Hey Larry-"Still haven't gotten around to installing tile-proxy"......Sounds a little like I don't have fsx but I won't because blah blah blah.Download it! Try it out! I haven't seen Salt Lake area or many other highly rendered western areas like you get to fly in for real (and me every once in a while) like this. If I were you I be trying it out in a nanosecond!For free there is no penalty for trying it out-thanks to Christian for taking reality to the next step...http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Very true, have to agree with you there.Anyway, my vote is to do both or at the very least try another approach -- nothing wrong with looking outside the box. If folks don't mind the texture swapping and view change morphing then go for it. But for folks that have the VRAM to spare why not implement a more modern approach to scenery presentation -- especially now that DX10 is opening the door for change?

I would assume probably because they aren't flight sims where fluidity is a crucial factor. DX is fine for some applications, but I think it fails in this arena. It's just not geared toward what they're trying to do with it. It's almost like using a car to tow an airplane, when in reality, you should be using a tug. It's just not made for this type of thing, and I'm well convinced of it guys. Every time, we keep having the same issues over and over. You would tend to want to believe, that by this day and age, if DX is a prime platform for this, our 'issues' would have long been solved, but they aren't. :/ It's utterly disappointing.

> why>not implement a more modern approach to scenery presentationI haven't seen a shred of objective evidence about what is "modern" and what is "outdated" besides your own subjective commentary. It is very possible given all the parameters that has to be thrown into the mix that what FSX offers in terms of scenery engine is far from "outdated".Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

>This whole thread is why I think Tileproxy generated scenery>is the future of flight sim. I think you may be right here!Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

>Scenery wise it's all still compromises though, whether it's>FSX, FS9, or X-Plane. Just depends where, time of day, and>complexity of scenery.Thats where we multiple flightsim engine users get our bonus from. Its always good to look over the fence and see how the neigbours are doing things.After a frustating experience in one flightsim you can also take a break and use the other one. It only makes you appreciate each FS engine unique good features more.

Modern / outdated (classic?) who cares as long as we get great visuals.My own gues at what modern is:Procedural textures. http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2006/11/09/...es_Future_Gam/1http://www.profxengine.com/index.php?PAGE=FEATURESNo large textures to install just a simple algoritm that dynamicly provides textures at will that can be made in whatever resolution is needed. Generate the textures at loadtime in the resolution that best fits the graphics card / memory situation and use algoritims that reflect geographic area, current weather conditions and season.With Dual/Quad cores you use the extra cores to generate/change the textures on the fly. Loads of possibilities here.

Geof,I'm painting that long due RV6A, which is taking about every free second. This forum is for rest purposes! :)I downloaded tileproxy, ran the install, but didn't complete the proceedure due to impatience (getting old I guess). At that point I deselected all of those scenery boxes in the scenery library, but FSX started running at about 10 fps from it's normal 30. Was also getting shimmering & stuttering. I then ran a re-build with disc one, and un-install for tile proxy. All is back to normal. When I get some extra time, patience, and the RV put together; since I've been paying eight months for an empty 1/2 hangar................then I'll get with the tile proxy program! BTW-I haven't yet installed SP-1 either! :D L.Adamson

The evidence:1. The morphing scenery2. Phil Taylor admitting the they have not changed the scenery engine in a long long long time3. The dynamics of modern hardware has changed significantly since the original design of the scenery engine4. SP1 exists to support multiple CPUsAll that need to do now is work the GPU VRAM side

What you don't wanna pay $400 for DX10 ... errr Vista Ultimate ;)

Maybe it's the coding?Microsoft has a good tradition in purchasing a product, than purchasing another and let some people glue these together. In time, more and more pieces are stuck together, and as the years pass, nothing's new, just enhanced and overbloated, chaos has taken over in most areas of the code and not a single individual knows what's happening behind the scene (but rather wonders how the whole thing didn't become an artificial and self-thinking individual).I guess X-plane has no such history compared to FS where the origins reach back to Bruce Artwick et. al. and I bet there's still enough of the old code in there which didn't undergo any performance tuning or review.And I guess because of the complexity of the whole FS beast, it's sheer impossible to re-invent it but rather build something around it which kind of encapsulates it and make it appear in a different shape (e.g. adapt to multicore for instance) without producing native code which really would run fast. That's always a compromise (like running foreign, non-native code in an emulator) and has its tradeoffs in terms of fluidity and speed.X-Plane on the other end has one main developer which I guess has a much better overview of his product. FS development crew is certainly changing too often that someone could have a closer relationship to the code.These days, nobody rewrites something that big like FS or Windows, that's why thy're so buggy. Remember, we're living in a capitalistic world, FS is here to yield money, not fun, and every minute spent too much with coding cuts down revenues, so the minimum is good enough, eye candy rules, that's the mass marked (whereas X-Plane is only a niche player)...Correct me if I'm wrong ;-)Andreas

>XPlane is FAA certified so the flight dynamics can't be that>far off base.That FAA certification I heard has nothing or very little to do with this game today. In any case, that does not add anything in comparisons to MSFS today or other sims. Can you quote otherwise a concrete abstract of that certification and the year when it was adopted.

it's to see if your landing gear is down or not

>1. The morphing scenery>2. Phil Taylor admitting the they have not changed the>scenery engine in a long long long time>3. The dynamics of modern hardware has changed significantly>since the original design of the scenery engine>4. SP1 exists to support multiple CPUs>>All that need to do now is work the GPU VRAM sideNone of the above is a "proof" or "evidence". The fact that automobiles still have 4 wheels after 170 years of automotive era doesn't mean that they all of a sudden need 3 or 5. Basic logic.Unless you can show me another flight sim that delivers the same quality scenery (or better) as in FSX with the equivalent parameters and with superior performance characteristics you don't have any evidence.Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

>I would assume probably because they aren't flight sims where>fluidity is a crucial factor. DX is fine for some>applications, but I think it fails in this arena. It's just>not geared toward what they're trying to do with it. It's>almost like using a car to tow an airplane, when in reality,>you should be using a tug. It's just not made for this type of>thing, and I'm well convinced of it guys. Every time, we keep>having the same issues over and over. You would tend to want>to believe, that by this day and age, if DX is a prime>platform for this, our 'issues' would have long been solved,>but they aren't. :/ It's utterly disappointing.Look, I will openly admit I don't know a lot about graphics APIs... But you don't seem to have any details to back up your case. I hate to sound rude, but you seem to me to be spouting fanboish gobblygook without backing it up with anything specifics. What is you experience with OpenGL and DX?Again, the "issue" being discussed in this thread is how FS and X-Plane choose to implement terrain. Its not my impression there is anthing about DX that forces them to go with a LOD system rather than a static texture system like X-Plane. If you want to argue about whether OpenGL could do a better job implementing an LOD system, fine, but the arguement here has been about the advantages/disadvantages to a LOD system that would almost certainly be present using any kind of graphics API including OpenGL.Second, FPS is far less important in a simulation than most other types of games. Try playing BattleField 2 at 20 FPS. While 20 FPS is not "great" in a flight sim, it is very playable where 20 FPS is simply unplayable in a shooter.That being said, I did try to go out and do some research regarding OpenGL and found some posts indicating that it is not as limited by the "small batch" problem as DX is. So for the sake of FSX, that may have meant that they could have got away without batching autogen SP1 introduces which may have avoided some of autogen popping and perhaps stutters that some people are reporting. But I don't think this relates to the terrain system at all. I think your rant is misplaced.