well, first off, I'm a newbie to Tile Proxy and still experimenting with every flight. I'd like to think that once the source images are collected and the scenery tiles made, perhaps some processing power will be freed up and the actual finished tiles will load at a usable rate. As a rule of thumb, I fly the ultralight in the 40-50kt range. The .ini file has max_lod set at 17 (30cm resolution); all the services are ranged from 9 to 17; the sim resolution is 60cm and I do have to pause from time to time to give the tiles time to load. Sometime if it seems very slow I 'drift' along in slew mode at 40kts. Right now, this is less about flying than seeing if the photo scenery tiles are worth the trouble; for the most part, I'm liking what I'm seeing. This is ultimate eye candy for me and speed is NOT an issue (yet).
This whole thing was sorta prompted by the Colorado photo scenery for FS9 that I finally tried. Even at 4.7m, I'd say it was useful and I think I'd elect to take the whole world at that resolution if it were available (in FS9).
In FSX, however, the bar has been raised. I keep scenery resolution at 60cm most of the time and I am usually within 500' of the surface. I'd rather fly slow (between and under trees) at 60cm than faster at 1m.
Asking for 30cm source images might be insane, but I'd like to know what's the best it can do on my machine.
Cpu is running at stock 3G. I put 4G of DDR2 1066 in it (timing 5-5-5-15 at 2.1v) with the 3GB switch so the system reports that I have 3.25G usable memory. Video runs quite warm but with an extra fan on it, so far nothing has 'exploded'.
At some point I'll change the sim resolution to 1m and see if I can fly a little faster. I really don't know this early in the trial if I'll keep it or not but it's so 'next step' that keeping it is more likely. If I gotta fly faster I can always fly without it.
Rejected Takeoff
in Views From The Canyon
A blog by llivaudais in Converted Blogs
Posted
kin3,
well, first off, I'm a newbie to Tile Proxy and still experimenting with every flight. I'd like to think that once the source images are collected and the scenery tiles made, perhaps some processing power will be freed up and the actual finished tiles will load at a usable rate. As a rule of thumb, I fly the ultralight in the 40-50kt range. The .ini file has max_lod set at 17 (30cm resolution); all the services are ranged from 9 to 17; the sim resolution is 60cm and I do have to pause from time to time to give the tiles time to load. Sometime if it seems very slow I 'drift' along in slew mode at 40kts. Right now, this is less about flying than seeing if the photo scenery tiles are worth the trouble; for the most part, I'm liking what I'm seeing. This is ultimate eye candy for me and speed is NOT an issue (yet).
This whole thing was sorta prompted by the Colorado photo scenery for FS9 that I finally tried. Even at 4.7m, I'd say it was useful and I think I'd elect to take the whole world at that resolution if it were available (in FS9).
In FSX, however, the bar has been raised. I keep scenery resolution at 60cm most of the time and I am usually within 500' of the surface. I'd rather fly slow (between and under trees) at 60cm than faster at 1m.
Asking for 30cm source images might be insane, but I'd like to know what's the best it can do on my machine.
Cpu is running at stock 3G. I put 4G of DDR2 1066 in it (timing 5-5-5-15 at 2.1v) with the 3GB switch so the system reports that I have 3.25G usable memory. Video runs quite warm but with an extra fan on it, so far nothing has 'exploded'.
At some point I'll change the sim resolution to 1m and see if I can fly a little faster. I really don't know this early in the trial if I'll keep it or not but it's so 'next step' that keeping it is more likely. If I gotta fly faster I can always fly without it.
I hope this gives you a little more perspective.