Steam and blurred textures

Does anyone know if the blurred ground textures issues still exist in the Steam edition?

Hi,

 

If you have blurred ground textures in MS FSX you will have blurred textures in the SE. If you don't in the MS version, then you won't in the SE version.

That's kinda what I figured.

I haven't got Steam edition, but for the record I cured the blurry textures in my disk-edition FSX by selecting the 'Trilinear' and 'Anisotropic' boxes in the display settings, now things are as clear as a bell out to the horizon, might be worth trying in SE too.

Graphically, FSX:SE and Boxed Acceleration are the same sim.

 

As SBK mentioned, Yes, the higher filters smooth out pixels fading into the distance better at a higher frame rate cost for marginal CPUs. The quality of your GCard's anti-aliasing is also a factor. Generally, it's better to force AA on the GCard rather than checking the AA in the FS UI. There is no one stop fix all for graphics quality because the differences in hardware capability is so large from one person to another.

 

Make sure you are using Acceleration or SP2 and you have the HIMEMFIX applied so your card's memory will be used more effectively.

 

-Pv-

I've tried everything. Also, I've been having ridiculous stability issues since I installed on my new computer. At this rate, I'll have to give up simming :( :( :(

Well constructed hardware is the foundation to making any demanding graphical presentation operate correctly.

 

Game developers purposely code their applications to run on predictable combinations of hardware and operating systems the majority of users may purchase at release time. Deviation from these models too much causes frustration.

 

When I build my machines, I look for hardware combinations known to work well together and I do a lot of research. I also avoid manipulating the OS too much. The OS developers have targets within which most hardware can be made to work.

 

Next, there is a huge variability in driver compatibility. Motherboards require chipset updates to keep up with changes in CPUs. GCards require updates not only to accommodate new games, but to remove flaws discovered over long periods of time.

 

Since gamers demand more from their computers than non-3D applications, the Hardware-OS-Driver combination is even more finicky.

 

Careful selection of components.

Stable OS which is not tricked out.

Current driver support not only for GCards but every IO component of the computer.

Careful and practical decisions by the user.

Recognize game developers do not target edge hardware but STANDARD hardware.

 

The use of other resources to ascertain if the hardware is working is key.

There are a great many free and demo games the user can install which require similar resources as the target game. In the case of FSX, seek out some DX9 games and see how well they behave. If many other demanding games do not work well, then it's likely poor decisions are being made about how FSX is being installed, configured, maintained and realistic expectations applied. Bench test programs are also useful especially max performance testers like 3DMARK.

 

Some people just try too hard, think too much and demand too much and are their own worst enemy. Instead of trying to make the game what YOU want it to be, instead try to capture a vision of what the developers wanted the game to be and get into that groove.

 

-Pv-

I've tried everything. Also, I've been having ridiculous stability issues since I installed on my new computer. At this rate, I'll have to give up simming :( :( :(

 

You're luckier than me, I upgraded from Win XP to Win 7 on my spare computer, reinstalled FSX and now it won't run on it at all, neither will some other games, they freeze up and/or slideshow (sniffle)

Other games work, as does FS-2004. I get a lot of the d3d9.dll error, and have been going through suggested fixes, but nothing so far.

In this thread Andy,

https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?286580-So-Disappointed

 

...you wrote your computer is 3.5 GHz. This is not a flaming fast computer so if you are trying to trick it into running FSX near max settings by over manipulating the OS, over clocking, poor choice of CFG tweaks, poor add-on choices, demo/outdated drivers then you are just setting yourself up for failure.

 

If other DX9 games die, your FSX will die and you need to make some drastic changes in the hardware or OS. If your hadware is stable, then FSX will also be stable if you are not trying to turn it into a program it isn't

 

SBK,

There appears to be strong evidence your "spare" computer is a dog or poorly maintained. Get yourself some good hardware and save yourself endless frustration.

 

I might be more conservative than most on how I operate my computer and config FSX, but I get thousands of hours of stable and fun use out of it. The time I spend tweaking and manipulating is about 1 minute in 1000 hours or less. Am I just lucky? If the majority of FS users had as much trouble as I see a few people report here, this site would have died years ago. There would be no P3D, no FSX:SE, no one taking risks developing add-ons and you could by a new disk set for $1.

 

Added:

"d3d9.dll error"

Probably pushing the settings too hard.

 

-Pv-

Oh I totally agree. Until earlier this year, I had no issues at all. I don't try to run it too heavy, just a little more scenery than the default setting. If you think it's a settings issue, maybe I'll try backing off a bit.

 

Edit - reduced most of the settings to minimum, and still got the same thing.

I cannot tell what the issues are because you have mentioned many, but the "blury" one seems to be your main complaint. Maybe the scenery you are using isn't as good as you think.

 

In your disappointed thread, I didn't see any examples of what you think looks bad, so we all may be chasing a rubber duck here.

 

If would help if you disabled all add-on scenery and flew around a default enhanced airport in plain day with no weather (FSX clear theme.) This would provide all of us with a look at scenery we are all very familiar with and compare with what you are seeing. Maybe there is nothing wrong. Help us out and help yourself out by flying over LAX and take several screenshots from different altitudes.

 

-Pv-

I expect deleting fsx.cfg will help.

 

I also suspect an infection with trojans Spyware and adware.

In general, if you have blurry ground textures in FSX or Steam, it's due to hardware or

scenery settings. Both are capable of pretty sharp textures if you have the puter and

video horsepower, and the settings are not too low. But it also depends how high off the

ground you are talking about. Neither one is really sharp at real low altitudes.

But above say, 1500-2000?? ft or so, + or -, both can look pretty sharp.

 

FSX will dumb down the sharpness if you don't have the horsepower to be able to

run that level at a flyable rate. But any decent modern puter and video should be able to

look fairly sharp at any decent altitude. Mine can do it, and it's nothing special. Actually

mine is pretty danged mediocre these days.. :(

 

Anyway, it's the hardware much more than the software in the case of blurry FSX ground

textures. Also, FSX should run great on Win 7.. It's not really normal not to.

If anything, Win 7 64 should be the best OS for FSX you can run. It's what most of

the heavy hitters like PMDG, P3D, etc, etc recommend.

I expect deleting fsx.cfg will help.

 

 

That can often cure lots of FSX ills.. Over tweaking can often cause it to run worse than

what FSX itself will set it up to do.

I only run maybe two tweaks total.. One of the them is the FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION

setting, which I run at FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.14

You have to experiment to find the best setting for that, and too low can cause blurries.

Most of the others I don't bother with.

SBK, There appears to be strong evidence your "spare" computer is a dog or poorly maintained. Get yourself some good hardware and save yourself endless frustration..

 

Absolutely right, I splashed out a cool 1100 GBpounds (1600 USdollars) on a new super-duper computer last year and it runs FSX and everything else I throw at it smooth as silk. I'm not a tech expert and it's specs are meaningless to me but for the record here they are--

OS: Win 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1 build 7601)

Processor: Intel® Core™ i5-4670 CPU @ 3.40Ghz (4 CPUs), ~2.4GHz

Memory: 16384 MB RAM

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770

Approx total memory: 4038MB

 

PS- in defence of my old computer, it ran FSX fine under WinXP, but when I converted to Win7 and re-installed FSX, it froze at the loading screen, and a couple of other games wouldn't run either, so I gave up on it and bought my new super-duper job.

Incidentally with Win7 there's a 'Program Files' folder, and a 'Program Files (x86)' folder, I might have installed FSX to the wrong one. I uninstalled and re-installed into the other one but it still froze.

Beats me why there are those two separate folders, how are we supposed to know which one to install sims and games to?

Between this thread and others Andy, you've been given every piece of advice there is.

 

We still need to see what you are complaining about.

 

As a general rule,

Lower settings = lower image quality/immersion and higher frame rates.

Higher = better quality graphics/immersion and lower frame rates.

 

When you hold your mouse over an option, a mouseover will inform you what the option will do and what it will cost you.

 

When you reset FSX to defaults and your graphics control panel to defaults, you are essentially at the settings the MS programmers considered a good balance for your hardware. Any changes you make after restoring to ground zero require skill and testing. There is NO ONE option combo and CFG tweak that works for everyone but there are a few "safe" ones nearly everyone can use without degradation.

Just because you are using an add-on does not automatically mean FS is better.

Since you had no complaints before adding scenery, cut your loses and return to that state or live with the result and get some flight time in.

 

You already know all this stuff from the other threads. Go back to ground zero with no add-ons and take a look at the scenery. Everything you do is likely down hill from there at basic user skill level and everyone giving advice shooting in the dark.

 

With FSX shut down:

Delete CFG.

Load your GCARD control panel and reset defaults.

Start FSX and verify options are reset to defaults.

Use the scenery library and disable the add-ons.

Inspect enhanced airports for image quality.

 

If it looks OK and you enable add-on scenery and it looks bad, well then...

 

-Pv-

Absolutely true, people have offered a ton of tips, and I appreciate them all. The problem is that I haven't gotten any result. Attached is a screenshot of the default flight around Friday Harbour, after about 15 minutes.

 

I have no add on scenery, using a default aircraft. Deleted the cfg and let it recreate at the default settings.

 

I have also attached the same shot I posted in the previously mentioned thread, which shows a default a/c somewhere north of NYC.

 

Adding scenery didn't cause the issue, as mentioned it was that I replaced my old pc with an upgraded one, and for some reason all these issues started then.

This is how it looks after 15 minutes of flight? Does it look OK when starting? Computer case area free of books, papers, anything that could block air flow? Graphics Card fan not turning or is unplugged?

Yes, looks fine when it starts, but get worse and worse over time. There's lot's of ventilation, and the temp in the case is fine as well.

Defective graphics card or your graphics/scenery settings are too low. If you still have the old computer, you can swap the card to confirm. Degrading over time indicates you might have a component within the card that fails when it heats up even if your case temp is OK. Most mainboards do not monitor the chipset temperature. This can over heat and cause any or all IO devices to fail.

 

If the images above are with default settings, then this strongly points to failing hardware or bad drivers.

 

-Pv-

I'm using the old pc in another place on my network, but I've shot an e-mail to the guys who helped me build the box to see if we can investigate the possibility of the card being bad. Thanks for the suggestion.

Running another DX9 game will go a long way toward determining if it's hardware.

Even a free demo or a graphic intense bench tester will tell you a lot.

 

Are you using Acceleration or DLX SP2?

-Pv-

There are a couple of chapters titled 'Blurries' here which might give some clues-

 

http://flyawaysimulation.com/news/3806/

 

Here's an extract, it also applies to FSX-

BLURRIES - TEXTURE BANDWIDTH TWEAK

Back in the FS2004 days, blurry textures were the biggest complaint from users. Flying low and fast would quickly muddy textures and cause a generally poor experience. One of the first fixes to come out was adjusting the bandwidth the sim uses for texture loading.

This is accomplished with a config file line change.

In your FSX.cfg file, there will be a line:

TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=30

If you RAISE this number, you will give more bandwidth to the textures. This may lead to less blurries, but it also may introduce microstutters and little hiccups which could upset an otherwise smooth sim experience.

I do not know what the "default" value is, but mine was set at 30. I typically bounce this number up by a factor of x3.

I have yet to see any adverse effects, but at the same time I haven’t seen any *observable* benefits. (I tend to make tweaks in one lump, so I’m never certain which tweak is helping the most).

Some users in the FS2004 days have set this as high as 400, but users today are mentioning that high settings to this number are imposing FPS hits. This tweak may work in conjunction to Adam’s (ACES) fiber tweak above.

Even without tweaks and using default settings, he should have much more quality than seen in the images.

 

Some puzzlements are the aircraft image is clear and so are the extreme distant mountain ridges which point to textures being a problem, almost like they are missing, so generic fill textures are being used instead. The water textures are OK too, so backing off my hardware failure assertion. Maybe his texture library is hosed. I would think he would be getting missing file dialogs, so maybe texture files are there, but are bad ones.

 

I would think even the default TBW would give better nearby surface texture than this. I certainly had decent textures using defaults.

 

Hopefully he's not using SP1.

 

I have the same CPU speed he does and a 1G GCard. My TBW is 40. 30 is the default. If I go higher than this, I get stutters.

 

-Pv-