hjwalter

Hi Hans,

 

Certainly Tom's terrain.cfg has been modified. I compared it with a default file, but couldn't find any substantial changes. Maybe Tom will be able to give you more informations. He does frequently posts here. I hardly can imagine placing excluding rectangles in the whole world!

 

Bernard

Hi Bernard,

I compared my original terrain.cfg with Tom's as well but all I could see was that the generation densities of autogen poles and large advert boards, were being structuraly reduced from 95 to zero, most probably even world wide. Therefore no mondial exclude rectangles, which evidently do not effect autogen scenery objects anyway.

However, my TNW (The Natural World) installation process had even increased some of these "95" autogen densities to 100 but I reduced those to zero as well.

Anyway and as the saying goes: All is well that ends well.

Regards

Hans

Thanks Bernard and Tim for your sugestions.

I began with Bernard's link because for me that was the way of the least resistance and it actually worked as well, no more (AT&T or other brands of) poles visible. Thanks also to Tom Gibson for having solved this seemingly structural FS9 issue at an earlier date and against which I had now also bumped myself.

However, I needed to be very careful here because during the TNW (The Natural World) scenery installation procedure, some automatic edits had already taken place in the terrain.cfg file and it's for this reason that I did not copy/paste/overwrite Tom's complete file over my existing one but have instead edited it by using his individual edits, as given in the second half of his readme file.

Tim, I am no SBuilder expert (yet) but I'm learning. I had also downloaded the instructions file but it could somehow not be opened.

Thanks again Guys.

Hans

Hi Guys,

Some time ago I downloaded and installed the rather well made WMKN (Sultan Mahmoed) airport situated along the East coast of Malaysia. The apron and immediate surrounding area was rather sterile looking, as well as the area around the airport itself. So, I added quite some static apron vehicles, many palm trees, tropical forests, static aircraft in local paints, along with some local AI flight plans, etc. etc.......BUT.......when I wanted to take off there myself, I found a whole row of telegraph poles right in the middle of the taxiway leading up to the RWY 4 hold short point.

Try as I may and by using all my trusted "exclude" procedures, I was not able to get rid of these poles but after much "trial and error work" I found that these poles were being positioned by the default file: RD974300.bgl (22Kb) in the default "Asia" folder.

According to my Scasm disassembly program the file contains: "FS2002 terrain data of textured polygon type" but that's it, no further possibilities for finding and deleting these poles. De-activating the whole file does solve my direct problem at WMKN but then also seems to no longer display roads in the area either.

Does anyone of you technical experts out there know of a way to find and delete ALL such telegraph poles from this default file...... please ?

Thanks in advance for any help given.

Hans

Ben,

Under normal circumstances, most commercial jets flying under auto pilot control are in fact steered by their trim tabs, which normally means that as soon as their auto pilots are switched off, their trim tabs retain their (auto pilot) positions and should therefore not cause any unexpected pitching or yawing.

Have you tried taking off manually, retracting your flaps at the correct speeds, trimming your aircraft into a stable flight, switching on your auto pilot, giving it time to stabilize and then switching your auto pilot off again to see what then happens ?

Regards

Hans

My personal experience is that VC panels require too much zooming out in order to be fully useable. Unfortunably this also very negatively influences the outside scenery in the same way, making realistic flying difficult to achieve.

Regards

Hans

Christopher,

It would be very helpful if you would post the exact name of the downloaded file and where you downloaded it from. In this way I, and possibly others, can download the aircraft in order to test it and to hopefully help you.

Regards

Hans

Christopher,

"Leaving the folder alone" could be neccessary in your situation but what is in fact the problem ?

Hans

Hi Guys,

Further testing has now revealed that decreasing scenery texture sizes in batch mode or even individually, can disrupt the way in which their related BGL files handles them. So, for me it's end of story, simply because the results can be so unpredictable.

Regards

Hans

Gregory,

Yes, I read about your personal involvement in transforming this well made KGRR scenery from FSX to FS9, in the readme file. Great job and with the assistance of quite some well known international FS9 specialists.

To me it has now also become clear that systematically decreasing scenery texture sizes only has minimal effects on scenery loading times and/or frame rates but this could also be influenced by the fact that my machine is fully equipted with SSDs instead of HDs.

I guess I can sweep all my own FS9 improvement activities under three combined words: "Technical", "Hobbyism" and "Collectorism", which I think could be rather logical after years of "armchair" FS9 flying and covid lockdowns.

Mallcott suggests decreasing the number of my scenery layers but to me as a collector this would be like sinning against myself or even like swearing in a church !! Moreover, my FS9 makes intensive use of library objects, which makes deleting any of my sceneries extremely unpredictable for remaining sceneries.

Anyway, I've learned much from this whole "issue" and from all the reactions in this thread.

Cheers.

Hans, a still convinced FS9 diehard.

P.S. "If it aint broke then don't fix it", but just as true, "If it aint broke then don't ...LET ... it be fixed", e.g. via Windows updates and it remains my opinion that the basic Win7 is still the most efficient platform for FS9, whatever it's size.

JSMR,

The textures I was experimenting with were those of the Grand Rapids, Gerald Ford KGRR airport in USA. Why this particular airport ? No other reason than that it was the most recent one I had downloaded/installed.

I've used FS9 almost from the day it was first published and through the years it has grown to 133 Gb, almost 1000 scenery layers, hundreds of different flyable aircraft/paints, 1318 active AI aircraft/paints, very many self made static versions and all are devoid of unnessary ballast while also having been optimized for utmost (frame rate) efficiency.

After all this, one of my remaining ideas concernes texture sizes and whether or not these could have an effect on loading times, frame rates and possible stuttering. It's for this reason that I first tried converting the DXT3 textures to DXT1 via the Convim program but this proved to have some rather unpredictable results, especially with respect to alpha channels.

Tim Wright suggested the Texture Manager program, so I tried that as well. However, this gave some strange error messages, which turned out to be related to my Win7 file, ntdll.dll. I downloaded and replaced it with a newer version and that worked great ..... until I shut down my machine and later wanted to re-start it ......> completely dead !!

However, after my machine's resurection, I still had the texture folder with the correctly reduced texture sizes and with that I did notice some improvements in the loading up and the frame rates at KGRR but these were not such that I would want to shout out loud that in general the decrease of texture sizes is the way to go. I have therefore now restored all textures to their originals and will let my ideas rest at that.

I hope this answers your question.

Regards.

Hans

O.K. Guys,

Thanks for all your reactions but I'm now completely cured of trying to mess around with any new ntdll.dll, especially in combination with the re-sizing of FS9 scenery textures via my original DVD version of Win7 64bit. My huge FS9 has been working great for many years and as the saying goes: "If it aint broke, then don't fix it".

Thanks again.

Hans

This whole issue in trying to reduce my scenery texture sizes, was based on my assumption that (complex) airport sceneries would then load faster.

My first test method in transforming DXT3 textures to DXT1, was not very successful because first of all, many alpha channels were lost during the conversion process and secondly, as Gaputz correctly points out, there were problems with certain semi-transparency textures.

However, in the single and as yet successful case of me reducing the texture sizes of a complex airport (421 textures) via the Texture Manager program, their DXT3 compressions were all retained ..... and ..... loading times for the airport concerned, were noticably faster.

When now panning around in external view, frame rates and stuttering seem to have improved as well but not really enough to make loud noises about.

What I have also noticed is that when approaching the airport concerned in good weather and from a great distance, the sudden appearance of an untextured white blotch on the ground and on which the airport scenery objects then begin popping up as I get closer, has diminnished. This is most probably related to the mipmaps which have also been retained.

I'm now testing the night textures and to see if there are any differences in details/apron light splashes, etc.

Regards

Hans

My Win7 being completely dead, i.e. not even getting so far as to boot, was caused by the new ntdll.dll file, which evidently needed all the past Win7 patches/updates to at least be able to boot.

My Win7 is still the original from the DVD and my self built machine has never been connected to the internet, therefore no patches and/or updates were ever installed. However, via a problem solving diagnostic tool I was able to break into the Win7 folder concerned via a kind of back door, to get at the now offending ntdll.dll file, to delete it, followed by renaming the backed up original to it's original extension.

My machine now boots and works normally again .... but .....the Texture Manager program now no longer works. However, that's now become a minor problem.

Regards

Hans

gaputz,

I agree with you completely and I've already seen what you say about converting DXT3 to DXT1. Luckily I was only testing and have in the meantime reverted back to the original texture folders.

However, I now seem to have comitted a Win7 mortal sin by renaming my existing ntdll.dll into ntdll.dllORGXXX and then adding the newer version in the same Win7 folder. Although the Texture Manager program now at least test-worked correctly it seems that my Win7 is now as dead as a doornail and no longer boots up. Oops !!

Anyway, thanks for your warnings.

Hans

Tim,

I've been busting my brains on this particular problem for two whole days now but have finally found what was causing my "corrupted memory" problem.

It turns out that the Texture Manager program also needs a newer version of ntdll.dll and with version 10.0.19041.423, dated 9/1/2020 now installed in my Win7 64bit system, the program suddenly and much to my surprise, reached it's normal end.

Thanks for your advice about this program. Works great !!

Hans

Tim,

You are completely correct, in that the Texture Manager program has many more functions than CONVIM, one of them being that the physical sizes of all BMP textures within a selected texture folder can be reduced. However, for me the most important thing was that any existing alpha channels were being preserved during these reductions as well.

But, but, but, ...... After processing about 20% of the contents of any (previously backed up) scenery texture folder, I keep getting an error message saying: "Attempted to read or write protected memory. This is often an indication that other memory is corrupt". ???? Clicking the "OK" button just gives the same error message but for the next texture to be processed, all the way to the last one.

I most probably already had mwgfx.dll installed in my Win7/64 but downloaded and installed the latest version 4.00 anyway, just to be sure .... but sadly .... no difference.

There's nothing in the supplied PDF program description file about such error messages and any parts of my memory being corrupt, would certainly be a great surprise for me.

Would you have any ideas on the above, please.

Thanks in advance.

Hans

Thanks Tim for your prompt answer.

However, I've already been using the CONVIM program and it's especially this program which in an unpredictable way, seems to like "eating" alpha channels during any of it's batch conversions.

I'll try the advised DLL file one of these days when I have some time, and will report pack in this thread.

Thanks again.

Regards

Hans

Hi Guys,

Does anyone know of a utility which can convert FS9 scenery textures in bulk, whatever they are, to DXT1 textures and without losing their alpha channels in the process ? I'm now doing this one by one, which can be a long and very tedious process.

Regards

Hans

Always remember, that pushing your stick/yolk forward makes houses get bigger !!

Tom,

I suppose that some machines with very high tehnical specs will be somewhat less sensitive but the basic issue remains, epecially when more than a few flyable planes are active as AI. The same stuttering will also occur when, e.g. a complex airport suddenly comes into view but it's related textures, other than those of flyable planes, are structurally be mipped so as to greatly reduce this effect. External AI plane textures are normally mipped as well, for the same reason.

Regards.

Hans

It's not advisable to assign any type of flyable aircraft as AI because of the multiple and complex external textures involved. These will cause stuttering whenever they (unexpectedly) come into view and especially when there are more of them (flying) around. Also don't forget that such flyable "AI" aircraft are always burdend down by cockpits/panels, possible virtual cockpits, programmed instruments, custom sounds, far more complex model and air files, etc.

AI aircraft have none of the above but have purpose made far simpler mipped external textures only and are not really suitable for close-up viewing. However, a quick search on my part did not turn up any AI Stearmans ..... yet.

Good luck.

Hans

It's not advisable to assign any type of flyable aircraft as AI because of the multiple and complex external textures involved. These will cause stuttering whenever they (unexpectedly) come into view and especially when there are more of them (flying) around. Also don't forget that such flyable "AI" aircraft are always burdend down by cockpits/panels, possible virtual cockpits, programmed instruments, custom sounds, far more complex model and air files, etc.

AI aircraft have none of the above but have purpose made far simpler mipped external textures only and are not really suitable for close-up viewing. However, a quick search on my part did not turn up any AI Stearmans ..... yet.

Good luck.

Hans

A Boeing 737-400 air file being used in combination with your Stearman-4 ?? Sounds great, especially when your very sluggish Stearman is now a "little" over-powered ?? How does it handle at 34000 feet ?? LOL.

Pleae supply the exact file name of the Stearman-4, which you've evidently downloaded and are now happy with, the one with the missing air file ? I would like to try my own B737-400 air file on it.

Thanks in advance.

Regards

Hans

Anwar,

You will need to supply us with more information so that we can try to help you.

1. Did you change anything in your plane's panel.cfg file ?

2. Did you replace the original panel by any other panel ?

3. What is the exact type of plane ?

4. Is it a default plane or a downloaded one ?

5. If it concernes a downloaded plane, what is the name of the download file and where did you download it from ?

6. Do you have any kind of backup for your plane ?

Any further information could be helpful.

Hans

If you type "Thunderbolt" into the FS2004 File Library/search function and scroll down through a few pages, you will find some P-47 Razorbacks in RAF paints. Not sure though that these are the ones you are looking for.

Good luck.

Hans

Don't you have a FS9.cfg backup from a time before your problem appeared ?

Hans