Try Dialing Down Shadows Rather Than Disabling Them Completely

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Since we are passing around a fair amount of tips lately concerning settings in OFF and ways to improve performance in slower systems here's another one you can try. Don't tick the box in your Graphics Config to disable the shadows but instead try reducing the texture budget and size of the object shadows. You do this by going to the 'Texture Info' tab in your Graphics Config and once there lower the 'Object Shadow Texture Budget' to 100, and the 'Object Shadow Size' to 128. This will significantly reduce the resources required by this feature yet still allow you to enjoy it. The only thing you will notice with these two values lowered is that the shadows will 'wink out' sooner than they normally do as your distance increases between you and the objects.

 

Here is a snapshot of the tab that should help clarify what you are looking to adjust:

 

 

 

Give it a try and you might find it gives you yet another little increase in performance.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

 

.

[DukeIronHand 8]

Thanks for the tip RAF_Louvert.

 

I do have Shadows "disabled" in my current set-up as I find this to be my #1 FR "affecter".

 

I will give this a shot.

[Creaghorn 10]

.

 

Since we are passing around a fair amount of tips lately concerning settings in OFF and ways to improve performance in slower systems here's another one you can try. Don't tick the box in your Graphics Config to disable the shadows but instead try reducing the texture budget and size of the object shadows. You do this by going to the 'Texture Info' tab in your Graphics Config and once there lower the 'Object Shadow Texture Budget' to 100, and the 'Object Shadow Size' to 128. This will significantly reduce the resources required by this feature yet still allow you to enjoy it. The only thing you will notice with these two values lowered is that the shadows will 'wink out' sooner than they normally do as your distance increases between you and the objects.

 

Here is a snapshot of the tab that should help clarify what you are looking to adjust:

 

 

 

Give it a try and you might find it gives you yet another little increase in performance.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

 

.

 

short and bit offtopic question,

what would happen if i raise the Max Model LOD to higher than 100 and the shadow size and budget of object and AC? would the detailed AC be visible further away (instead of turning less detailed the further away it is) and the shadows still be visible from further away?

 

i'm asking because shadows are IMO one important factor to give you a realistic feel for height. when you look down and see shadows, it feels more real, almost real enough to get airsick, compared to see the landscape without shadows lol. would be great if all terrain parts would have shadows, but that would probably eat too much recources.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Creaghorn

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

I don't know what the result would be with that setting Creaghorn. You should give it a try and let us know.

 

.

[Olham 164]

As far as I understood the 3D modellers, the Max Model LOD 100 is the 3D model you see closest.

There are two more, simpler models, which are made for planes further away from you.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Olham

[Lewie 7]

Cool, something new I wasn't aware of in the CFS3 configuration program.

 

Thank you much Lou

[33LIMA 972]

I tried LOD 200 and it had no effect.

 

The article here, excerpt below, gives some good info on the LODs and their function, more is probably available in the MS CFS3 constructor's SDK:

 

http://www.simviatio.../gMax_03.htm#3b

 

<b>First, each model is actually made up of several aircraft, each corresponding to a different LOD (Level Of Detail). This is a pretty common concept in computer games. The basic premise is that the "up close and visible" aircraft that fills your screen has all the details. However, when that aircraft is so far away from you that it's just a "dot" on the horizon, then you don't need much computer power to display it, and it can be represented by only a few polygons. The stock P-47 uses six LOD aircraft, with each LOD grouped together under a Dummy objects which is designated with a suffix _LOD_##. From the SDK Readme:

 

"The number in the LOD name denotes the distance at which it switches. 100 is closest to the camera, and 0 if farthest away. The number does not reflect the distance in meters because it varies based on the size of the whole aircraft (or vehicle or building) on the screen..."

 

The lowest version--"P-47_25D_LOD_10"--only uses 134 faces, while on the other end "P-47_25D_LOD_100" uses 9332 faces! For more information about this, read the info in the SDK.

 

</b>

 

I would really like all the planes in OFF to just that bit be more visible from somewhat further away in external view without having to resort to the 'radar'; I also play First Eagles/FE2 and I find consistently that the better aircraft visibility makes a significant difference to my ability to lead patrols effectively and make better tactical decisions, based just on what I can see unaided; a big immersion factor for me.

 

I know you can zoom in and out while in the cockpit but am clear that it would just be better if planes were more visible, period; and secondly, I fly external, precombat, I like being in my own movie, I prefer looking at the exteriors when I can, and it's a good situational awareness compensation for flying with a monitor, the equivalent of having a box over your hear with a rectangle cut in front (whether you have TIR or not, and I don't).

 

Changing Field of View in Workshop made little or maybe no difference and I don't think there's a setting in the UIsel file that helps either. Like a lot of people from what I see, I heartily dislike the trademark CFS3 fisheye lens effect, and zooming in, zooms the plane not the backgound unless you're in the cockpit.

 

Would also like to stop the Albatros undercart disappearing until it's really close (ie make the LOD 100 appear further away (probably by making the LOD 90 or whatever is next, cut in further away) but I think I'd need to edit the plane's (M3D?) files, presumably in GMax. Besides which if I did, I might find that my problem is instead the CFS3 engine dialling back LODs to suit my low-end system, as others don't seem to see this.

 

There is an .xml file in CFS3/OFF which has some influence over LODs and other things, according to where you have set your plane detail slider in Cfs3config but that doesn't seem to be the main factor, in my case anyway, changing it does not help.

Edited June 30, 2011 by 33LIMA

[Lewie 7]

OK what I'm noticing is that the improvements aren't that great and that I already had a pretty low shadow budget allocated to the aircraft shadows. I mean my shadows are pretty rasterized as it is. What I notice that makes a slightly bigger difference is the airfield tree and building shadows seem to make for a lot of FPS loss. I also think that the Alpha transparency mapping on the trees is a bit overly complex. I've gone into the .dds' using DXTBMP, for the tree scenery, and reduced the alpha masking complexity and have seen about a 3~5 FPS increase when there is a lot of trees and shrubbery in the background. It still doesn't get much increase when you have 7 or more aircraft in the immediate area.

 

I'd also like to see what other effects the texture adjustments bring as my 'default' settings were not anywhere near Lou's The radio button selections for texture pool and rendering aren't explained well enough for my satisfaction