I just purchased FSX Gold Edition and have been flying for about a week. I have found many great terrain downloads for USA and Canada down to 10m, both freeware and payware. Before I downloaded any, I discovered that the FSX Scenery configuration window can be adjusted for terrain mesh down to 10m and textures down to 1m resolution! This being the case, what is the need for the downloaded mesh and textures? Are they more accurate than the FSX defaults at maximum resolution? I can certainly see that downloaded scenery, which improves the accuracy of specific structures and runways, is a much-needed improvement, but can anyone comment on the relative accuracy of the default terrain mesh and textures vs. various free and payware downloads?

 

RDS

Keep in mind that with default FSX, if you set the mesh resolution too fine you'll get some artifacts due to terrain database errors, like bands of rock going across rivers and lakes and other anomalies. I understand there are no default terrain textures at the highest resolution, so setting that may not help you.

 

I fly with nothing but default FSX and have no complaints... but then, i seldom fly in the same area on consecutive days.

 

Microsoft Flight had some excellent terrain for Hawaii, and while Alaska was ok it wasn't necessarily better than default FSX. I prefer Flight's Hawaii, which was incredibly detailed and a real showcase, and FSX's default Alaska which actually seems to give more varied terrain but at lower detail. Alaska, like much of Flight, shows problems with extremely good small details, but a less attractive overall effect.

 

My advice is to find someplace you fly often that has ORBX terrain, and give it a try. You'll quickly learn what stands out and what doesn't, and can decide to buy more terrain based on that experience. If you buy the Pacific Northwest, for example, then find yourself flying everywhere else in the world, you'll see the problem with limited areas. Antarctica tempted me, as I've had some great flying there, but when will I fly there again?

 

Schedule an around-the-world flight, hitting all the high definition cities and airports, and you'll see plenty of really good scenery with just the default FSX and not spend a dime or one minute downloading. After that, if you find yourself flying in mostly one area, see if there is scenery available for that area. A lot will depend on whether you fly low and slow aircraft or airliners; from 30,000 feet it all looks the same anyway.

 

Good luck.

 

Hook

I discovered that the FSX Scenery configuration window can be adjusted for terrain mesh down to 10m and textures down to 1m resolution! This being the case, what is the need for the downloaded mesh and textures?

 

Even though there are settings for better resolution mesh and textures, the default FSX scenery doesn't take full advantage of it. Most of the default mesh only has a resolution of 38 and 76 meters, and I think the textures have a 1 meter resolution.

Most of the default mesh only has a resolution of 38 and 76 meters

 

I've got my mesh resolution set to 5 meters, and setting it to 2 or 1 meters will show differences but causes unwanted artifacts. I don't know what the resolution is for the Grand Canyon, but it looks pretty awful. One of those 76 meter resolution meshes you're talking about, probably.

 

Hook

Only certain sceneries take advantage of the 1,2, and 5 resolution.

 

There's some Orbx sceneries like 7S3 by Bill Womack that use 5m I believe. Also KPHX airport by FlightBeam Studios uses 5m.

Only certain sceneries take advantage of the 1,2, and 5 resolution.

 

I'm using default scenery, and I'm getting resolution as low as 1 meter.

 

If you want to check it out, go to Lake Texoma north of Dallas on the Oklahoma border. For a short flight, take off from TX12 and fly ENE 2 miles. On the southeast corner of the lake there's a dam (just a ridge of land in FSX) where the Red River joins the lake. At 5 meter resolution, you can see a graphic of a stream that flows from the lake to the river over the top of the ridge. With 2 and 1 meter resolution, that stream cuts deeper into the ridge, depending on resolution. At 2 and 1 meters you get bands of rock that go across the lake, and these don't appear at 5 meters.

 

This isn't exactly a highly popular area to fly in, so I suspect it's all down to what terrain data was available when FSX was created, and they used the best available at the time for each area.

 

Hook

Larry, I think that is just a result of the mesh drawing algorithm. 38m and 72m resolution refers to the base data, and as such setting the resolution higher will not make the terrain become more lifelike, although more detail can be seen in places.

although more detail can be seen in places.

 

FSX can't show detail that's not there. If the stream cut wasn't in the terrain data, FSX would never show any difference with lower resolution set. Besides that cut, there are some other subtle differences that show, in coast lines and such, but that's an obvious one.

 

Hook

As I understand it, the setting relates to the highest detail that FSX will show if it is available. So if you have 38 mesh and set it to 5, you will see 38. If you have 5m mesh and set it to 38, you will see 38. There is no negative effect to setting it to 5 when you are in a 38 area.

 

Vic

There is no negative effect to setting it to 5 when you are in a 38 area.

 

Except for occasional artifacting at 1 or 2, and sometimes even at 5. Read my posts above for details. Also, there's plenty of evidence that in some areas the default FSX terrain is 1 or 2.

 

Edit: I was surprised flying down the Orinoco River in South America to see so many bands of rock going across the river. This was at 5. I'm guessing it's because the river has to change elevations. These are thankfully rare.

 

I recommend 5. If the terrain mesh allows it, you'll see 5. If you set 1 or 2, you'll eventually see problems.

 

Hook

 

 

FSX can't show detail that's not there. If the stream cut wasn't in the terrain data, FSX would never show any difference with lower resolution set. Besides that cut, there are some other subtle differences that show, in coast lines and such, but that's an obvious one.

 

Hook

 

I haven't studied the FSX terrain engine, but I would assume that it has an algorithm that interpolates all mesh data to the selected resolution based on the resolution of the original terrain data. If it didn't the FSX mountains would look like pyramids drawn between elevation points (in this case every 38 or 76 meters). However it doesn't normally add new data when settings are set higher than the source data, but those artifacts you speak of could be just that. I would assume that's what's happening in the terrain when a road or river cuts through a steep cliffside and it looks very strange with high res (LOD) settings. Just thinking out loud here...

Edited December 28, 201213 yr by simmerhead

Hook - you are correct, of course. I was basically responding to the thought that setting it to 5 would somehow "enhance" the 38.

 

Vic

I was basically responding to the thought that setting it to 5 would somehow "enhance" the 38.

 

Don't we wish!

 

I would assume that it has an algorithm that interpolates all mesh data to the selected resolution based on the resolution of the original terrain data. If it didn't the FSX mountains would look like pyramids drawn between elevation points

 

It's obviously doing some smoothing, or the Grand Canyon wouldn't look so rounded, for example. You can see problems in some of the Aleutian Islands to the west of Adak, where you have a stair-stepping effect. It's obvious there that the original data was smoothed improperly before being imported at a higher resolution.

 

I've done a lot of map work for various wargaming communities, so I'm familiar with smoothing functions. One technique I often used with low res data was to import the data as a greyscale image to a paint program, apply smoothing techniques there, then export it back to map data. This is a delicate technique, and you have to be careful not to smooth the crests of hills too much. You can usually get the peaks and valleys back by doing a little contrast enhancement. It's been a while since I've done this, though.

 

Hook

This was always a kind of pet peeve of mine with non default sceneries whose mesh resolution recommendations were all over the map. (so to speak)

 

Even Orbx sceneries have little consistency from one to the other, and I suspect that many people just find an acceptable medium figure and stop thinking about it.

 

When Aerosoft was thinking about making a sim, I suggested the sim query resolution data from the scenery and change on the fly, or that they set some sort of limits that all designers had to adhere to.

 

I wonder how a sim with tessellation capability would handle this?

Will check out Adak. Just installed Ultimate Alaska X which has custom mesh, and hopefully it fixes that!

 

This was always a kind of pet peeve of mine with non default sceneries whose mesh resolution recommendations were all over the map. (so to speak)

 

Even Orbx sceneries have little consistency from one to the other, and I suspect that many people just find an acceptable medium figure and stop thinking about it.

 

When Aerosoft was thinking about making a sim, I suggested the sim query resolution data from the scenery and change on the fly, or that they set some sort of limits that all designers had to adhere to.

 

I wonder how a sim with tessellation capability would handle this?

 

Quite difficult to do efficiently. Outerra looks great in that respect with detail being interpolated on the fly as you get closer to the ground. Problem is the "popping" that occurs, and considering the limited fidelity of the Outerra engine in its present state, I can't imagine the computer power needed if you add 1000s of autogen and terrain objects, flight model, weather etc to that. We need a Bruce Artwick of the 21st Century!