active Do the Full Fats require Vector?

[Jon Clarke]

The question is in the post title. If Vector is enabled within a full fat what does it add to the full fat scenery experience? In the full fats I see correct shorelines, waterways, roads, pylons and traffic.

You can move this to the Vector forum if you wish but i thought I would post it here first as it also includes the question relating to FTX Regions.

 I am asking because i want to know if Vector is disabled in FTX Regions will it remove any elevation problems that may occur. I understand there are only a few examples of airport elevation issues in the past within a FTX region.

[jmorvay1971]

So are you asking if we unchecked all the boxes in the VCT, would Vector still have influence on regions, OpenLC, and Global?  I too would love to know this, although I did experiment with something similar and noticed large swaths of gray polys in a lot of the suburbs of Chicago around KMDW.  I suspected that P3D vomited graphical errors due to my experiment so I turned them back on.

[Jon Clarke]

Not quite what I am asking. I want to know if Vector is required when flying in full fat and if it is recommended that Vector is preferably enabled, then what is it adding that doesn't already exist in the full fat. e.g in full fat we have roads, waterways, pylons and correct shorelines. Theses aspects are what vector adds so is Vector redundant in full fats?

Regarding OLC and Global I can see the requirement of Vector being enabled as it adds those elements I have just described because they are not included in detail to non full fat regions.

[Alex Goff]

Yes, Vector is redundant in this case. Regions are designed to be completely standalone, so within a region Vector can be disabled, or left active if you plan on flying outside the region.

[jmorvay1971]

So if Vector is redundant, had it been active if the user had it installed with a region and would this cause performance issues?  I ask this because I was in that situation and found my sim to struggle when I had regions installed and active, in the past.  With the new migration, and the "everything on" mantra of ORBX, are we subjected to the same scenario? How would one go about disabling Vector from a region but yet have it active if flying to a non-region, like OpenLC?

 

Apologies if that all sounded completely dumb.

[Jon Clarke]

There are a couple of ways this can be done. First you could use a scenery cfg editor like SimStarter where you could create a Profile for example " NA Regions" in which you have unticked all the Vector entries. SimStarter will then adjust your scenery cfg file accordingly and to only the choices of sceneries you want "active" with that Profile. You could then have another profile created in which you enable/activate Vector for flying outside the Regions.

The other way is to go to your Scenery cfg file and change Vector entries to Active=False and Required= False and save the file.

 

Alex many thanks for the clarification

[jmorvay1971]

Well thanks for that jjaycee, but I was hoping for an explanation into whether Vector was inadvertently causing performance degradation because of it being active within a region.  I know I could take those routes you specified, but if I deactivated all of the features within the VCT, would this help with performance or would it stay the same and only throw up those graphical errors I spoke of?

 

I have found, with my own sim, that the recent unification has somehow placed a whole lot more of a load on the sim than before, when we could activate and deactivate regions and such.  I'm not saying what ORBX did was bad, it just seems that now it's more difficult having a stable sim.  Using OpenLC NA seems to work much differently than OpenLC EU.  I found OpenLC EU to be very stable, in fact a great "middle ground", between global and full-fat regions as far as performance and detail goes.  With OpenLC NA, I get the same great detail and scenic view, but the performance is much harsher.  Running Vector along side of everything else seems to load my system down even more, but at the same time, it's a necessary evil.

 

While I see more and more people running Simstarter, i have to question why it was necessary for someone to create yet another 3rd party utility to combat the VAS, OOMs and otherwise poor performance of a given sim, when something like this could have been baked in by DTG or LM?  I know it sounds like I am ranting, but I'm slowly moving to the side of frustration.  You know, you get sick of seeing default scenery, you want more immersion so you buy in to the great add-ons for scenery, weather, etc. and now you are left having to juggle so much around just to get the sim running right.

 

I don't know, maybe I might have to suck it up and shell out more cash for this SimStarter thingy. I'll shut up now.

 

[shermank]

10 minutes ago, jmorvay1971 said:

"I don't know, maybe I might have to suck it up and shell out more cash for this SimStarter thingy. I'll shut up now."

As an alternative to Sim Starter, I use Scenery Configurator which is freeware.

 

https://sourceforge.net/projects/fs-sceditor/

 

The one caveat I will offer is that it requires installation of Java, not a problem if you keep up with its security updates. Scenery Configurator does just what the name suggests. You set up your scenery library inclusions, orders, etc....then save it. You would then run the scenery updater in the sim. The convenience is that SC allows you to work with your sim library in a much quicker and more efficient manner. It also allows you to edit and save varying profiles as the above poster suggested to do with SimStarter.

 

Sherm

 

10 minutes ago, jmorvay1971 said: