Vertex Count Limits

The system described above is not the only thing to consider when it comes to LOD calculations, since it could allow for small models (on the screen) to be much too complex and hamper performance. Therefor other metrics must come into play with the aim of preserving the global vertex density.

 

The other system that is used in combination with the minSize is to use a data curve that matches the vertex count with a specific minimum screen size. For reference, here is a table that demonstrates the relationship between (approximate) vertex count and screen size when the simulation is using different graphics settings:

 

Vertex Count	Minimum Size On Screen
	Ultra	High	Medium	Low
150	0%	0%	0%	0%
300	1%	1%	2%	4%
2500	5%	9%	18%	36%
5,000	7%	14%	28%	56%
30,000	18%	34%	68%	136%
60,000	25%	49%	98%	196%
150,000	39%	77%	154%	308%
250,000	50%	100%	200%	400%
500,000	71%	141%	282%	564%
1,000,000	100%	200%	400%	800%
2,000,000	142%	283%	566%	1132%

 

In general you should consider the Vertex Count Limit as a modifier of the minSize attribute specified in the XML. Essentially, the effective minSize used by the simulation is the maximum value between that specified in the XML and that calculated from the curve created by the table above.

Additional Information

The vertex count and the minSize are the two main metrics which will decide the LOD that is displayed in the simulation, but there are a few other things that will be taken in to consideration:

• the last LOD minSize value is always forced to 0.5%.
• The second to last LOD minSize value is always greater than or equal to 1%, unless it is the user aircraft.

 

As a consequence of the two points mentioned above, an object that has a screen size of less than 0.5% is never displayed. 

One of these last points is critically important.  If you run at 1080, 0.5% of that is 5.4 pixels.  If you run at 1440, 0,5% of that is 7.2 pixels.  If you run at 4k, 0.5% of that is 10.8 pixels.

Easy to see why you don't necessarily see aircraft traffic at a great distance.......

Feel free to quote their own SDK back at them in their forums when you ask for this to be changed.

19 minutes ago, kevinfirth said:

Feel free to quote their own SDK back at them in their forums when you ask for this to be changed.

For the past week I have been testing XP12 and have been enjoying a sky full of traffic miles and miles away.

1 minute ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

For the past week I have been testing XP12 and have been enjoying a sky full of traffic miles and miles away.

I have no interest in XP, and I'm not exactly certain what the relevance of your statement is to MSFS2024 LODs - but if it works for you and you're happy with it, I'm happy for you.  BUT: please don't make this into a MSFS2024 v XP12 discussion.

1 minute ago, kevinfirth said:

BUT: please don't make this into a MSFS2024 v XP12 discussion.

He’s not, as far as I can see? He’s simply saying another simulator is showing what he wishes would appear in MSFS. I’m not sure why people in this forum can’t handle comparisons. 
 

Anyways thanks for the info. However it’s probably above most laymen and the fact remains, the LOD in 2024 is atrocious. Whoever’s fault it may be. 

34 minutes ago, kevinfirth said:

I have no interest in XP, and I'm not exactly certain what the relevance of your statement is to MSFS2024 LODs - but if it works for you and you're happy with it, I'm happy for you.  BUT: please don't make this into a MSFS2024 v XP12 discussion.

I have constantly been vocal about the poor visibility of air traffic in MSFS. I have also been a staunch advocate for MSFS for years.

I mention testing XP12 because it doesn't have these issues with traffic.  I don't know why you suddenly feel I am pushing XP12 here by mentioning it. I also don't take kindly to the silly suggestion I don't like MSFS because I'm taking a look at a different flight sim.

If anybody is going to turn this into yet another silly one against the other, it is you that started such a thought 

I love 2024 and that doesn't change because another SIM is doing something better. 

 

4 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

I’m not sure why people in this forum can’t handle comparisons. 

Sadly because history invariably shows that it often depends into a "my SIM is better than your SIM" slanging match.  What XP does or does not do is of no relevance to this thread, let's just not go there!

3 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I love 2024 and that doesn't change because another SIM is doing something better

Super, then I apologise for misunderstanding you, let's hope everyone else is with us on that!

25 minutes ago, kevinfirth said:

Sadly because history invariably shows that it often depends into a "my SIM is better than your SIM" slanging match.  What XP does or does not do is of no relevance to this thread, let's just not go there!

It is relevant, because I'm almost at the point of moving to XP12 as my main sim because of this awful LOD issue.  There is very little I do not like about MSFS 2024, but I mostly fly GA and spotting other traffic in the circuit or while cruising is vital. Your explanation of the problem was an interesting read - MS/Asobo need to address this as it is a serious flaw in an otherwise great sim.

4 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

He’s not, as far as I can see? He’s simply saying another simulator is showing what he wishes would appear in MSFS. I’m not sure why people in this forum can’t handle comparisons. 

Because it is not helpful.

We want it working properly in MSFS24 and not to have switch simulators to get what we want.

5 hours ago, Farlis said:

Because it is not helpful.

We want it working properly in MSFS24 and not to have switch simulators to get what we want.

Precisely!

I have very much enjoyed MSFS since 2020 was first released.  I always thought the LOD issue would be sorted out, but it appears it never will be because of Xbox requirements. I don't blame MS for going for the XBOX market, but it has harmed the sim since SU5.  I've been testing XP12 and will be moving to it now as my main sim because it doesn't cull airborne traffic close to ones position.

I just flew to Phoenix in XP12 and could see airborne traffic 20 miles away.  This one fact doesn't make MSFS a poor simulator, but it does mean I took a look at XP12 and realised the bad press it gets here is not warranted. Sure, it needs some addons to get Satellite scenery and extensive ground features in, but it is a great sim. Anyone else really unhappy with the LODS and have never seen XP12 in a good light, here is what it can do (its in beta).  MSFS remains a great simulator, but its un-fixed flaws have driven me away.

 

Edited May 27, 20251 yr by MrBitstFlyer

4 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Precisely!

I have very much enjoyed MSFS since 2020 was first released.  I always thought the LOD issue would be sorted out, but it appears it never will be because of Xbox requirements. I don't blame MS for going for the XBOX market, but it has harmed the sim since SU5.  I've been testing XP12 and will be moving to it now as my main sim because it doesn't cull airborne traffic close to ones position.

I just flew to Phoenix in XP12 and could see airborne traffic 20 miles away.  This one fact doesn't make MSFS a poor simulator, but it does mean I took a look at XP12 and realised the bad press it gets here is not warranted. Sure, it needs some addons to get Satellite scenery and extensive ground features in, but it is a great sim. Anyone else really unhappy with the LODS and have never seen XP12 in a good light, here is what it can do (its in beta).  MSFS remains a great simulator, but its un-fixed flaws have driven me away.

 

Well, the critical issue for aircraft visibility from a distance are **lights**.  Something I have to say @simbol absolutely nailed in P3D..... *hint hint*

But (tongue in cheek), the unnecessary proximity of those transmission towers and the dangerous tailgating behaviour shown by some of those XP car drivers completely breaks the immersion for me. 😄

I really liked watching that XP12 video posted above. It seemed very realistic to me in virtually all departments (the vehicles moving over the bridge in the background was the exception). The draw distance and lighting are very impressive.