies Ive run across in the forums, textures never loading, Autogen popping, bad stuttering, particularly in spot view, and one I havent run across-my AI planes textures would take a really long time to load, a couple of minutes, so my usual visual of AI aircraft was a blank plane. I decided to uninstall and start from scratch. The difference has been night and day. The 2nd install of FSX and SP1 runs smooth as silk, no texture loading problems, no stuttering, no autogen popping. Harlan

Yeah, but right now, for better or worse, it is what it is, and no SP patch, is going to be enough to change that! That requires a full redesign of the graphic engine, so we won't see anything like that until at least FSXI!

By the way, I'm not complaining at all, SP1 has been good to me. My textures are crisp and clear out to a relatively realistic distance. No complaints at all.Ian.

But does it Tom?I don't think either of us are qualified to make that statement/assumption.I have considerable coding experience and if I were to guess, I'd suggest that going with fixed texture size and not swapping is really just a matter of removing some code. Storing textures in VRAM may not be happening and that would need to be added. But based on some folks who have had success with increasing AGP aperture size, I dare suggest that code is definitely still geared towards older hardware and somewhat aged. It has been a long time since I had to mess with AGP aperture size.I'm willing to bet that they don't need a complete re-write of the scenery engine -- certainly no where near as complex as having to deal with Multi-CPU threading.This isn't a complaint either, but there sure seems to be a huge fear of complaints in this forum?? Not sure why or where that is coming from? This is more of suggestion for a more scalable future for FSX.

>But does it Tom?>>I don't think either of us are qualified to make that>statement/assumption.>>I have considerable coding experience and if I were to guess,>I'd suggest that going with fixed texture size and not>swapping is really just a matter of removing some code. >Storing textures in VRAM may not be happening and that would>need to be added. But based on some folks who have had>success with increasing AGP aperture size, I dare suggest that>code is definitely still geared towards older hardware and>somewhat aged. It has been a long time since I had to mess>with AGP aperture size.>>I'm willing to bet that they don't need a complete re-write of>the scenery engine -- certainly no where near as complex as>having to deal with Multi-CPU threading.>>This isn't a complaint either, but there sure seems to be a>huge fear of complaints in this forum?? Not sure why or where>that is coming from? This is more of suggestion for a more>scalable future for FSX.>>I think if it were that easy, Aces would have done it, this has been an issue in FS ever since I can remember!!

Chris -I get EXACTLY what you mention above -There's a simple test for the dynablurs. If the textures surrounding the aircraft are blurred, simply hit the pause key. If, after a few tens of seconds, the textures sharpen up and return to full quality, then it's the dynablurs. Some people have reported that it may take minutes, which indicates very poor texture update speeds.So - what's the fix for this?JerryG

>Why are you so derogatory towards people?>>We're just trying to resolve a problem with blurries and you>continue to provide just negative confrontational statements>-- does this help you? or anyone?Actually, Robin I'm not the least bit "derogatory towards people." To certain individuals who only post "hit and run one liners" yes, but not in general. If one were to actually do the research, my "derogatory" posts would probably constitute less than 0.2% of my total number of posts over the past many years. :-bigangelBTW, the vast majority of my posts are made in the several developer's forums here, since development for FS is what I do full-time... ;)As it happens, this particular thread was intended to be for those who do "NOT have blurries with SP-1" (emphasis mine), but has since been hijacked. ;)I've read with great interest what you've written regarding the use of "VRAM" (or, more precisely possible misuse), which leads me to suspect that perhaps what ACES is referring to as "VRAM" isn't the same as what you are calling "VRAM."For the sake of accuracy, what FSX actually does is "map" an allotment of the computer's own RAM as a "virtual RAM space." This allocation is scaled based on the target video card's own hardware memory (which sometimes isn't accurately reported, but that's another tale altogether). All texture compositing takes place within this "virtual RAM" before being blitted over to the video card, after which the various Shader passes required by the .cfg settings are performed by the GPU prior to being sent to the monitor.All writes made to the "virtual ram space" are done in 1MB chunks, which is why if there isn't an available 1MB chunk of contiguous space, the user will be greeted with the now infamous "Your computer has run out of memory..." message.Now, knowing that the actual compositing of the bitmaps polled from all the disparate resources takes place within the CPU's own RAM, it should be more clear why some folks are seeing such widely varying results in situ. That is precisely why it is critical to find the appropriate balance of tasks for the processor(s) to spend time doing. It also explains why certain sim settings affect overall performance more than other settings might, with the determining factor being of course just where in the pipeline that cfg setting is performed.Please note that none of what I've written above is a "defense" of how ACES have coded the process, but instead seeks to clarify just what is being done when, and by what... It simply is what it is; we have to cope with it as best we can given the resources at our disposal.BTW, for the "ultimate stress test," I set up one of my company's aircraft to use "unlimited fuel," and have had it circumnavigating the world @FL310 continuously for sixteen days so far. That's a total of ~384 hours so far without a single error. I check the sim ever few hours to see how it's doing... Sometime later today I'll find a spot to land... :-wave :-beerchug

VRAM is Video RAM in my references and resides physically on the video card -- normally this is DDR3 or DDR4 RAM modules running at very high frequencies but also with higher latency but still provide extremely good bandwidth (considerably better than DDR2 RAM on the motherboard). Virtual RAM is an allocation of hard disk drive space to act as Main memory/RAM found as DDR or DDR2 modules on the motherboard (aka the Paging file). This is the "Tradition" use of the term BUT it sounds like you're using it to define an area in main RAM which is used by FSX and then pumped to the video card via DX.You want textures to reside in graphic's card RAM (VRAM) as that is the fastest path to the frame buffer (which is what you ultimately see).Prime95 is a great tool for memory and CPU testing as you can run multiple instances of it on separate CPU cores -- this will really stress test the CPU and RAM subsystem -- doesn't affect graphics RAM at all. To push graphics RAM and GPU you will need to run 3DMark or some other graphics intensive tool.Using VRAM is definitely something I hope the Aces team investigate because 1-2GB VRAM is A LOT of space to hold textures, easily enough to hold a 110 mi LOD radius worth and the video card will do the compression and uncompression in hardware (double bonus). Right now it appears that Aces are trying to make everything work for the LCD which is a 64MB or 128MB video card. Might be great for low end hardware/users but for current market hardware that limitation is definitely under utilizing the hardware.When I see posts of people saying FSX was built for "Future" hardware I do tend to have a chuckle, until SP1 and multi-core support it really was NOT built for current and certainly not for future hardware.nVidia and ATI are producing large VRAM cards for a reason -- you don't need 1GB or 2GB VRAM for a few frame buffers -- it's there to be used for texture caching a whatever else the developer can squeeze into it to avoid making round trips thru the main FSB using the CPU.In fact, with current VRAM plans by nVidia and ATI, I could easily see 110 mi LOD radius with room left over to preload or look ahead beyond the 110mi so that texture swapping will never ever be an issue (at least not a visible one to the frame buffer).If you apply this to the TileProxy -- wow!! You'll have an eye candy flight experience that is almost "as real as it gets" :)I think it would be a mistake to not look at what nVidia and ATI have planned for their future graphics cards. End of next year 2GB and 4GB will be the norm for VRAM -- why not leverage this?I think everyone here wants a better product. Hats off to Aces for making big improvements in that direction with SP1. Lets hope the they continue on with the same committment. I don't think anyone would argue they WANT texture swapping or morphing scenery? Would they?These discussions are all for the good of the product.

"As it happens, this particular thread was intended to be for those who do "NOT have blurries with SP-1"" - BillSay what?sheesh!

>VRAM is Video RAM in my references and resides physically on>the video card -- normally this is DDR3 or DDR4 RAM modules>running at very high frequencies but also with higher latency>but still provide extremely good bandwidth (considerably>better than DDR2 RAM on the motherboard). >>Virtual RAM is an allocation of hard disk drive space to act>as Main memory/RAM found as DDR or DDR2 modules on the>motherboard (aka the Paging file). This is the "Tradition">use of the term BUT it sounds like you're using it to define>an area in main RAM which is used by FSX and then pumped to>the video card via DX.Robin, I'm going to assume that your "definitions" are for the benefit of other readers. I certainly understand this myself, being a professional developer... ;)The term's meaning isn't mine; it's the one that ACES used, and that was the entire point of my explanation... Both terms compress down to VRAM, so it's a bit ambiguous without clarification.Of course ACES is coding for the LCD of existing hardware; they must, otherwise they'd so seriously cripple sales and marketability so as to make the entire franchise fail.As for the concept of "programming for future hardware," that's not an urban myth; it's been part and parcel of FS's design philosophy for decades. Unfortunately, after all the design decisions had been locked down for FSX and preliminary coding was well underway, the entire hardware paradigm shifted hard to port, and FSX got stuck in the wrong lane. Phil (and others at ACES) have taken great pains to explain this over the past year. Apparently it's falling on deaf ears though... :)At this juncture it's really fruitless to speculate about what "might have been," at least insofar as searching for what can be done to ameliorate "what we have in the here and now." If you truly wish to have some actual input into FS's future, I'd strongly urge you to contact ACES directly to see about getting into the developer's pipeline rather than simply hoping that "someone at ACES" happens to notice what may well prove be a great idea. ;)As I said before, I'm not attempting to "justify" ACES's design. But, it is critical to understand what their design actually is...

>"As it happens, this particular thread was intended to be for>those who do "NOT have blurries with SP-1"" - Bill>>Say what?>>sheesh!Manny, the thread's title says it all: "Is Anyone NOT getting blurries with SP-1?"What's the "sheesh" supposed to mean? ;)