Originally Posted by BuckeyeBob
Thanks for your continued efforts, VonS. However, I am now a bit confused. Earlier, you posted this:

Originally Posted by VonS

For excellent performance // excellent graphics, use ----->

In shaders30/terrain

const static float fTextureSize = 650;

In terrains/compositetexturebudgets

<Budgets PatchPixelDim="400" MinPatchDimUseThumb="4096">

For very good performance // fantastic graphics, use ----->

In shaders30/terrain

const static float fTextureSize = 1050;


<Budgets PatchPixelDim="700" MinPatchDimUseThumb="4096">

Von S

Now, in your latest update, you have float fTextureSize = 650 and PatchPixelDim = "400". Do you still recommend using the higher values for "very good performance // fantastic graphics" (fTextureSize = 1050, PatchPixelDim="700"? Also, what is the approximate difference in frame rates/visual quality in the two versions? Thanks.

Only saw these posts now - nothing wrong with using values of 1050/700 either - visual quality may be ever-so-slightly better with those numbers but, from testing on my rig - it wasn't worth the tradeoff in lower fps (on the order of 20 fps lower, on average - at least on my rig). If you are running the float size at 1050 and pixel dim at 700, I recommend testing with a dim size, in the d3d8 ini files - of 175 (instead of the 100 implemented in the GPU Tuner Patch for the 650/400 values).

Von S smile

// See WOFF on a Mac post for links to FM Tweaks Packages and GPU Tuner Patch for WOFF PE/UE. (https://tinyurl.com/WOFFonMac) // VonS WOFF/WOTR mods. are tweaks of files that are © OBD Software. // FE2 Tweaked FMs & Realism Pack (https://tinyurl.com/FE2fms) // FE2 Representative Vids. (https://tinyurl.com/fe2onamac) //