I've developed a mesh layer that doubles elevations.It helps get rid of the "flat scenery look" that photoreal scenery has in locations that have minor elevation differences.I have a downloadable sample of the Northeast US along with the photoreal scenery for Connecticut.I would appreciate comments as to whether or not this is a worthy effort on my part.The install requires replacing the terrain.cfg file and I worry this may be too much for the casual simmer.Hopefully I can find a simming guru here at the AvSim forum willing to download 700mb and give it a try.The install info & sample can be found here http://sim-savvy.com/Links/Links_NewStuff.htmlThank You in advance for any comments Larry

Hi Larry. I just looked at the screen shots and I could notice a little difference. Probably its a lot more noticable in game than by looking at screen shots. While its a good idea, I can only imagine how much extra work it must be to do that, and when I first read the title of your post, I though it might be something to the effect of adding bump maps to the textures to make the tree areas apprear a little more rough or raised.

If you look wayyyyyy in the back of the screenshot on the horizon you can see the hills are much more exaggerated. This looks to me like they used a higher definition mesh... But that may be what the modification actually looks like.

Hi larry,I may be wrong but I am not convinced that those who complain about photoscenery looking flat refer to the terrain but rather the lack of 3D objects. The mesh, i.e the terrain elevation, being what it is. Just my two cents...I am a big fan of your work as it is and higly recommend it. :(

Larry,As YankeeGolf3 noted, the main complaint about photoscenery is normally the lack of vertical trees and buildings to add a 3-D feel to what you see out the cockpit window. That particular thing doesn't bother me at all. In fact, all I fly is photoscenery--often at around 1000 ft AGL or less. I haven't seen the default FSX scenery in so long that I've forgotten what it looks like.Anyway, this is one of those things that, if it would be personally worth all the effort, then by all means do it. Otherwise, it's probably something that most people wouldn't bother with. And there is one obvious downside to my eye, even in your screens. The added vertical dimension to the landscape in the middle forground, draws even more attention to the fact that the buildings along the river are "painted" on the landscape. It can, in those circumstances detract rather than enhance.Rich

Ok, I've noticed that members of this forum tend to be highly critical first before even trying something. It's discouraging for a developer to be told something is not good enough before it has been tried.So did anyone try it?

Larry, when you say your mesh doubles elevation, does this mean a mountain with a height of 1000 ft now will have a height of 2000 ft when using your mesh? If it is so, one can forget about all procedures, like approaches (no matter if ILS or visual), departures, SIDs, STARs etc., because they all consider elevation. So if your mesh just doubles elevation it is not usable for serious flying IMO. Sorry that this also might not be very encouraging for you.Wolfgang

Ok, I've noticed that members of this forum tend to be highly critical first before even trying something. It's discouraging for a developer to be told something is not good enough before it has been tried.So did anyone try it?

I guess I misunderstood your inquiry. I'm originally from CT and meshes always seem to depict it as flatter than it actually is. I also create photoscenery (Niihau and Kauai so far) and casual simmers have had a hard enough time installing those. Messing with the terrain.cfg will make them even more nervous.I've also been told not to bother with Maui (my current project) because it's already been done. If nothing else, it's a labor of love. It's something I want to do. Hence my comments.Unfortunately I won't be at my home computer to try your mesh and photoscenery until late this week. But you're right. Perhaps saying nothing at this point would have been better.Rich

Larry, when you say your mesh doubles elevation, does this mean a mountain with a height of 1000 ft now will have a height of 2000 ft when using your mesh? If it is so, one can forget about all procedures, like approaches (no matter if ILS or visual), departures, SIDs, STARs etc., because they all consider elevation. So if your mesh just doubles elevation it is not usable for serious flying IMO. Sorry that this also might not be very encouraging for you.Wolfgang

Yes it doubles the elevations. In theory, you can compute the new elevations needed by simply doubling the numbers. But the purpose of the product is to enhance photoreal scenery in geographic areas that are basically flat. VFR flight at 500 to 1500 AGL is where it works best. It just a visual enhancement.

Hi larry,I may be wrong but I am not convinced that those who complain about photoscenery looking flat refer to the terrain but rather the lack of 3D objects. The mesh, i.e the terrain elevation, being what it is. Just my two cents...I am a big fan of your work as it is and higly recommend it. :(

You got my interest so I looked into it and found a way to get the autogen objects to display on top of the photoreal. It involves replacing the files in the default scenery folder. I'm tweaking the settings for best results & will let you sample it. And thanks for the support.

So, if I'm flying past 5000ft high mountain it will now be 10000ft high?

Hi, I don't think so because Larry wrote that it was only for flat areas

Hi, I don't think so because Larry wrote that it was only for flat areas

He is correct as mentioned above. For the west coast I'm using a vertical exaggeration of 1.25. So a 10,000 ft montain will grow to 12,500. Has anyone tried it yet?