I guess this is one way to increase performance, even if it is a bit artificial. Take a look at the difference. On the larger shots it's best viewed by opening both frames in two separate windows and flipping back and forth. Both shots are using Very Dense autogen, but notice how much more dense it is in the Pre-SP1 shots. Its especially noticeable in the distance. Seems the people that were crying about autogen density being to dense got thier wish, and its been scaled back, though thats certainly not something I would have opted for, as its easy enough to lower the slider your self. I repeated this test twice to eliminate the possibility of autogen variance, and the results were duplicated.Never the less its a d@mn fine looking game, and if I get my texture loading performance back on par with Pre-SP1 I'll be good to go. Pre SP1http://sio.midco.net/FTP5/pre-sp1b.jpgPost SP1http://sio.midco.net/FTP5/post-sp1b.jpgPre SP1http://sio.midco.net/FTP5/pre-sp1c.jpgPost SP1http://sio.midco.net/FTP5/post-sp1c.jpgPre-SP1http://sio.midco.net/FTP5/pre-sp1.jpgPost-SP1http://sio.midco.net/FTP5/post-sp1.jpg

Something wrong there with the SP1 install, I think. It doesn't reduce the autogen, slider-setting-to-slider-setting, only the visibility distance. Have you, by any chance, ever used a modifed autogen file - ANY file normally found in the autogen folder? If so, then its possible your SP1 install didn't `take` and you need to do it again, from a completely fresh install. If that's not it, then I don't know what it is.On mine the modified file dates are:Materials.spb - 11/05-07AutogenDescriptions.spb - 11/05/07AutogenDescriptions_Min.spb - 10/05/07AutogenDescriptions_Mid.spb - 10/05/07the others remain as before.Allcott

>Something wrong there with the SP1 install, I think. It>doesn't reduce the autogen, slider-setting-to-slider-setting,>only the visibility distance. Have you, by any chance, ever>used a modifed autogen file - ANY file normally found in the>autogen folder? If so, then its possible your SP1 install>didn't `take` and you need to do it again, from a completely>fresh install. If that's not it, then I don't know what it>is.>On mine the modified file dates are:>>Materials.spb - 11/05-07>AutogenDescriptions.spb - 11/05/07>AutogenDescriptions_Min.spb - 10/05/07>AutogenDescriptions_Mid.spb - 10/05/07>>the others remain as before.>>>>AllcottNot sure about that! I think they calculate the amount of scenery for each of your settings based on the following 2 params it assigns, based on your systems capabilities. Lesser performance machines are lower, mine are,ProcSpeed=7554PerfBucket=6

If you want more autogen then you could always add these lines to the "Terrain" section of the fsx.cfg file. That's what I do.TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=6000TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=6000

>Something wrong there with the SP1 install, I think. I think not. This is with a clean install of FSX, and I uninstalled and reinstalled SP1 for the second, and now third tests. The results are the same, and of course SP1 "took", otherwise there would not be a 30% difference in frame rate between the two images.I even refreshed the slider in game to confirm SP1 is not loading up with a density other than what the slider shows. Actually, from what I saw the difference in autogen is even more pronounced at dense, whereas these shots are at very dense. So there is certainly a difference in autogen btween RTM and SP1, as seen by these images. If your resutls are otherwise I'd like to see two identical shots from your system, pre and post SP1. And I'm not complaining here, I'm just sharing my observations. I could really care less about the difference as I can easily notch it up.

C'mon, "really cuts" it? I need a magnifying glass to see it ..Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

Did you fix it? Or are you running with fiber frame of 1.0 or something?

I agree w/ you solar. I was flying the Red Bull race before SP1(clean install) and after SP1 and definately saw a difference in autogen density.

I don't notice any difference at all in my FSX.Since you mention it, I suppose I could compare some of my RTM shots vs. SP1 and see what I can see.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

>Did you fix it? Or are you running with fiber frame of 1.0>or something?Yeah, I'm not sure how as all I did is install the April DX update and reisntall SP1 yet again, and now the textures actually load, whereas before they simply didn't load, though they still don't load like RTM. Now that its working like Sp1 does I tried fiber frame 1.0 and bandwidth mult 40 & 400 and although I lost 30% performance its still a bit blurry when flying down low, though not like was seen in my earlier shot. Even with these cfg settings when I'm flying around the textures seem to be one or two "steps" behind, becuase when I pause and wait a few moments they snap one or two times into full resolution.

>C'mon, "really cuts" it? I need a magnifying glass to see it>..Ok, maybe I am exaggerating, but I was quite surprised to see such a difference. Looks like a 30% reduction or more. The first set has 30 trees vs 40 trees, and the second set seems to have a greater difference, but I'm not counting all those. lol Whether its reduced autogen or reduced LOD radius I don't know, as all I can say is I see fewer trees at any given setting.

There is no doubt that SP1 reduces autogen compared with RTM. Prior to installing SP1, I took a number of screenshots. When compared to screenshots after SP1, it is obvious that SP1 does reduce autogen. All slider settings were identical, pre and post SP1, so evidently SP1 is the factor involved for reducing the autogen.

Possibly it cuts down a bit, but:After installing SP1 there is no need to delete/rename default.xml anymore. In european cities like Frankfurt or Rome now the autogen looks much much better and much more dense.I love it!------Single core Athlon 3800+, 7600GT with 512MB, 3GB RAM

"SP1 is the factor involved for reducing the autogen."Well, maybe we can read it the reverse way:"reducing the autogen is (one of) the factor involved in SP1 increased performance..."Is this better?

Perhaps the default, hard-coded settings for these two parameters have been lowered in SP1:TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL (4500 RTM default)TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL (3000 RTM default)That would certainly explain why you might be getting fewer autogen items despite keeping the same autogen settings. The simple way to test this is to add those two lines in the TERRAIN category within fsx.cfg, with the RTM default settings mentioned above. If you get more trees than in your SP1 screenshot, then the default values for those two cell settings were indeed lowered in SP1. If not, it's something else.