4 minutes ago, Nemo said:

Our hardware is very close, do you have this pop-in taxi signs too? For me it seems that it is not related to any LOD settings.

Don't think I've noticed it, no. I'm about to start a new flight, I'll keep my eyes open. 

timestamped to the Terrain LOD segment

31 minutes ago, Waldo Pepper said:

timestamped to the Terrain LOD segment

Great video. I've seen it before but thanks for sharing it again. It seems like it doesn't make sense to go over 100, considering the minimal gains in scenery vs the taxation on the system. Just my opinion, though. 

1 hour ago, sidfadc said:

My little old i7 4790k CPU is crying in the corner......

https://youtu.be/ZmGSPOtov5o

1 hour ago, Bdub22 said:

Great video. I've seen it before but thanks for sharing it again. It seems like it doesn't make sense to go over 100, considering the minimal gains in scenery vs the taxation on the system. Just my opinion, though. 

What I always thought too. And that’s on on very large 4K screen. 

2 hours ago, TravelRunner404 said:

I have read a few posts in the MSFS forum that suggest this is related to internet bandwidth.  Anecdotally, I am fortunate to have 1 gig internet.  I was always on WiFi and the draw distance looked rough at times especially with Photogrammetry.  Speedtest was fine showing 350 mbps which is expected on Wifi with my distance from the router, but the needle bounces around and it doesn't look perfectly smooth.  I swear MSFS terrain requests and unpacks hundreds of 2mb files.  Combine that with anyone else in the house using wifi and I think the terrain can't catch up and wifi sucks and the constant small requests.

I switched to hardwire and my Speedtest went to ridiculously rock solid 800 Mbps.  I flew a test flight and the photogrammetry looked much better in the distance.  It looked like TLOD of 200 should.  Things were much more consistent and distance was definitely greater than wifi.  I am sure there needs to be more conclusive tests but I think wifi is bad the small file requests.  Even if you have a 250 mbs connection, it might be okay for a 1 gig file where it can ramp up to a download of 21/mbps, but the relentless small file requests get hung up with a wifi connection.

I refused to believe this is network related on my side or Xbox, as I have already have pre cached the location to work offline without Xbox servers and yet the same issue happens meaning the loading of buildings are lod related and not server related, also there is no photo grammtery in the Middle East and no there isn’t a lack of “data” for the region so buildings can render properly, bec fs2020 Has the most amount of buildings in the Middle East compared to other sims, and also if I suddenly move my plane back there Is a huge amount of buildings visible then they fade away due to the sht lod problem a lot did complain  about 

3 hours ago, TravelRunner404 said:

Speedtest was fine showing 350 mbps which is expected on Wifi with my distance from the router

This is exactly my scenario.  I can drill some holes and route and ethernet cable between the rooms that are involved. Right now we have a couple of devices pretty much always connected to the cable router via WiFi, and several IoT devices that don't need much bandwidth.  Do you think it would be worth it?

13 hours ago, Ixoye said:

A dynamic Lod system would be the best possible solution, we don't need a high Lod when we are on the ground at airports, that would solve most people's performance problems.

 What about airports on hills that overlook a lot of scenery?  or what about an airport in a valley surrounded by mountains covered in scenery?  Dynamic LOD sounds great but the only way to properly implement it that I can think of would involve line of sight calculations which may or may not slow everything down.

I'm on the latest beta and I find that terrain LOD definitely affect visuals. Increase it beyond 4.0 in usercfg.opt and the draw distance of terrain increases. If you have a beefy system and plenty of VRAM (my last flight I had a maximum dedicated VRAM of around 22GB) it's possible to use a TLOD of 6.0 over remote areas without a huge performance degradation. At higher altitudes more scenery will be visible with a higher TLOD. 

In the first image below, the volcano in the distance is still rendered fairly well, even though it's roughly 55km/30nm from the aircraft position (I measured the distance using Google Earth). In the second image, the taxi sign is visible in the distance in the centre of the picture (to the left of the taxiway). 

If Asobo manages to successfully implement DX12, we might be looking at much better multithreading and CPU usage, opening up possibilities like increasing TLOD beyond the in-menu max of 400. 

Edited September 2, 20223 yr by Cpt_Piett

38 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

I'm on the latest beta and I find that terrain LOD definitely affect visuals. Increase it beyond 4.0 in usercfg.opt and the draw distance of terrain increases. If you have a beefy system and plenty of VRAM (my last flight I had a maximum dedicated VRAM of around 22GB) it's possible to use a TLOD of 6.0 over remote areas without a huge performance degradation. At higher altitudes more scenery will be visible with a higher TLOD. 

In the first image below, the volcano in the distance is still rendered fairly well, even though it's roughly 55km/30nm from the aircraft position (I measured the distance using Google Earth). In the second image, the taxi sign is visible in the distance in the centre of the picture (to the left of the taxiway). 

If Asobo manages to successfully implement DX12, we might be looking at much better multithreading and CPU usage, opening up possibilities like increasing TLOD beyond the in-menu max of 400. 

I have noticed it may affect terrain further away however jt doesn’t make sense that increase lod would make the draw distance further but yet the closer buildings still look bad 

1 minute ago, Epicmc said:

I have noticed it may affect terrain further away however jt doesn’t make sense that increase lod would make the draw distance further but yet the closer buildings still look bad 

I think buildings are controlled by the object LOD.

I don’t know if this is still the case, but back in the day, at lower LOD settings, skyscrapers and photogrammetry downtown areas (like Vancouver) would be noticeably popping in as you approach so that where there was nothing, there was suddenly a skyline. So I increased LOD back then to 4 (equivalent to 400) which had stuff appearing on the horizon and stopped pop-ins for me. Since coming back to the sim, I see LOD 400 is in the main settings menu (nice!) and no longer requires hacking the config file. I’ve set it to 400 and it appears to do the same as before… no popping… tall buildings are rendered as far as you can see. I should try lower LOD settings… or not. 🙂

1 hour ago, Cpt_Piett said:

I think buildings are controlled by the object LOD.

No object lod only adds details to buildings, even if so iv tried 800+ no difference 

57 minutes ago, Virtual-Chris said:

I don’t know if this is still the case, but back in the day, at lower LOD settings, skyscrapers and photogrammetry downtown areas (like Vancouver) would be noticeably popping in as you approach so that where there was nothing, there was suddenly a skyline. So I increased LOD back then to 4 (equivalent to 400) which had stuff appearing on the horizon and stopped pop-ins for me. Since coming back to the sim, I see LOD 400 is in the main settings menu (nice!) and no longer requires hacking the config file. I’ve set it to 400 and it appears to do the same as before… no popping… tall buildings are rendered as far as you can see. I should try lower LOD settings… or not. 🙂

Iv seen that jt doesn’t help with far that much and the close buildings still look bad even with object and terrain lod 800+ 
 

here is a landing in Cairo with terrain and object lod 800 all maxed out settings

pjc is from phone 

https://ibb.co/cbJYNhw

 

notice that like that after jt is no buildings