I don't know, maybe this was discussed allready, maybe not. I'm not a fsx developper so this remains theoretic, but I'm wondering why microsoft didnt yet do that.
Everybody is arguing about fsx poor performance on today PCS, poor fps, lot of tuning needed to get a smooth and not-so-ugly image. Well I think the problem isnt exactly that. The problem is we are balancing between 40 fps country-side rendering and 10 fps NY-city rendering with same settings. We're trying to get 15-20 fps in the most "tough" places so we cut down everything. We than get 17 fps over NY and 60 over the country-side.. quite poor-looking country-side..
Ok, trying to make it shorter - I get an awesome picture in the country side with 25 fps, now with same settings a get a slide-show in NY (and vice-versa etc etc).. SO...
Why didnt they make an autogen density map? There are really few places in the world were your fps goes divided by 3 - big capitals with allot of scenery + maybe 10-20 other exceptional places, that's all! The game should just generate 50% less ag in these zones.
Or.. Why cant the game adapt the settings to the fps?? Like
if (average FPS for last 3 seconds<14) then {autogen=autogen x 0.75) (I'm sure 100% TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL and TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL can be changed in the game).
Like imagine, you're flying over a forest zone and profit of 100% your pc power with maximised everything, then you get in say Tokyo, FPS starts to drop, the game engine/plugin/tool sees it and changes the above values in the memory so the game starts to render fewer trees and houses. Then you go out from the city, get in some aggriculture zone with small forest areas and your max_trees_per_cell goes 5000. Wouldnt that be awesome?
So maybe I dont get something but this seems so easy to do I really wonder why there are no such functions in the game?