Add on Mexh recomendations? Problems?

[Hornit 3]

I went on a mesh hunt last night and finally decided to download Eddie Denny's mesh for Alaska. I have been flying up there a bit lately. While the mesh is for the most part spectacular, it seems in a many areas the terrain does not go well with the coast lines. What I mean here is that instead of a smooth transition down to water, the mountains end up just kind of cut off, leaving what looks to be too many cliffs all around. Its not everywhere, but it is in enough areas as to make it noticeable and unrealistic I guess. I even recently tried the add on mesh for the Seattle area and it suffers the same problem but to a much lesser extent. Am I doing something wrong or is it just a characterisitc of addd on mesh? Also it seems I have a good bit of "floating tree" problems with add on mesh too, again not a huge problem but every now and then I see the flying trees here and there. Just wondering if there are any answers from you mesh gurus out there, thanks!!Hornit

[Guest sgreenwood]

Hi Hornit,Unfortunately, the coastline problem is characteristic with the default mesh as well, just not as often/visible. The short answer it that there do not seem to be any simple solutions to these problems. We need help from MS and computer hardware manufacturers. Here is my (current) interpretation.Coastlines:These are at least in part due to the fact that MS designs the coastline shapes, locations, and water levels. These are often not accurate. Ths sim manages the transitions between mesh and fixed features such as these. When the mesh resolution is low and the elevation differences are slight the transition can be a fairly normal slope, but when the mesh resolution is high, the surrounding mesh elevation points are very close to edges of the fixed features and the slope is much steeper. This is effect is aggravated by larger elevation differences. Since rivers are never flat, their locally fixed elevations are at best correct at only one point in each elevation segment; large rivers flowing through mountainous areas are a real problem.Solutions, tedious for all but the smallest areas:* Mesh developers could manually modify the mesh for a better fit around fixed features. Either alter the original elevations values or use flatten or LWM polygon bgls to improve the fit. (users can use this approach as well)* Some of these coastline fit problems exhibit a pattern, and the mesh developer may be able to improve the fit by adjusting the location of areas of the mesh accordingly. Holger Sandmann has had some success with this approach in his B.C., Canada mesh.* More complex methods are available which involve redesiging the scenery with products such as coastline maker.Flying trees:There are probably several factors involved here. The LOD (final resolution) of the high resolution mesh determines the radius beneath the aircraft where it it used. Beyond that radius, the sim uses the next lower resolution mesh available and so on, out to the horizon.Autogen features seem to be rendered only within a fixed radius of the plane. If the highest resolution mesh has not been rendered at that location yet, the trees are set at the elevation of the lower resolution mesh in the distance. As you approach, the higher resolution mesh is rendered, sometimes at very different elevations, and some trees are left "flying" in the air. (I suppose some are burried as well. I haven't noticed any half-buried trees however.) System performance may be a factor here as well. If marginal performance is delaying the rendering of the higher resolution mesh out near the perimeter of its radius, the effect might be the same, but adjusting settings in the sim or faster hardware may help here.If you go into the Scenery Library menu, click OK, and exit, forcing the scenery to be redrawn, most flying trees should now be where they belong. (This is not alway the case, however - I don't even have a theory as to what is going on in those rare situations!)Regards,Stevewww.fs-traveler.com