FS9 FSX autogen

[Rafal Haczek 1612]

This question was raised in the Airbus X preview forum.

But that is a better place for it, so everyone interested is invited here.

My aim was to kill the slogan/myth that max left autogen in FSX gives you more than max right autogen in FS9.

It is not to start another FS9/FSX fight (please, no!). I just don't like misinformation.

Here are some shots in which you can see the difference clearly.

Max left autogen in FSX is PURE GROUND TEXTURE.

Medium FSX autogen can be compared to (although looks more sparse to me than) max FS9.

Only at max autogen does FSX reveal its full potential.

The shots were taken at the same place, near Seattle Tacoma. No UT/UTX installed.

Some people may be a bit misled by the fact that FSX has higher resolution ground textures and animated cars.

They will add the feeling of immersion and variety (I wish FS9 had it by default).

[saprintz 82]

This question was raised in the Airbus X preview forum.

But that is a better place for it, so everyone interested is invited here.

My aim was to kill the slogan/myth that max left autogen in FSX gives you more than max right autogen in FS9.

It is not to start another FS9/FSX fight (please, no!). I just don't like misinformation.

Here are some shots in which you can see the difference clearly.

Max left autogen in FSX is PURE GROUND TEXTURE.

Medium FSX autogen can be compared to (although looks more sparse to me than) max FS9.

Only at max autogen does FSX reveal its full potential.

[pics snipped due to size]

The shots were taken at the same place, near Seattle Tacoma. No UT/UTX installed.

Some people may be a bit misled by the fact that FSX has higher resolution ground textures and animated cars.

They will add the feeling of immersion and variety (I wish FS9 had it by default).

Interesting point VORJAB. I think the misunderstanding here may be that FSX's max left slider IS "no autogen." Perhaps what the ACES developer meant (and others) -- what probably had to have been meant -- is "the left-most FSX slider position that produces any autogen at all." Zero FSX autogen is pretty much no match for any FS9 autogen at all. ;-)

Again, for anyone with even a passing interest, I really think the recent avsim thread on autogen is an interesting read. Two well known members of the community offer their insights.

Just to be 100% clear, I have no interest in this in the sense of arguing with anyone. I'm not that invested either way. I do think it would be interesting to know just for the sake of curiosity what the numbers are, max and min, for each sim. (Excluding when a slider is set to 0.) Of course the avsim article makes it sound like that's not so easy to nail down. Who knows...? I guess we should all just be content that we have a pretty high quality simulator to fly in. This is why I find your pics so illuminating, because FS9 autogen was not "bad" at all, and quite generous compared to some other much more expensive simulator software.

[Sharrow 107]

We definitely need a FSX Autogen Minimum shot in there Rafal.

[Snave 466]

I'm not sure of the point of this thread, when the evidence clearly indicates that a comparison has deliberately been avoided, only a single tile is used as reference, and the entire weight of the knowledge base in the community says otherwise. Even the statement that is used in vindication for the presence of this topic is (deliberately?) mis-quoted.

The statement is:

"SPARSE autogen in FSX gives more autogen than the EXTREMELY DENSE setting in FS9"

I see no evidence to the contrary, here, or anywhere else.

[Rafal Haczek 1612]

We definitely need a FSX Autogen Minimum shot in there

Here you are, Konrad:

And for comfort of comparing the FS9 max autogen once again:

[Rafal Haczek 1612]

I have no interest in this in the sense of arguing with anyone

Of course, neither do I.

My decision to make the post was after Gaura Mohana deifinetly misinformed another asking poster.

And then even he himself admitted it was just qouting something as he has experience close to none.

I have been using FSX for some time too but I'm still mostly on FS9 which I know quite well, I guess.

Many bigheads wrote many things. If you take something, multiply it, subtract, take upside down and get it to the power of eight, you may get a theoretical result that suggests something like this or that. But, frankly speaking, I don't care at all. I know what I see. Please have a look at the two screenshots I have just inserted. If you still think FSX sparse autogen is more dense than FS9 maximum just because some (deifinitely knowledgable) people say it should be, that is YOUR impression, you are welcome to do so.

I don't judge my FS with someone else's eyes. I use mine. And it will remain like that.

[Snave 466]

And what proportion of a single 4x4 tile are you showing us? And what does the slant angle do to display? And what about all the other tiles? And what FSX.cfg settings do you have active pertaining to autogen? And why compare a shot with 20% water with one with just 10? Can you not take the locations and provide a direct comparison? Picking two different locations for FS9/FSX comparisons tells us precisely nothing. Except that you have a nasty problem with your FSX settings for clarity and depth perception unless your intent was to match FS9 baselines so that the only variable is the autogen. In which case you should state what those baselines are.

You're simply not providing anything like enough information. If your intention is to justify your statement then you need to be able to provide baselines and benchmarks to show why you are right and ACES, all other scenery developers, and the community as a whole is wrong.

This is not the way to do it.

[Sharrow 107]

For sure this is only 1 tile and there will invariably be differences when looking at others, however, in the above case it does seem pretty clear that a statement of minimum (or in this case even medium) autogen setting in FSX gives more autogen than the maximum autogen setting in FS9 is demonstrably not correct.

EDIT: Simon, are you able to provide any kind of evidence to back up the statement that a sparse autogen setting in FSX gives one more autogen than the max autogen setting in FS9?

[Erik Brouwer 8]

Can you not take the locations and provide a direct comparison? Picking two different locations for FS9/FSX comparisons tells us precisely nothing. Except that you have a nasty problem with your FSX settings for clarity and depth perception unless your intent was to match FS9 baselines so that the only variable is the autogen. In which case you should state what those baselines are.

You're simply not providing anything like enough information. If your intention is to justify your statement then you need to be able to provide baselines and benchmarks to show why you are right and ACES, all other scenery developers, and the community as a whole is wrong.

At least he is trying to answer a question I primarily asked in another thread, in a polite and willing way. I don't see you doing that in the future, and if you don't like it the way he does it, why do you read this, and even more, reply to this? Asking questions is okay, critisizing even, but you are rude, harsh, and impolite and do not show the slightest willing of making a comparison yourself. Because you don't need/want to. That's fine, but why are you then reading and commenting in this thread. Don't you have something more useful to do?

Rgds,

[Hiflyer 129]

In a recent thread I also mentioned this general consensus about FSX and FS9 autogen. In that thread, I very carefully said that "I am told" that Minimum FSX auto gen is greater than max FS9 auto-gen, and I said it that way because my own eyes, when looking at the two Sims were not necessarily corroborating that.

I think one of the problems is that the higher resolution of FSX clearly allows you to see places where houses should be, even if the auto-gen is not actually filling the space at a given setting, whereas in FS9 the general ground texture is so blurry that the lack of auto-gen in a given spot does not show up so dramatically that anything is missing.

I think FS9 may be able to pull off a sparse setting better because its ground textures don't draw attention to spaces where there should be buildings like FSX ground textures do.

[Snave 466]

At least he is trying to answer a question I primarily asked in another thread, in a polite and willing way. I don't see you doing that in the future, and if you don't like it the way he does it, why do you read this, and even more, reply to this? Asking questions is okay, critisizing even, but you are rude, harsh, and impolite and do not show the slightest willing of making a comparison yourself. Because you don't need/want to. That's fine, but why are you then reading and commenting in this thread. Don't you have something more useful to do?

Rgds,

What, like hold opinions to be nothing other than same, until justified with hard evidence? Meantime, the answer is simple: There IS NO BASIS for discussion based on anything you, or Vorjam have yet provided.

[Snave 466]

For sure this is only 1 tile and there will invariably be differences when looking at others, however, in the above case it does seem pretty clear that a statement of minimum (or in this case even medium) autogen setting in FSX gives more autogen than the maximum autogen setting in FS9 is demonstrably not correct.

EDIT: Simon, are you able to provide any kind of evidence to back up the statement that a sparse autogen setting in FSX gives one more autogen than the max autogen setting in FS9?

I don't need to. Just Google the statements made by ACES team members. They provide the annotation and factual details. This was subsequently endorsed by reference to the tiles, files and changes made by SP1 and SP2. I have no need to show or prove anything when this assessment is based on absolutely NOTHING of any factual merit. There is no baseline.

What I would like is for the theory to be put forward based on correct analysis, not specious opinion unsupported even by the `evidence` that is produced to justify it. In the case above the scenario is not even the same location, the viewpoint is different - there is no statement about relative settings in the sim! There is simply NO COMPARISON possible.

When the theoriser supports his contention with some facts then you will find me looking at the facts in the light of my own knowledge, that of developers, and previously-published information that has been verified. A good example will be the differences between FS9 and FSX in support of alpha-blending. You will probably need to look that up as I have no intention of supplying a technical answer to counter an irrelevant theory, however, there will be an impact on the visual appearance between FS9 and FSX SP1/SP2?Acceleration/Gold which impacts on ANY relative assessment of physical presence. UNLESS the comparison is made using the sasme baseline the physical appearance will differ between the sims, EVEN IF THE SETTINGS ARE IDENTICAL...

Now go away and find out for yourself.

[Sharrow 107]

Sorry Simon but this all smells of hiding behind highly complex and technical issues which few, if any, people really understand, or care to for that matter. What people do understand is what they see and granted, no one is going to prepare a 1000 page dissertation (either way it seems) which is based on any kind of empirical data, so until such a time the case remains open, at least in my mind. And no, just because someone at ACES once said something does not mean it is fact - where is their evidence? Or is the fact that they were once part of ACES evidence enough?

[Snave 466]

Sorry Simon but this all smells of hiding behind highly complex and technical issues which few, if any, people really understand, or care to for that matter. What people do understand is what they see and granted, no one is going to prepare a 1000 page dissertation (either way it seems) which is based on any kind of empirical data, so until such a time the case remains open, at least in my mind. And no, just because someone at ACES once said something does not mean it is fact - where is their evidence? Or is the fact that they were once part of ACES evidence enough?

No, what this actually smells of is someone with only a vague technical knowledge of the product expressing an opinion as fact supported by vague notions and a couple of pictures that actually have no reference value. They are not even pretty pictures... much less depicting what the theory claims. I have no intention of debating technical issues in a non-technical forum, but suffice to say I have seen NONE of the theorisers around ANY of the technical fora I inhabit. So where does their technical knowledge come from?

I can readily say that the Moon is made of cream cheese and show a pretty picture of the moon to apaprently support it:

But that does not make it so... even if Wallace and Gromit `proved` it was Wensleydale.

[Sharrow 107]

So then is the only reasonable conclusion to be had in this non technical forum the fact that the original OP's point cannot be proven or it seems disproven (outside of some statement made by an ACES team member 4 years ago) in any meaningful way?

[bionicCrab 7]

Let me see the slider has 5 positions, right? what you are trying to say no matter which version of FS.. the proportion of autogen objects are roughly the same. Furthermore you have visual evidence of this.

My conclusion: Snave and the rest of us don't speak the same language... english. which has in it well defined rules of logic and deduction. Does anybody remember the Chewbacca defense.....? if not google it.

[Snave 466]

Let me see the slider has 5 positions, right? what you are trying to say no matter which version of FS.. the proportion of autogen objects are roughly the same. Furthermore you have visual evidence of this.

My conclusion: Snave and the rest of us don't speak the same language... english. which has in it well defined rules of logic and deduction. Does anybody remember the Chewbacca defense.....? if not google it.

The sliders do not define the appearance (or non-appearance) of autogen, the texture tiles do. The sliders define the proportion of available autogen that can display on the screen. The many other factors dictate the physical presence - the per-pixel resolution and alpha-blending that cause tetxures in FSX to `pop` into view in SP2 as opposed to fade into view in FS9 and FSX RTM are but two. To make a basis for comparison for discussion purposes then you need to adopt a better policy of display, presentation and preparation for discussion than is shown here. A good start would be to choose two identical areas in the sims, with exactly the same overhead viewpoint and coverage, all sliders set to `equivalent` levels (ie FSX adjusted down) then the appropriate adjustment made to viewing angle to remove the error factor of the factors I outline above, plus many others, including settings outside the sim.

So there is no basis for comparison.

[PaulPCPilot 11]

Snave, that moon, is not our Moon, but IO. It orbits the closest to jupiter of all the galilean moons (of which there are four). And its surface is made from solid sulphur, deposited by volcanoes

now wheres your technical knowledge?

paul

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

The sliders do not define the appearance (or non-appearance) of autogen, the texture tiles do. The sliders define the proportion of available autogen that can display on the screen. The many other factors dictate the physical presence - the per-pixel resolution and alpha-blending that cause tetxures in FSX to `pop` into view in SP2 as opposed to fade into view in FS9 and FSX RTM are but two. To make a basis for comparison for discussion purposes then you need to adopt a better policy of display, presentation and preparation for discussion than is shown here. A good start would be to choose two identical areas in the sims, with exactly the same overhead viewpoint and coverage, all sliders set to `equivalent` levels (ie FSX adjusted down) then the appropriate adjustment made to viewing angle to remove the error factor of the factors I outline above, plus many others, including settings outside the sim.

So there is no basis for comparison.

Well Simon, all detail apart there is a point to be made.

A lot of people compare FS9 and FSX by setting the sliders at the same position and then find FSX slow compared to FS9. They do not look at the AMOUNT of stuff shown, only at the red FPS digits (wish MS never added that option). The images show that the same setting result in a very different view and for many people that's all that counts.

[Snave 466]

Snave, that moon, is not our Moon, but IO. It orbits the closest to jupiter of all the galilean moons (of which there are four). And its surface is made from solid sulphur, deposited by volcanoes

now wheres your technical knowledge?

paul

What~ Io isn't a moon..? My God! Someone tell NASA, quick!

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Jup_Io

Now about baseline, case proven, I think

[Sharrow 107]

Now about baseline, case proven, I think

Case proven? How? Where? By whom? In what publication? Just because you say it is hardly means that it is actually so. Other than telling us how wrong we all are you have added exactly nothing of value to this thread.

If your ego will not allow the rest of you to "lower" yourself to our non-technical standards around here and put some facts on the table that we can discuss then please just do us all a big favour and stay away.

[Snave 466]

Just because you don't get it, there's no need to give yourself away... I deliberately chose to use a picture of Io, because it is one of the moons of a planet - but not the Moon as we call our rocky near-neighbour.

SO - to state the bleeding obvious for the benefit of the hard-of-understanding - by NOT establishing the baseline, I proved that you can show a picture, and `prove` nothing... but it does look like cheese, so it MUST be made of the stuff, yes?

But feel free to discuss away to your hearts content. I'm sure if there are any major breakthroughs from this topic they'll eventually find their way to fora where real technical specialists hang out.

[PaulPCPilot 11]

well you used the term 'the moon' twice in your posts. go and look.

when anyone hears 'the moon' it is in reference to the white spherical mass that orbits earth, with a period of one 'moonth'. So I can be forgiven when you posted Io under the term 'the moon'. If you had said 'a moon is made of cheese' and had posted Io that would have been fine.

also 'the moon' implies that there is only one moon. Which we all know is not correct. And the relevant body to contact about such matters is not NASA, but the IAU (international astronomical union). The same guys who declassified pluto as a minor planet.

see I can be as pedantic as you!

[Sharrow 107]

I'm sure if there are any major breakthroughs from this topic they'll eventually find their way to fora where real technical specialists hang out.

Where exactly would that be Simon? FSDeveloper.com? Guru3D.com?

[Shaun Fletcher 570]

Hello Gents,

Time to put this one to bed I think.