Hi,Just pondering about the landclass for Flight and I wonder if different methods will be used to create a more diverse landscape. I see in one or two of the screenshots that cliffs are now depicted much better and appears to blend much better than the FSX textures. This will be an interesting advancement with even more use of different landclass elements i.e farm paddocks, hills, marsh, cliff faces, beach/sand areas, concrete, bush, residential and industrial areas etc... as well as how all these connect together. FSX seems to just cut straight to a seperate area i.e bush to hill without any blending, seems by the screenshots that Flight blends more evenly.What do you all think?Kelvin

More accurate world-data would also help the landclasses blend better.

More accurate world-data would also help the landclasses blend better.

http://geoserver.isciences.com:8080/geonetwork/srv/en/metadata.show?id=228&currTab=simpleYou mean something like this? One would think that Microsoft could get hold of something like it.

Hi,Just pondering about the landclass for Flight and I wonder if different methods will be used to create a more diverse landscape. I see in one or two of the screenshots that cliffs are now depicted much better and appears to blend much better than the FSX textures. This will be an interesting advancement with even more use of different landclass elements i.e farm paddocks, hills, marsh, cliff faces, beach/sand areas, concrete, bush, residential and industrial areas etc... as well as how all these connect together. FSX seems to just cut straight to a seperate area i.e bush to hill without any blending, seems by the screenshots that Flight blends more evenly.What do you all think?Kelvin

From the screenshots it looks like the only big advancement is better lanclass in steep terrain. From Brandon's screenshot comparisons you can see that Flight uses the exact same landclass textures as FSX.

You mean something like this? One would think that Microsoft could get hold of something like it.

Of course MS can get hold of any data that is for sale. The question is on what terms? What licensing fees?Cheers,- jahman.

Land class in fsx was off in some regions, and I hope microsoft will improve autogen in rural areas in particular and make suburban type build class. FSX did a decent job on core cities, but a lot of outlying areas lack water towers, windmills, trains were missing but the cars were there driving . Myself, fly VFR low and slow so I am just looking for small improvements in microsoft flight. :( Upper Midwest and Canada need lots of water to land on and seasonal scenery like fish house to land to deliver fish bait . They had camp sites in fsx and I don't see why not fish houses and frozen lakes.

I guarantee that fish houses, fish bait and frozen lakes are near the very bottom or nor even on the Flight improvement list. I guess the same can be said of Wal Marts too.

Since FS2000, the FS series has used the Olson land classification. The data was already defined in a 1 kilometer grid, so the Aces just used that data, and that size.Just changing the grid to 1/2 kilometer would allow for much more landclass accuracy, but the data size would quadruple.Adding land classifications beyond the Olson set would allow much more variation, at little cost for file size. And, if local folder content can override the global landclass table, we'd have complete control over not only textures, but allow new classifications at the developer's whim.Just day-dreaming. None of the FS ttles were designed with 3rd party developers in mind. There is little consideration for reworking the sims.As far as blending, the textures of former sims used blendmasks. I think that would continue.Dick

Edited January 2, 201214 yr by rhumbaflappy

Just changing the grid to 1/2 kilometer would allow for much more landclass accuracy, but the data size would quadruple.

With the Hard Drive space for Flight being 10GB as opposed to the FSX requirement of 14GB, I would definitely say they didn't go this route, unless...

From the screenshots it looks like the only big advancement is better lanclass in steep terrain. From Brandon's screenshot comparisons you can see that Flight uses the exact same landclass textures as FSX.

Not entirely. There do appear to be some new ones.

 

With the Hard Drive space for Flight being 10GB as opposed to the FSX requirement of 14GB, I would definitely say they didn't go this route, unless...

I think it's "funny" that the same people who second guess Microsoft, and who don't believe anything MS says or presents (a la the "magic screenies" non-story) suddenly take this bit of ambiguous information as though it were etched on the same stone as the Ten Commandments. Why, of all the other information made available by MS, do you choose this single bit of info as the only one you believe?P.S. I'm using the word "you" as a generic term to represent all the people who latch onto the 10 vs 14GB argument, not you specifically.

Why, of all the other information made available by MS, do you choose this single bit of info as the only one you believe?

Out of all the information made available by Microsoft, this is one of the few that is a number. A number is something one can interpret with a fair amount of confidence. If, for instance, Microsoft gave us a number for how many airports Flight will include, we could clear up a tremendous amount of speculation with that number alone. Unless you are suggesting that we shouldn't believe the number that Microsoft posted.

What I'm suggesting is that it's incongruent to view everything MS says with distrust, while simultaneously exalting this single piece of information as truth beyond a shadow of a doubt.How can every other tweet, facebook post, screenshot, FAQ, news item (etc...) we've seen so far be nothing more than "marketing", "fluff", or any of the other adjectives used to describe them, yet this can be taken to the bank as rock-solid truth? Could it be because is fits a particular narrative?It's like the people who say 9/11 was in inside job. GWB was supposedly the dumbest prez in the history of the country, yet simultaneously, he was supposed to have carried out the most brilliantly diabolical plan in the history of...history. Which one is it? You can't have it both ways.

What I'm suggesting is that it's incongruent to view everything MS says with distrust, while simultaneously exalting this single piece of information as truth beyond a shadow of a doubt.How can every other tweet, facebook post, screenshot, FAQ, news item (etc...) we've seen so far be nothing more than "marketing", "fluff", or any of the other adjectives used to describe them, yet this can be taken to the bank as rock-solid truth? Could it be because is fits a particular narrative?It's like the people who say 9/11 was in inside job. GWB was supposedly the dumbest prez in the history of the country, yet simultaneously, he was supposed to have carried out the most brilliantly diabolical plan in the history of...history. Which one is it? You can't have it both ways.

You just dicovered some folks pick and choose amongst available evidence to justify their preconceptions. :Big Grin:Cheers,- jahman.

Edited January 2, 201214 yr by jahman

All you can do is wait and see. The FS series been improvement with each new series. I remember playing the Flight Sim 4 back in the early 90s that was 16 colors at the time. Then 5.0 and then FS98, FS 2000 each one was improvement. If Microsoft flight is 10 GB may be smaller, but they may of used different way file root setup, or got rid chunks of code that were not needed. Even if it FSX ,with minimal graphics improvements if the coding is streamlined, and Microsoft flight is set up to more on multiple cores computers would still make a lot of us happy. :(