[jhb_airlines] Re: FSX Crispyness

  • From: Gerry Winskill <gwinsk@xxxxxxx>
  • To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:32:01 +0000

I think SP1 eliminated one major problem. With the original version a startup in, say California, would still result in the hefty UK photoscenery being loaded as well. In one are I think they've tried to reduce memory load. That's with aircraft panels, where they have avoided putting all gauge files in the Root Gauges folder, leaving them in each aircraft's Panel folder instead. There are a few exceptions to this but not many.


From the time it takes to load the Aircraft Menu, I've a feeling they haven't applied the principle uniformly.

Gerry Winskill

Bones wrote:
This almost sounds like a repeat of the design problems in FS98. 3D objects
had a set range for loading and a set range for viewing. For example you
could design a windsock and set it to load in FS at a range of 4nm and for
it to display in FS at 2nm. It generally worked well although there were a
few pitfalls. For an airport with lots of small objects (like PAPI's,
taxiway signs and wigwags) you had to set different distances for each
object otherwise they would all load at the same time and cause FS to
momentarily stagger.
The biggest headache was that some design programs set loading distance to
infinity for all objects and you had to edit the resultant code to more
sensible values. Not many designers were aware of the problem and never
edited their output - a real headache when we were working on the England
and Wales scenery. Eventually a tool was developed by one of the team which
you could enter a Lat and Long and it would return a list of all objects FS
would load for that location - it was rather horrifying.

I thought this problem had been solved in FS2002 but from your description
it seems not. In truth there isn't a single 3D object that should have a
load range greater than about 40nm - I don't know what the biggest object is
in the world but if I use the pyramids as an example even they would be hard
to see at that range.

I'm sure one program used to set a load range relative to the size of the
created object but maybe that gem of knowledge has got lost somewhere along
the way.

bones
bones@xxxxxxx
http://woodair.net

-----Original Message-----
From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerry Winskill
Sent: 10 November 2008 10:33
To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb_airlines] FSX Crispyness

Three things seem to dominate forum discussions, as the factors most affecting FSX performance; Core numbers, Graphics Card Memory and system RAM. Of thes, I've already got a decent processor and graphics card bot increasing the RAM would involve a change to Viata 64 and that's a step too far!

Since I can't access more RAM I decided to minimise the load on my existing 2Gb. I've mentioned this before.

So, why repeat it today? I've just been taxiing out for takeoff, at TM's current project, Greenham Common. I couldn't help noticing that some of the new buildigs' textures weren't as sharp as I'd expected. Then I spotted that the normally realistic nearby AutoGen trees were a bit fuzzy. I tried the effect of reducing AG, switching off AI etc. My texture quality sliders are already at max. None of the changes made any difference. In this sort of situation the next approach is to think what else may have changed, since it was all sharp.

Over the weekend I've been playing about with a mix and match version of Heathrow. I've been doing the same thing at London City. Because I'm intending to try a flight to Canada, I've also put in third party fields at Keflavik and Toronto City Centre. Last week I started a flight from Leeds...... So, I did what I have been supposedly doing for some time; I exited FSX and went to the library option. There I worked my way down the list, unticking the fields I mentioned, plus a couple of others. It doesn't seem logical that Toronto should influence anything in the UK but FSX is said to have an illogical liking for loading far away sceneries. That leaves me with UK VFR and four of Tony Meredith's plus Ted Andrews Kirkbride enabled. Also ticked are all my farm strips, plus all the non airfield stuff like UK ANO and refineries.

Back to the Saved situation at Greenham and everything was now razor sharp! It works and it's a zero cost improvement.

Al I do next time I want to make a routine flight is alter my Scenery.cfg file, to change from False to True the relevant lines on my intended start and finish airfieds; if they aren't Default fields. I'll also change Greenham from True to False.

The way in which FSX hides the Scenery.cfg file is convoluted, so I have a shortcut to it on my Desktop. Open this and it can be edited and saved, ready to be effective in its revised form, when next FSX is booted up.

So, if you suffer the blurries and have already used the known tweaks, this route is well worth trying.

Gerry Winskill




Other related posts: