Heck, just put them in RAM if they don't fit in VRAM -- still a heck of a lot faster than constant index lookups for where that tile texture is and then go load it. But again that assumes a healthy chunk of RAM somewhere (2GB-4GB). But like I said, nVidia's next DX10 card is a 1GB unit with a 2GB VRAM unit that will have SLI in one card.Definitely think it is time to move on, the view switching texture swapping approach is just too unrealistic and really detracts from what could be "the definitive" simulation at a relative bargain.Unfortunately, Phil Taylor has stated that they will not change the engine -- which I assume means this approach will live on in the DX10 version of FSX.I must admit, it seems confusing to see them continue this method for sake of "Compatibility" but many of the existing FS9 aircraft/scenery/utilities don't work with FSX and even less likely to work with FSX SP1. So if backward compatibility is not good, why bother keeping that as part of the project goal?A new approach means new version from 3rd party Vendors, which means they can charge again (they already have the data), just reassemble it to fit the new approach -- new revenue stream for them using their existing data. So I really don't think the 3rd parth vendors will care that much about backward compatibility.But to cripple a product line for the sake of low-end users is not what I would consider an "informed" decision. I also believe the BETA group they currently use for FSX is perhaps NOT providing them with the feedback they need.I see a lot of "everything" is Ok but whenever I see any pics from those folks, they look horrible. Seems like some folks have A LOT of tolerance towards "acceptable".What happened to the LOD radius? Changing it in fsx.cfg seems to make no difference -- it's as if the value is for show only? Even if it is a major FPS killer, at least lets see the slide show. It seems like the code has restricted the LOD radius -- not exactly what I would call "optimized".Lets hope the Aces team can shake the "Microsoft way" of releasing software and do it right this time for FSX DX10. 1. Dump backwards compatibility (provide scenery conversion tool in SDK)2. Dump texture/tile swapping3. Support future and existing hardware by scaling to see real benefits (aka RAM and VRAM) -- they started with 4 core support, keep moving in that directionRobin.

>I see a lot of "everything" is Ok but whenever I see any pics>from those folks, they look horrible. Seems like some folks>have A LOT of tolerance towards "acceptable".>I see you're promoting X-Plane, and your tolerance must be pretty high, as to what's acceptable! :-hah IMO, X-Planes global scenery can be interesting as far as the shape of topography is concerned, but other than that, the X-Plane world is rather "dead" and lifeless. FSX - Glen Canyon Dam/Lake Powellhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/172098.jpgX-Plane - Same area, no dam, and bridge sits at the bottomhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/172099.jpgMaybe Tile Proxy can look like this some day.. :)http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/172100.jpg

I promote all simulations regardless of who codes them and/or what platform they are targeted at.You need to get scenery for XPlane or convert FS9 scenery if you want to see the dam (and more) -- tool to convert is free.Load up Phoenix X -- if FSX would just load in all the detail textures and keep them loaded, you'd be close to what you see in your last pic. Too bad, FSX swaps the high res tiles in, out, in, out, in, out as one flys and switches views -- that I have no tolerance for that -- it's like having blurred vision every time I move my head and then waiting for my vision to come be into focus. I'm in favor on compromises and I have lots of tolerance, but that's stretching it a little too much.Robin.

So your sollution is to compare default X-plane scenery with some of the area's where MS made hand build objects on its default scenery? Thats just as unfair as a X-plane fan posting comparisson screenshots outside North America, Europe & Japan where FS-X has no high quality SRTM mesh.The nice thing is. If FS9 / FS-X has custom objects in an area they can be exported and converted for use in X-plane. Of course you can't legaly spread these mods afterwards but at least you can help yourself.Have you installed SP1 yet? I do see some light bluring in the FS-X picture so I wondered about that.

Yup, your FSX pic does not show 1m textures :)I consider those a "bonus" at the moment. If my system only provides the 5m textures in time, I'm happy with those, at least it doesn't look worse than FS9...

>Yup, your FSX pic does not show 1m textures :)>>I consider those a "bonus" at the moment. If my system only>provides the 5m textures in time, I'm happy with those, at>least it doesn't look worse than FS9...Guess I'll have to throw in my "much used" Hawaiian MegaScenery pic again.......It's 1.5m or 1.9m as I rmemeber. MegaScenery compromised for disk space. The whole area has a rich 3D look to it.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/172101.jpg

>You need to get scenery for XPlane or convert FS9 scenery if>you want to see the dam (and more) -- tool to convert is>free.>I would, but then I don't really like the available aircraft, or the much touted X-Plane "flight dynamics" either! :-hah Five minutes of moving the yoke/stick/pedals around is about enough for me.X-Plane lacks in the feel of inertia and dampening. I've often compared it to a puppet on strings, where the aircraft seem to pitch, yaw and roll in exact harmony with the sticks movements.....more often than not. Just little or no sensation of riding on air! :-hmmmThis actually gives me a headache and form of CPU induced nausea, since I like to hand fly around scenic areas. :-lol My favorite RealAir model fly's rings around X-Plane, whether it's the FSX or FS9 model.BTW, with my 2Gigs of RAM, FSX texture swapping is a near non-event.L.Adamson

>Not trying to be offensive...but I am curious why when I run>X-Plane my textures remains clear and gradually fads with>distances (no really obvious blurries or texture detail>swaping). But under FSX, I get significant blurries and very>obvious texture swapping.>>I see several posts saying that nobody has the hardware to run>without some blurries, but that doesn't really explain why my>X-Plane can work well with a very good terrain mesh and>texture details and no blurries and with many scenery>objects?>>So I'm a little confused? What graphically is in FSX that>isn't in X-plane that might be causing the blurry problem?>>Please don't take this in the wrong way, this is NOT a debate>about FSX vs. X-plane -- I enjoy both, just curious why one>doesn't have a problem with texture and the other does?>>Robin.>X-Plane uses the OpenGL API which is much better than the Dx9 API.

Here's a very in-depth article about the processing FSX does for terrain textures. I didn't attempt to read all the way through it, but I bet X-Plane doesn't do anything near what is explained here:http://www.fsinsider.com/developers/Pages/GlobalTerrain.aspx

Irregardless of the used techniques its the endresult that counts don't you think? It doesn't matter if you use beter more accurate algoritms in the back when at the front your textures become a blurry mess.

Aaaah,Still looks pretty. Did you have the chance to look into the mirrored roundel thingy I posted in the other thread. (the low vis SF 360's right wing). This one at least has the right side up.Nice area around Glenn canyon too. I just buzzed trough the canyon with my trusty Sud-Ouest Vautour flying just a few meters from the canyon floor. Never saw the bridge or the dam (of course not they are not there in X-Plane) did see the canyon in highres the whole thing moving with 40 - 60 FPS in beatifull blurry free highres.

>Irregardless of the used techniques its the endresult that>counts don't you think? It doesn't matter if you use beter>more accurate algoritms in the back when at the front your>textures become a blurry mess.Of course. I've had problems with blurries in SP1 as well, but a majority of the people haven't. And I would guess virtually all of the techniques described in this article were done in RTM as well-- from what we've been told the only thing that has changed is how the work gets scheduled.Certainly there could be something about this change that causes some of our machines not to be able to keep up for whatever reason. But while the complexity of FSX's work undoubtedly makes it easier for a problem or inefficiency somewhere to cause blurries, by-in-large most people are able to enjoy these complex textures without blurries so I don't think ACES should scrap the whole system just because a few of us have a problem.Also, someone posted in the blurries thread that simply backing off to 2m textures solved the blurries other than the face that there were no 1m textures anymore. Try that-- I've never tried X-Plane, but I bet FSX's 2m textures would still look a good deal better than X-Plane's...

A bit of X-Plane flight through the mountain passes today (KPVU). Not too bad! Throw in some more interia, mass, dampening, some good VC's, and it will be great!edit: check out the airspeed. With no interial feel, I'd have never suspected it! :)But all kidding aside, X-Plane has it's good moments. I've owned two versions (7&8), have the global scenery, and used every completed demo version since available.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/172103.jpg

>Aaaah,>>Still looks pretty. Did you have the chance to look into the>mirrored roundel thingy I posted in the other thread. (the low>vis SF 360's right wing). This one at least has the right side>up.>I guess I don't remember the other thread.Glen Canyon, happily only an hour and half away by air! http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/172104.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/172105.jpg

I might be able to equal that with Phoenix if I hit the right altitude and angle in both XPlane and FS9 and FSX ;)Robin