I think it’s a sphere, as elevation shows the same effect.
Where ever I try to change terrain LOD in usercfg , it resets back to default settings without me changing? where as I edited and changed, saved
After you save the usercfg you need to right click the file go to properties and set it to Read Only. This should prevent the sim from overwriting the saved file when you launch the sim.
Yep, I am absolutely furious with the graphical downgrades. I saved up for a long time so I could build a top of the range PC for this sim. When I first got the sim I was blown away every flight, just stunning. I don’t get that any more, it is just not as good as it used to be, extremely disappointing to say the least.
I actually think these changes are potentially being made intentionally to support the new XBOX coming out.
I agree though, some LODs are terribly close. I run at 1080p and still get issues, can’t imagine playing in 2k or 4k on a big screen, let alone VR.
An example is flying past cliffs in central France, or near the unmodelled areas of the Dover cliffs in England. When you are only a hundred (or less) metres away they will morph and change in front of your eyes, completely ruining any immersion you may have gained. The same happens at further distances of 500m or so. Terrain settings all on maximum.
The trees and building draw distances have always been an issue since release, and steadily seems to get worse - the draw distance was much better early alpha I have to say. Mods that increased the tree draw distance have shown that having the ability to set it higher didn’t affect performance as much as you’d expect. The option at least should be there…
While it could be significantly related to the LOD distances, there is another thread that goes into more detail about this morphing issue. It could use some support!
Very interesting find and for the huge effort and detailed notes!
Lots of votes, the devs move this to the top of their list!
Edited to avoid confusion about linear vs square root (not linear) plotted trendlines
This does not make any sense.
200% = ±344
I plotted a linear trendline without square root being the factor.
By plotting the above, which I did out of curiosity, 100:100 (100 is 100%) and 200:141 (200 is 141%) and using a linear trendline you will find that 200% falls on ±344.
Edited to avoid confusion
100 = 100%
200 = 141%
Beyond my brain!
Call it rambling on
I was just plotting a linear trendline based on the OP’s findings of 100 is 100% and 200 is actually 141%… a game setting of ±344 would be true 200% LOD if square root was not the factor.
100 = 100%
200 = 141%
344 = 200.04%
Again, if the trendline is linear… which it is not once square root is factored.
Edited to avoid confusion
Here are the OP findings:
In other words if this is true, you’ll get an effective 200% LOD in solving this:
i.e. LOD value setting = 400%
That square root being the key
As mentioned above, I was only plotting a linear trendline to see how offset it would be… but the square root is not a linear trendline.
Example of the trendline based on @CptLucky8 's findings (using square root)
Included square root trendline to avoid further confusion
The LOD slider is related to the size of area rendered. Double the LOD is double the area. Thus double LOD is twice as much work for the game engine.
However since X times X is twice as much, X itself is only sqrt(2) times as much. Thus to double the draw distance you need to increase the area by 4, area size is what the LOD slider controls.
On the positive side, to half the workload, half the area rendered, only reduces draw distance to 71% of what you had before.
HuH? . . . . . . . . …
. . . . . . . Huh? . . . .
Body seems unclear, is it a complete sentence? Yes
Its easy to get confused… much like how I did a linear trendline based on the numbers but did not factor square root which is what the OP’s findings are based around and therefore not a linear line.
Above is a new trendline (included in an edited post) based on the square roots (converted to percent) of settings 0, 100, 200, 300, 400, and 500.
Again, I am doing this out of curiosity of the line it creates to visually determine what the actual percentages are of each LOD setting and the ones between because I find this whole thing very interesting.
Don’t forget the latitude
Draw distance is also impacted by latitude.
If draw distance is 100 at the equator, it’s only 34 at 70 degrees North or South.
(and 0 at the poles, however there is nothing from 85 degrees up, no terrain, no water, nothing)
This is LOD 10 at the equator (Pontianak, Indonesia)
And this is LOD 200 at Alert, Nunavut (82.5 degrees North)
So draw distance is sqrt(LOD) x cos(latitude)
thank you for this graph! that explains a lot!
So if we had to revert back to 200 ingame setting now we need to set the Terrain LOD in cfg to 4.0! Oh boy…
Is this how it’s going to be from now on?
Photogrammetry @ Terrain LoD 200
Increasing that alone already has a big hit on performance as you are asking your CPU,RAM then your GPU to do twice as much work. Maybe one of the reasons it s like that as I am quite certain the majority running this sim their rigs are probably struggling with that setting.
As DX12 roles in we may possibly have a preset higher than Ultra Lets see what Asobo does.
Personally prefer to see further performance improvements before tackling the LOD setting.