Except possibly from the subjective perspective of personal preference, that's absolutely not the case.   As I wrote above, mip mapping has no effect within a certain view distance because up to that point, the largest image will be used and not any of the mips. In that circumstance, mipped is exactly the same as unmipped..   Compressing to DXT-3 degrades the crispness by introducing dithering: blurring of edges and blending of colours as an artifact of the compression process. On top of that it seems also to reduce the bit depth of each channel, which alters the colours themselves.   That happens at all draw distances and by the nature of textures, is most obvious at close range.   Here's a snippet of a downloaded Shanghai livery for a Fruit Stand plane. I opened the 32-bit version (the repainter was farsighted enough to include it in the zip) and saved a couple of times as DXT3. Once was enough to introduce the artifacts but I made them more obvious by saving a couple more times.   Whether or not one or the other looks better in game to any specific person is entirely subjective but compressed formats are lossy and degrade the crispness.   D   First the 32-bit original:       Second, the DXT3 format:      

FYI, he's close to a solution in the FS2004 forum. He posted all over the place, lol.

Have you tried different airports? Not sure but could be an addon scenery issue?

Hans,   I haven't noticed any problems and this includes not having scenery suddenly appear.  It's probably something to do with modern processors and video cards, as mentioned by defaid above, not that my hardware is particularly modern.  Processor is AMD Phenom II and video card is NVIDEA GeForce GTX960.  Converting textures to DXT3, without MIPS, usually makes them sharper, particularly when close up.   Alan

I don't think that's how mips work. Each grade of mipmap is just a smaller, lower-resolution copy of the base texture in an image. Just as different areas of a single-file aircraft texture are mapped to different parts of a 3d model, so different areas of a mipped texture file are mapped to different distances.   That is to say, each draw distance will use a different part of the mipped image.   If there are no mips, the high-res base image is used at all draw distances so you effectively get full texture detail right out to the horizon.   Image editing software such as DXTbmp doesn't show the whole set of mips in one image but mostly they would look like this:   Unpipped texture used at all distances:   Mipped texture. Larger file but easier on the graphics memory because for distant objects, the graphics hardware doesn't have to load the large hi-res image, just a small blurry version:                                               I strip the mips from all my aircraft textures because high-resolution modern PCs, graphics hardware & drivers, and monitors don't really need them. (As an aside, I also convert them to 32-bit as I sometimes edit them and each hard save of a compressed image degrades it). Stripping them makes the file slightly smaller. (Decompressing them makes them bigger...) The fundamental resolution of a modern monitor is good enough that -- mostly -- the sparkling and the moiree pattern just don't happen. Modern processors and memory don't struggle with the high-res, unmipped textures even when handling hundreds of them at a complex airport with heavy AI.   In the past I've also stripped them from other textures but occasionally came across problems so I leave those as the developer made them.   D

alanmerry,   From your reaction above and especially from your "Mip Maps unticked" remark I conclude that you structurally remove scenery/texture Mip Maps wherever you can ??? Does this not defeat the very purpose of Mip Map technology, i.e. that your scenery items/objects are only visible at short distances and that they suddenly/unrealistically pop up when you approach them ? Quite some of my own (airport/airfield) scenery objects keep popping up at such short distances, even although I have structurally added Mip Maps to all their textures ???   I use the same softwares as you evidently do but I ONLY "untick Mip Maps" for my flyable aircraft textures because firstly, these then remain somewhat smaller and secondly, they are never viewed from longer distances.   Keep the comments coming guys because this thread is becoming more and more interesting !!   Regards   Hans    

Hello JMIE, by looking at the image you posted, it seems like your nose gear is still a bit off the ground. You can use ACM to locate each tire precisely on the tarmac. On that particular aircraft, you should have only 10 contact points, one for each tire, unless the extra points are crash damage on the engines. wing tips or fuselage. In that case, they should be renamed "scrape"points in ACM. With a little patience you should be able to get your flying machine straightened out in no time!

You give me the idea. It is clear that it's a question of trial and error. Changing the static_cg_height from the original 9.862 to 18.862 rise the aircraft to the position it must be. Enclose picture. Thanks you all for your kind advise and cooperation.

Sorry, I just got back from Mars and I may have missed some critical detail, but if I might put in my two cents worth.... Have you tried Aircraft Container Manger? This free program allows one to see what could be going wrong with your aircraft and correct things like contact points, without a whole lot of guesswork. It sounds like this could be of benefit to you. It is available here -simviation.com/1/search?submit=1&keywords=aircraft+container+manager&x=17&y=7

I have the same problem, but Windows 11 security blocks me when I try to extract the file!

Only the first three lines concern you here, leave the others untouched.   In the example given, you need to adjust the vertical position, e.g.: point.0= 1.000, 82.930, 0.000, -9.350, 1181.102, 0.000, 3.349, 78.000, 0.500, 2.500, 0.500, 15.000, 15.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000 point.1= 1.000, -3.341, -12.000, -11.383, 1574.803, 1.000, 2.188, 0.000, 1.072, 2.500, 0.498, 17.000, 17.000, 2.000, 0.000, 0.000 point.2= 1.000, -3.341, 12.000, -11.383, 1574.803, 2.000, 2.188, 0.000, 1.072, 2.500, 0.498, 17.000, 17.000, 3.000, 0.000, 0.000   These will be different for every aircraft, those figures are the distance between the defined centre-line of the aircraft and the ground. It sounds like you need to reduce the figures in your aircraft (not this example!) by a couple of feet - start there and fine tune. Re-load the aircraft after saving each change.   Only when you have that perfect, you may need to finely adjust the following: static_pitch =  static_cg_height =    Getting this right takes patience, but the results are satisfying.   John

Wouldn't just be easier to download a different 787-8 and delete this one?

Useless....can't open it!

This is the aircraft.cfg Thanks aircraftcfg.pdf