Simviation Forums

New information running FSX with building and trees set to 6000 per cell.

FSX software, for the purposes of this discussion, is as it comes out of the box with the exception that the buildings and trees have been set to 6000 per cell.

Max is defined, as one person stated,

Screenshots !!!!!!  :D
And thanks for your information

Screenshots !!!!!!  :D

+1

Nice to hear that it can be done, must try it some time, I have very similar specs

I third the screenshots

[quote]Screenshots !!!!!!

[quote][quote]Screenshots !!!!!!

looks good

Wow ! Now THIS is dense  :o Thanks for your efforts

I've never tried to push the autogen so far, my CPU would never be able to handle it... but nevertheless, the cities really look cool with those settings.

What about posting some shots for the coutry side ? Eventually with some little town lost in the forest ?

By the way, some of your shots could not be displayed!

SP2 introduces a new method of autgen batching which means more can be called with less problems. The idea was to batch the calls so the terrain engine had more time to do its work

Keep in mind, FSX will still limit to what the machine is able to do so even with 6000/6000 in the line, and, it flying, that does not mean you are getting 6000/6000 per cell. It means you are telling the sim to deliver as much as it can out of 6000/6000



Good add-ons such as UTX, GEX and the right landclass remove the need to use such tweak methods. These images are without any additional autogen lines in the config

They are not the clearest or best shots but just a few I had laying around

[quote]Wow ! Now THIS is dense

I don't meant o be a nit-pick, but I noticed all of your screenshots are in window mode. Is this how you normally fly? If so what frame rate do you get in full screen mode?

Dang that's a lot of trees/buildings.

SP2 introduces a new method of autgen batching which means more can be called with less problems. The idea was to batch the calls so the terrain engine had more time to do its work

Keep in mind, FSX will still limit to what the machine is able to do so even with 6000/6000 in the line, and, it flying, that does not mean you are getting 6000/6000 per cell. It means you are telling the sim to deliver as much as it can out of 6000/6000



Good add-ons such as UTX, GEX and the right landclass remove the need to use such tweak methods. These images are without any additional autogen lines in the config

They are not the clearest or best shots but just a few I had laying around

Nick,

Who knows how many trees or buildings are supposed to be in Rio, London, Chicago, or any other place? There must be areas where the full compliment of trees or buildings would be filled without any FSX tweak. And, yes, you could not be more right. Set at 6000/6000 ,using trees as an example, the software will either fill or attempt to fill the compliment of trees for a given area. Now that we are on the subject, this same strategy probably holds true for the total FSX package. The statement is often made that there is no hardware today that can run FSX in an enjoyable manner with maxed out settings. If this were an opinion of someone I would accept it. But a flat out statement no.

I don't meant o be a nit-pick, but I noticed all of your screenshots are in window mode. Is this how you normally fly? If so what frame rate do you get in full screen mode?

I always fly in full screen mode and my frame rate will vary between 20 and 35 in Rio. In places like Chicago, Boston, England, Las Vegas, my frame rate will vary between 15 and 25. My settings are fully maxed out with the exception of water which is set at High 1.x and I have turned off Bloom. I also have buildings and trees set to 6000. I currently am in the process of running additional tests with these settings in other locations.

Regards,

Flight Ace

Its a matter of what you have installed and the hardware ability

The landclass, season.bgl, scenery, etc all play a part in what you see or do not see


This is with UTX and Cloud9 landclass enabled







This is without UTX and cloud9





Which is inaccurate for the location because the default LC does not place the clearings and roads where they belong and OVER draws trees. The default landclass also does not render the alpine tree line correctly in the mountains making many of them them too rocky at lower elevation when viewed up close






This is without UTX or Cloud9









This is with UTX and cloud9






Which is pretty dang close for the money. The default is too concrete and does not display the veg in the area correctly. Urban/city areasl ike trees, are OVER drawn in default. The better product redefine the layout so it has a better representation of the area from the air.




There will be things you like and dislike about any add on because they will never be 100% accurate, and, some can make autogen dissapear where the default packs it on. I prefer a more defined world. The default landclass and other areas which generate autogen buildings and trees is very poor and inaccurate im most of the world, especially shorelines however the source data used was not that high quality so it is natural the result will be iffy.

Even the payware add-ons are not 100% accurate or anywhere near close. To get that type of accuracy requires data that would cost the scenery builder several hundred thousand dollars per sector of world, each sector being about the size of 2 US states, and, the data available for many areas of the world is not that detailed and overpriced for its use. Systems today can not render that detail and remain flyable anyway. Over time that will change and I am sure FS11 will become a much more defined world. FSX can do it now but the hardware can't and the cost to produce the detail is outrageous.


UTX doesd not change any moving boat traffic although if it defines a port where one is not by FSX default it may put a static set of boats in dock.



Also, the ground textures in the images above are GEX, the trees are Trees V2.1. I do not have any images of the default textures to compare right now