Well, I've worked on KPRB for maybe 10 or so days...the vast majority of that time has been creating custom objects because there aren't many basic objects even available. (I've done more than the thread shows now.) That's because, in the default objects, there are very few houses at all...more barns if you can believe it. Some apartment complexes but very few. If there had been a decent set of houses I'd probably be just about done and moved on to another area. So, I am slowly creating them and other things. There will be a need for prominent custom objects but those just make it interesting. Once I get enough I'm going to publish them out so that people can use them to build out other airports (hopefully they'll use them). KPRB is a relatively sparse airport with the town about 3 miles away and few trees so, as luck would have it, it was well suited for this task. On the other hand, looking around California, I've found about 20 similar medium sized airports. I'd imagine the 'desert' states would be similar. The one airport I'd love to do but groan every time I look at it is Santa Barbara...so much stuff around it...The trials and travails of the scenery trenches.

Well, surely not before I die, I am afraid... :blink:

 

In the end I don't think photoreal with autogen is what we are after. It's not the 'final solution'. We need a technology that can 'simply' recreate the world in 3D. Google maps but then 3D out of the box. When you look at the photoreal sceneries that have autogen on it (like the two VFR France regions which are, afaik, top of the bill right now) it realy looks awful... That autogen sticks out way too much. The same goes for Orbx addon airports, really...

 

What we really need is real time images from connected satellites that recreate the world as it is in 3D. Real time. Online. B)

 

Autogen is nice but a real old tech solution... We have to think out of the box and forget about landclass and mesh and how FSX is build up. That will never give is REALITY on our PC's. Maybe the first step is to forget about having the entire world on our desktop.

 

Or take Bing's Brid's eye view where you can view some places from 4 different sides: shouldn't it be possible to use information like that to render the scenery in a flight sim? Sill nog perfect but at least you won't be stuck with ONE angle as you are now with Photoreal.

 

One thing that looks really cool is photo scenery that's projected in 3D rather than the typical top-down view.

 

Trying looking up downtown Seattle in the latest version of Google Earth, for example. You can also try Stockholm using this map:

http://here.com/59.3....15,4,62,3d.day (hold down left shift and click-drag to rotate)

 

You really get the best of both worlds - 3D scenery and actual buildings rather than generic ones. True, the 3D effect isn't always perfect, but it always looks much better than traditional flat aerial or satellite imagery. Also, it does require source photography taken from more than one angle to build the 3D effect, but I assume coverage will improve.

One thing that looks really cool is photo scenery that's projected in 3D rather than the typical top-down view.

 

Trying looking up downtown Seattle in the latest version of Google Earth, for example. You can also try Stockholm using this map:

http://here.com/59.3....15,4,62,3d.day (hold down left shift and click-drag to rotate)

 

Good concept just reworking the setup to make flight simulator usable it looks automatically generated world.

 

Well stated! Totally agree. I think photo scenery over some of the blah States, like Texas, Nebraska, Iowa, South Dakota, Kanas, etc., will be much better scenery to look down at than the GEX textures and provide more of a sense of realism.

 

Agree, Fly those states in fsx and gex and photo scenery would make dramatic improvement on those alone.

 

In the end I don't think photoreal with autogen is what we are after. It's not the 'final solution'. We need a technology that can 'simply' recreate the world in 3D. Google maps but then 3D out of the box. When you look at the photoreal sceneries that have autogen on it (like the two VFR France regions which are, afaik, top of the bill right now) it realy looks awful... That autogen sticks out way too much. The same goes for Orbx addon airports, really...

 

Agreed, just the technology to do it on mass scale no available yet, and technical work around would be needed bring it to next level. Auto-gen on top of a known shopping center or Disneyland actually make it look worse to me. Someday it will happen just take time to reach that level.

Jim,

 

Do you have rough co-ords for the location, or the city/area? I can check if I am also seeing a resolution decrease between 2.0 and 2.1 in that area.

 

Here's the Lon/Lat info - Near Olney, Maryland

 

 

This is Version 2 About 2500 feet on the left and this is Version 2.1 2783 feet on the right

 

 

I appreciate your interest and time.

 

Best regards,

Jim

Edited February 15, 201313 yr by firehawk44
Issue fixed. Images removed.

Hi Jim,

 

Assuming V2.1 is the bottom picture... Hmm it is hard to tell actually between those two images. Certainly they are different (can see a color variation mostly, and they are perhaps different zoom factors also? (zoom factor can make a difference to clarity and sharpness).

 

I would say the bottom screenie (V2.1) actually looks very similar in regard to raw resolution, possibly slightly better... Look at the roads in particular - possibly sharper looking in V2.1. It looks like the V2.1 image has a lot less shadowing (taken closer to midday) than the V2.0 shot, so that may make the image look more "flat" and decrease the detail seen, particularly in regard to any object that casts a shadow (shadowing actually highlights a lot of detail)... But to me, these look pretty identical in terms of actual resolution. I think it could be the shadowing differences that contribute to the difference in detail itself? V2.0 seems to have better color in that particular area than 2.1 however. Again, this could be because of the difference in natural light hues at the time of day each image was taken, and of course there might be different levels of haze/pollution etc too which have to be taken into account (Haze can decrease contrast and reduce effective sharpness).

 

What do you think?

 

I'll try check this one out for you in my sim when I can get some time to do that.

If you load up your sim to take a screen shot you can take the first one, pause the sim, go remove the check in the box in the Scenery Library and add the other version you a comparing and the two sceeenshots should be almost identical in zoom, size, angle, dangle and such.

 

Ray

I bought NC and the scenery from the air is really nice looking ... unfortunately I found that when trying to land at my favorite airports 14A, KCLT and Concord Regional portions of the runways disappeared into the scenery and my plane was half in and half out of the ground. I sent a ticket but I have heard nothing from them yet (weeks).

 

I'd be interested in finding out if any of you have had any problems similar to this???

Hi there...

 

Try this... Disable the MegaSceneryEarth layer in your Scenery Library temporarily. Go to those same airports and to the same spots where you were sinking, and tell me if you are still sinking with MSE scenery off. This is more of an elevation issue than a texture one... Its likely you will have the same problem with default scenery, but best to check to rule out MSE anyway.

Also, you might like to try adjusting the terrain mesh complexity setting down to 10m or 5m in FSX and see if that makes any difference.

 

If you load up your sim to take a screen shot you can take the first one, pause the sim, go remove the check in the box in the Scenery Library and add the other version you a comparing and the two sceeenshots should be almost identical in zoom, size, angle, dangle and such.

 

Ray

 

Hi Ray, yes this would be the way to do it, but I think Jim deleted his 2.0 version copy so this is probably not possible at the moment.

Florida is probably next. They removed the old partial version. My state so I can't wait!

and they are perhaps different zoom factors also? (zoom factor can make a difference to clarity and sharpness).

 

I had forgotten about the zoom factor as I know that does make the scenery much clearer and realistic. The Version 2 picture was taken with the zoom factor and the other picture I did not mess with the zoom. I had been zooming out 5x's with the minus key. Thanks for the reminder!

 

Best regards,

Jim

 

If you load up your sim to take a screen shot you can take the first one, pause the sim, go remove the check in the box in the Scenery Library and add the other version you a comparing and the two sceeenshots should be almost identical in zoom, size, angle, dangle and such.

 

Ray

 

Yes Ray that's a good idea but I deleted Version 2.0 and just had the latest version installed. The first picture was the one I took a few weeks ago when I had Version 2 installed. I think I have it sorted as I forgot to zoom in on the new Version2.1 which definitely makes a difference.

 

Best regards,

Jim

 

unfortunately I found that when trying to land at my favorite airports 14A, KCLT and Concord Regional portions of the runways disappeared into the scenery and my plane was half in and half out of the ground.

 

That's strange as I have been flying into KCLT frequently and have not seen this anomaly. I think the Texture Resolution slider raises and lowers airports. I have mine set at 60cm. If you have that slider maxed out, you will probably see this issue.

 

Best regards,

Jim

Florida is probably next. They removed the old partial version. My state so I can't wait!

 

Correct.... Keep an eye on the website for its pending release.

The source imagery for Florida is quite good and pretty consistent so it should be a popular state scenery package!

 

EDIT: Florida Now Available!

Correct.... Keep an eye on the website for its pending release.

The source imagery for Florida is quite good and pretty consistent so it should be a popular state scenery package!

 

EDIT: Florida Now Available!

 

YES!!!!

I think the Texture Resolution slider raises and lowers airports. I have mine set at 60cm. If you have that slider maxed out, you will probably see this issue.

 

The only thing in FSX that will change an airport's elevation is a flatten file. Or the lack of one???

Posted some shots of Massachusetts 2.1....

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/400139-megasceneryearth-massachusetts-21/

The only thing in FSX that will change an airport's elevation is a flatten file. Or the lack of one???

 

I can raise and lower my scenery based on the texture and mesh resolutions. I do not have this problem (or have not seen it) so it really is puzzling why others have aircraft tires sunk in concrete and others do not. I understand what you are saying. Maybe the individual has scenery underneath MegaEarth Photoscenery that is raising the elevation. I see PC Aviator suggests changing the mesh slider so hopefully that fixes the problem.

 

I really get confused with this layering stuff as I remember when FS Genesis was first released and I could put Las Vegas on a plateau just my moving the sliders up and down. I know the texture and mesh resolution sliders are meant to make the scenery clearer and sharper so maybe that's the issue here.

 

Best regards,

Jim