Want more TREEEES?

[FTL992]

Yeah.  I went and checked and it was just ticked on "Normal" although i could have swore i had it turned up i stand corrected.  It is now ticked to Dense.  Thank you for the comment.  I will go and try it out later and check to see if that fixed my problem.

[gypsymoth]

Thanks for the link to this thread michaelb15.   I've now installed the tree files in both Dells & the laptop (XPSM1710) has icebergs in Bournemouth, Southampton & Manchester even tho' I used the Silverwings autogen xml file.   The other doesn't, even using the default autogen xml. file.  I've reverted to the default texture files in the M1710 which runs FSX on high settings oddly.  It's nice to see more trees so thanks for the tip!

Terry.

[michaelb15]

ha weird thing with the iceburgs lol never seen any of those around

other textures are prolly a good idea.. the default textures seem too vibrant or somthing but idk

anything to make it a better simming experience  :D

[gypsymoth]

I went ahead & installed the whole Silverwing offering in the 9150 & am amazed at the visual difference.   When I get used to it I may say it's an improvement except for the water treatment which is too shiny by half!!  Thank goodness I can use FE for that.  Anyhow - nice one Silverwings  :-*  

[MOUSY]

Thanks GB1, I followed this thread and got it to work, but only for a moment though. Later on I experienced the "missing autogen" problem as FTL992 above. I shall explain.

I followed instructions but found that I did not like the tree textures and  I was also experiencing the iceberg issue. (The iceberg issue was fixed with the default.xml replacement.) I downloaded two sets of alternative tree textures to see which one I preferred. Your recommended TreeGen and TreeX for FS9. Since the TreeX had photo-realistic trees I tried these first. My graphics card, (being the piece of sh!t that it is) definitely showed a greater quantity of trees, but the quality sucked. I then went on to replace them with the TreeGen textures and found that when I booted up the sim again, my terrain looked as bland as FTL992's picture above. Not even reverting to my default textures fixed the problem. I have also tried reinstalling RePro (which uses Feng's TreeGen textures) but to no avail. As a last resort I also replaced the original autogen default.xml but that also had no result. And yes, I have checked my sliders, Autogen Density = Extremely Dense.

Any ideas on how I can get my trees back anyone? Thanks in advance.

[michaelb15]

mousy thats a really wierd problem you've got there... I have no idea what, or how that works...

But I would suggest replacing the .agn files.. Im pretty sure they contain the autogen placement data



Maybe someone can explain how autogen works. because Ive yet to figure it out..

I know that you can use Autogen SDK to "place" the autogen onto

[MOUSY]

Hey guys problem fixed. No fault of the above procedure. Seems a regional scenery installation I had installed but disabled needed to be enabled or else very little autogen showed up. No idea why. Don't care! It works! 8-)

[MOUSY]

Can someone send me there default .agn files. I'm doing a beta test and I need the default to compare it to. Just PM or email me... Thanks!

[michaelb15]

Ok.. after fooling around with the autogen SDK, and after reading the HOLE sdk manual, ive learned that its not each individual tree that is 1024x1024, but it is actually a pallate of all the trees in FS covered in that 1024x1024. Apperentently doing it this way increases peformance greatly as there is no wasted texture (it is cut out with a 1bit alpha) Im pretty sure I got that down simple enough.. 4 seasons.. 5 files, 4 seasons, 1 alpha..

also understanding the placing of autogen.. pretty simple there..

The ground textures are completly different. they come in copys, 1 file in fs = 7 files/layers to edit, using pricice calculations (no pun intended).. The layers are for AA, and again, peformance.

I havnt even begin to start to edit any of those, looks like a feat ill try tommorow..

now.. the big long agonizing questions..

Is 256x256 the max texture resoulution? What would happen if I threw in say a 1024x1024? or even a 512x512.. SDK kit doesnt really give a lot of info about the limits of the FS engine..

also, in Image Tool there is a format option for pretty much everything.. lol 1 bit, all the way up to 32.. but then it went into dxt1, dxt2, and dxt3.. what is that? how deoes that affect the textures?


Thanks guys helps appreachiated!!  ;D

[Joe60]

Is 256x256 the max texture resoulution? What would happen if I threw in say a 1024x1024? or even a 512x512.. SDK kit doesnt really give a lot of info about the limits of the FS engine..

I have a city done in 1024 textures and when flying towards it, regardless even if you have a very powerfull PC, it will bring you to a grinding halt!
I reduced all the textures to 512 and still it drops my FPS from and average of 80 to around 20.
I recommend you do not exceed 256