readhttp://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2008...e-envelope.aspx

Great post. Thanks.J-

Is there any performance difference between limiting the number of trees or buildings in the TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=4500 vs. just turning down the sliders?

I havent actually measured it, but there is a significant bandwidth reduction so my guess is yes.That is because changing the max value changes what the values are at each step. With the default max, 4500, sparse will be much larger than when the max is 500.

I have always known that autogen was a problem with FSx-- right from when the first demo came out. My lowly AMDxp 2400 ran the FSx demo quite nicely - nicely enough to enjoy the new features -- PROVIDED that the autogen was turned off. Now that I have a dual Core CPU and have applied the autogen "fix" - I am reasonably happy with FSx.It appears that my 256 meg Vid card isn't quite good enough though - does the job mostly, but seems to really need 512 meg.Barry

Na, I wanna know why my 7900gtx and now 8800gt CTD in full screen but not in windowed.The Nvidia/menu CTD curse continues.........Trees do look nice though.

I love these posts. Really forces one to get the thinking cap out!Here's the way I envelope this topic:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/187755.jpgLet's do some cost-benefit analysis.The above set of photos was taken over Redmond, WA from 2,000 feet.Question: Would you pay a 25% reduction in frames to get the trees in Scene A?(Full disclosure: GEX textures are under these trees.)In my view, scene A does not justify the cost. Worse: It reduces the value of scene B (by creating a negative performance perception of FSX).Easy to fix though. Just move the slider to the left one notch to Dense from Ridiculously Expensive.

Im looking forward to see what this thread brings forth....A real coincidence this Phil , I was just today reading your blog on the subject actually.....I recommend others do the sameCheersPete :)http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/supporter.jpg