For those who don't wat to read this long post - TLDR / Conclusions: I found that Terrain LOD / Objects LOD 200/200 setting is the best for most configurations and 400/400 an acceptable compromise for high-end machines & demanding users. Even with high-end machines though, 400/400 may cause framerate to drop below 30 in the presence of PG cities, heavy traffic and complex live weather. I believe this is the reason why Asobo limited these settings at 200 in the UI.

 

Long version

Today I did some tests to determine what the LOD settings (Terrain and Objects) do separately and found interesting results.

I chose the following testing conditions, reproducible for everyone.

• MSFS version: 1.19.8.0 (current as of today 12 September 2021)
• Community folder: empty except for the aircraft
• Aircraft: FBW A32NX 0.6.3 stable version
• Location: KJFK 31L - engines on as per default setting (flight starting with aircraft on the runway)
• Time: 10 am local time (14:00 UTC)
• Weather preset: clear skies
• Air traffic off
• Multiplayer off
• Base graphics preset: 1440p/Ultra, obviously changed to Custom when editing LOD settings in UserCfg.opt file
• VSync off
• All the other graphics settings in the config file left as per Ultra preset
• Screenshots taken after framerate is stabilized: 1) default cockpit view; 2) drone view obtained from default drone position (INS key) and 3) drone altitude set from 2) by pressing R until the lower border of the parking area is aligned with the bottom of the screen

I will post the original screenshots as shortcut links to avoid making a huge post. Anyway the screenshots should be examined at full resolution to better appreciate the differences.

As for the cockpit and initial drone screenshots, both taken at ground level, obviously they all look the same so I will report only the framerates obtained.

Here below my considerations, your comments are welcome.

Terrain LOD

This is the setting having the largest impact on performance (framerate), RAM and VRAM occupation. It is also the setting that determines the draw distance.

VRAM occupation with Terrain LOD 900 reached 13 GB and 16 GB on the ground, respectively with Objects LOD 200 and 900. As the altitude increases, VRAM occupation drops drastically.

Keeping Objects LOD at the default 200 setting, there is a clear difference in the draw distance of vegetation and other stuff (not PG buildings) between Terrain LOD 200, 400 and 900 respectively (here below at 130% zoom).

However the difference is not as abysmal as the performance loss and I understand why Asobo set the max at 200 in the UI. For high end PCs a compromise can be found at Terrain LOD 400 but beyond that the framerate drops consistently below 30 and makes the max setting of 900 absolutely prohibitive for any CPU currently on the market (and for any GPU but the RTX 3090, due to VRAM occupation higher than 16 GB).

Objects LOD

This setting is not that heavy on the framerate and has nothing to do with the draw distance. It rather affects the graphics detail of still relatively near objects.

Screenshots of Objects LOD at 200, 400 and 900 keeping Terrain LOD at the optimal setting of 400. Differences can be spotted in the airport buildings and nowhere else: at 200 some parked cars and the terminal and jetways windows, that are present at 400 and 900, disappear.

Here at 210% zoom, use your CTRL + mouse wheel to zoom further if necessary:

 

 

Have a dumb question, when you say 200/200 or 400/400 why is mine LOD 1.0?

}
    {Terrain
        LoDFactor 1.000000
    }
    {OffscreenTerrainPreCaching
        Enabled 1
        Quality 3
    }
    {ObjectsLoD
        LoDFactor 1.000000

He is stating numbers in terms of a percentage. 100=1.0.  400=4.0 etc

 

BTW - Thanks to the OP for taking the time to post these results. Interesting read
 

Edited September 12, 20214 yr by Barnes

Got it, thought so but wanted to make sure. Thanks

Genuine thanks for this Fuzzy!  This corresponds to my findings completely.

I haven't done it as scientifically as you, but my gut feeling after much trial and error was that 400 / 400 was giving me the best graphics / performance ratio.

3 hours ago, cchiozza said:

Have a dumb question, when you say 200/200 or 400/400 why is mine LOD 1.0?

Yes, as others mentioned 1.0 in the settings file corresponds to 100 in the UI, 2.0 to 200. 

Therefore when we write 4.0 in the settings file, that would be 400 in the UI.

If you want to experiment, always remember that the preset line in the config file must be "Custom". If it's High, Ultra or another preset, the sim will ignore the custom LOD setting and restore the default.

Thank you all for the feedback!

Great post, thank you! Also, increasing past 200 will help cause some stutters as well.

And needless to add.. intermediate settings work as well... LOD=3 is my preference.

1 hour ago, MrFuzzy said:

Yes, as others mentioned 1.0 in the settings file corresponds to 100 in the UI, 2.0 to 200. 

Therefore when we write 4.0 in the settings file, that would be 400 in the UI.

If you want to experiment, always remember that the preset line in the config file must be "Custom". If it's High, Ultra or another preset, the sim will ignore the custom LOD setting and restore the default.

Thank you all for the feedback!

Maybe Another dumb question, but I can set the lod setting to 200 in the Sim options, do I need to modify the config file or can I just use the in Sim setting of 200

Quote

Maybe Another dumb question, but I can set the lod setting to 200 in the Sim options, do I need to modify the config file or can I just use the in Sim setting of 200

200 is the highest setting you can choose from the menu within MSFS. If 200 is as high as you wish to go, you do not need to edit UserCfg.opt 

Edited September 12, 20214 yr by Barnes

Thanks you so much for taking your time, I very much like such exact accounts. The actual values may vary in dependence on the machine, but the general trend should apply to all of us.

Kind regards, Michael

I've settled on 300 for reasons of stuttering..  A great study, thanks for your findings..

I'm tempted to take a look at how LOD affects distant textures.  I hate how "mushy" distant mountains look in MSFS compared to how crisp closer textures look.  A great airport to expriment with is Antalya in Turkey which is surrounded by mountains of varying distances.  I'm wondering if people are seeing nicer distant textures at 300 and 400? 

 

 

I've settled on 450 for both. Thanks for your detailed research and sharing it with the rest of us. I may back it down to 400.

3 hours ago, Langeveldt said:

I've settled on 300 for reasons of stuttering..  A great study, thanks for your findings..

I'm tempted to take a look at how LOD affects distant textures.  I hate how "mushy" distant mountains look in MSFS compared to how crisp closer textures look.  A great airport to expriment with is Antalya in Turkey which is surrounded by mountains of varying distances.  I'm wondering if people are seeing nicer distant textures at 300 and 400? 

Terrain LOD is supposed (if we look at the name at least) to affect how blurry are distant textures too. However if you consider that it also affects the vegetation and buildings which cover these textures, it's not always easy to judge. See these screenshots taken at TLOD 200 and 400 respectively. Are those textures less blurry at LOD 400 or just covered by trees?

As for mountains, I can see a very significant difference even in close mountains and from static screenshots, even more so if you consider that when you fly you also have to deal with the dreaded phenomenon of morphing, which, at LOD 400, occurs farther away from the point of view.

 

Very interesting findings. Even at Terrain LOD 400 I can still see changes up close. I thought it was suppose to effect only the terrain mesh/textures out in the distance only while the closest to you should already have their mesh/textures fully loaded in and sharp already.

I am also curious to know if having higher LOD settings means that it will use more of your internet data/bandwidth? Especially for those who have a capped bandwidth limit every month. Like LOD 400 vs 200 will it double the amount of data needed to be streamed?

Edited September 13, 20214 yr by captain420