oktorn777

Members
  • Content Count

    188
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About oktorn777

  • Rank
    Member
  1. I agree that the fs graphics engine development needs a new and fresh approach. But fs2000, as far as I can remember, was quite slow and suffered from microstutters even on high end machines. So that's hardly the ideal performance we are looking for in the next iteration of fs.best regards,C.G.
  2. First let me tell you that I'm very impressed by your program! It works great on my system, except of things getting blurred when flying a fast plane.That filesize is fine with me. As long as the download speed offered by the host is fast enough.I have a question though regarding the water mask data. I like the shallow reef structures around islands very much, will they be excluded?many thanks for your efforts!:-beerchugbest regards,C.G.
  3. Thanks for your inputs guys!To get a realistic depiction of a specific lake, river or ocean there are three things that have to come together: correct water classification for a given area, good water textures that represent a certain class as good as possible (foremost the colour) and an appropriate wave effect.One of the biggest realism killer for me is that ms only provided one wave effect with the sim. The effect looks quite good for oceans, but is much too big for lakes and rivers.It would be very nice if there was a way to have at least 3 different kind of water surface effects for oceans, lakes and rivers. I don't know if it is possible in fsx.The other major problem for me is that the wave effect changes the colour of the water surface quite dramatically. The colour gets much, much more blue and light. So there is no way to produce a texture set which works for all effect settings (off, 1x, 2x).So I thought to stick with the 2x setting which probably most fsx users are using. But after some experimentation with different colours I must say that there seams to be no way to get the muddy colour of tropical rivers for example right, when the current 2x water effect is applied.I don't know how to alter the water effect. I have to look into that.And yes, I would like to make a free package available.best regards,C.G.
  4. Well I'm here with my first results for inland water (waterclass: 7,8,9,12).The location is somewhere in the middle of florida.fsx original 1xlow:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/175412.jpgnew textures 1xlow:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/175413.jpgfsx original 1xhigh:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/175415.jpgnew textures 1xhigh:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/175416.jpgfsx original 2xlow:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/175418.jpgnew textures 2xlow:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/175419.jpgAs Luis pointed out the different water effect settings, really make a big difference. I ran fsx without water effects for some time because of performance and was very annoyed how bad muddy inland water looked (much too green). But if you throw the water effects into the equation things look very different! With the 2x water effect (low, med or high doesn't matter here) muddy water looks even quite good. I didn't realise this before I started with this textures. So the question is, for which effect do I want to make a texture set? I think I'll stick with the 2x water effect setting, because on the 2xlow setting the performance drop ain't that big. What do you guys think?cheers,C.G.
  5. Thanks Luis!I will look into it.cheers,C.G.
  6. oktorn777

    many users unaware of FSX SP1 (!!)

    I agree that the start page of fsinsider is very strange indeed. Half the space is filled with a screenshot.. Anyways, what would be nice if they could place a big "get SP1 know" yellow and red button on the front page, like many other game developers do if they have an update on offer. That shouldn't be a too big hassle for the webmaster. Well, we will see..:-bigangelcheers, :-beerchugC.G.
  7. Thanks, I didn't think about that. If its compiled into a bgl-file is there a way to open it and than recompile? I wouldn't understand why they don't want us to change those textures. The tropical water looks very cartoonish and the inland water has very strange colours at times, than are the to main things I'd like to improve.cheers,C.G.
  8. Hi all!This is my first post in this forum and I'm really looking forward to start with scenery design myself. The first thing I'd like to do is to make a new set of water textures for FSX. To start off I need to know the location and file names of the current water texture set, which I couldn't dig up. They don't seem to have the same name as in FS9. Any help is much appreciated.best regards,C.G.
  9. oktorn777

    FSX has just about done me in----

    If your eyesight is still good the distant terrain shouldn't look blurry in real life. Of course it's different with a photo which is focused on a certain distance. The eye focuses aswell, depending where you're looking at, so when looking into the distance it should look sharp. Naturally you can't see the same amount of detail from something far away like as from a object nearby. But that's already given by the fixed resolution of the monitor that you're looking at. The Problematic thing is that the screen is 2d and doesn't know what you are looking at the moment, so just to blur the distance isn't really a solution, although it adds a cinematic (not the same as reality) effect of depth.regards,C.G.Off Topic: The second screenshot nicely demonstrates how bad the default textures can look in certain places. The FS9 textures are blurry and do resemble the real scenery very badly aswell, but somehow the scene notheless looks more realistic than fsx!
  10. I get image tearing effects otherwise.cheers,C.G.
  11. Hi Mike,Yes I'm running xp and do regular defrags with perfectdisk 7. My main harddrive is a samsung HD501LJ 500Gb which unfortunately is quite a bit slower than I expected.Reducing the target frame rate even lower than 30 isn't an option for me because of smoothness. I also have "wait for vsync" on. Without that setting I get very distracting tearing effects on my monitor. With vsync on and another refresh rate than 30 (locked to 25 for example) I get quite heavy and irregular stutters (not bound to hd activity).So I ended up with vsync on and the frames locked to 30 for my setup which is nearly stutter free, the fluidity is quite good, but heck it's nowhere near reallife and I'm really asking myself if such fluidity even can be achieved in video games or not.As a sidenote, I just changed from a CRT to LCD and my first impression is that the CRT gives you a nicer fluid feeling than the LCD. Maybe there is setting I'm missing tjat I don't now of?regards,C.G.
  12. HI Mike,I'm running a c2d 4300@2.7Ghz, FSB1200, 2gigs Corsair DDR2-800, radeon x1900 Pro 512mb und am getting some stutters when panning the view or making sharp turns. I build this setup just a few weeks ago and also replaced my old trusty sony 19' CRT with a Asus LCD.I don't have a lot of experience with lcd's and gaming, but for now I get the least stutters when locking the framerate to 30 (half the refresh rate of the display).I also hoped for stutter free sim after sp1, because stutters kill the immersion for me, no matter how small and short they are.Looking forward to any solutions,cheers,:-beerchugC.G.
  13. Imagine if we wouldn't use drives anymore in 5 years! Imagine terrabytes of space on a chip less than a square inch big. Now that would be progress!It still astonishes me how long this old technology has survived. In fact IBM build the first hard drive in 1956. A new storage technology seems long overdue and one wonders why it hasn't happend yet?cheers, :-beerchugC.G.
  14. Well I have a 4 year old setup (AMD XP 1800+, 1GB Ram, Radeon 9800 Pro 128mb) and it runs fsx without tweaks fairly well. I have my fps locked at 40 fps and also reach them in rural areas. The sim is very smooth, in fact it is smoother than fs9 on the same setup (nearly no stutters).I must say if I max all the sliders and go to seattle for instance the performance is absolutely unplayable and I get barely 1 fps.You see there is a very wide performance margin in the sim. To get the performance I mentioned above I had to set my settings to this: turn of bloom and selfshadowing of a/c's, Scenery detail radius all the way to the left, weather settings middle low and no traffic. I only fly the ga planes and helicopters in good weather conditions and get very smooth performance and still decent graphics. See screenshot below.cheers,C.G.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/167671.jpg
  15. oktorn777

    REALIST ROADS IN FSX? Look Again!

    This is a great Idea but one will get problems in areas with bad road data. You could have a city without any roads and only houses!I agree with the fact, that the higher resolution actually makes things worse particularly in this area.In FSX, when looking at the textures one by one they look great, but when they are mixed together they can look very strange and unrealistic. That's something that really bothers me.On the other hand there are regions that look quite nice like the southern part of france.cheers,C.G.