Have you Found Your Street in XP10?

[MSFS Ralf 149]

LOL, that's why downtown buildings are sitting on the grass.

[Geofa 108]

Geoff, didn't you hear???

 

Austin Meyer says... (Link)

 

(Tongue-in-cheek) I'm shocked they're even ALLOWING photoreal scenery to be added into XP10. After all, they build up each city from the blades of grass onward... that's the way of the future!

 

 

 

B)

As usual I don't think he looks at the competition or maybe even google earth flight sim. A real pity..in any case I'll hold my breath for a third party to hopefully do it. From that link he must not have ever been exposed to 50 cm photorealistic in a sim.

True , some areas are not good yet-but that goes for large areas of the world with generic too.

[starflight 8]

As usual I don't think he looks at the competition or maybe even google earth flight sim. A real pity..in any case I'll hold my breath for a third party to hopefully do it. From that link he must not have ever been exposed to 50 cm photorealistic in a sim.

True , some areas are not good yet-but that goes for large areas of the world with generic too.

 

I think Austin's comment needs to be put into context, beyond his trying to sell people on the then-upcoming plausible world feature.

 

Orthos are ok when you're flying higher up, but he was talking about the up-close experience (ground-level up to 5000 or 10000 ft) of orthophotos, where shadows and other objects are "painted" onto the ground, and 50cm photorealism won't ever help with that if they aren't edited out of the orthos themselves.

 

Chris K's recent CYYZ beta is a good example of this--outside the airport, the underlying orthos are a massive improvement when combined with the default autogen (and/or custom objects that he and his team have added). At the airport itself, the orthos do an excellent job of making it seem more real... up until you come across planes painted onto the apron and at the gates, and shadows that don't make sense. I actually wonder why these can't be removed--the orthos he uses are public domain AFAIK, so it shouldn't be an issue to photoshop these out.

[starflight 8]

I've also tried the Simheaven sceneries for both Toronto and Hong Kong. Surprisingly, in both cases the orthos looked extremely washed out or overexposed. Not sure if I did something wrong, or didn't have the settings high enough...

[MSFS Ralf 149]

I have the same impression. The ortho scenery looks washed out and a little blurry. OSM objects, well placed, look so crisp and clear, they make the ground look worse. Might be my settings on low end hardware...

[LAdamson 240]

Yes, it's time for Austin to make a deal with Google.

 

At least I like the idea, or something similar. A few years ago, I had some Google earth & inflight comparison pics of the mountainous areas around here. At the altitudes I fly at, Google makes it seem amazingly real. The terrain mesh even works.

 

So yes.........MSFS is gone, and it's Austin's turn to step up & make a deal for extreme realism versus plausible. And then, everyone can add there own realistic 3D buildings to the database .

 

Sounds good. I like the idea!!!!!!

[uwespeed 497]

Ok guys, time for a reality check . A zoomlevel 16 (ZL16) tile of 1x1° needs about 2-2.5 GB, so let's say, 2.25 GB at average.

As an example for Germany (357,000 km²) we need approx 45 such tiles -> 101.25 GB. No problem, hard disks have plenty of space these days and are cheap.

Ok ... Europe: 10,180,000 km² (28.5 times larger than Germany) -> 2,886 GB. Uhmm, my new hard disk is labelled with 3 TB (what in fact is only around 2930 GB).

Let's not forget Australia (7,700,000 km² -> 2,180 GB), Africa (30,222,000 km² -> 8,570 GB), North America incl. Central America (24,930,000 km² -> 7,070 GB), South America (17,840 km² -> 5,070 GB), Asia (44,615,000 km² -> 12,650 GB). Antarctica and the Arctic are only white (so we leave them out).

To sum up, we would need 38,426 GB (=37,500 TB). Do you have enough money and a PC which has enough space for so many harddisks?

Do you still remember what I wrote above? This is an example for ZL 16. Unless you are flying above 3,000 ft (or so), you will find ZL 16 washed out - even with texture resolution at max. So, let's take ZL 17. For ZL 17 we need 4 times the space as for ZL 16 - i.e. for the entire world 150,000 TB. But ZL 17 is not 50 cm/px (let alone 30 cm/px), but 2 quality levels below. So, ZL 18 needs 600,000 TB for the entire world and ZL 19 (30 cm/pixel) 2,400,000,000 TB. Now, finally we are satisfied, right :LMAO: ?

Do you think I'm finished? No way! . Don't forget the RAM and VRAM you need, with so many GB's per tile, and finally think about the loading times. Unless you have harddrives with, say 100,000 rpm, you might have to wait 30 minutes (or even more?) when you are loading up with (I think 4 at once in XP) complete 1x1° tiles in ZL 19.

 

Nevertheless - have fun ... 8P

[alpilotx 505]

Thanks Uwe ... I was already shaking my head in disbelief ... because in theory (and fantasy) there are so many great things and ideas, but when it comes to implementing and really doing it, then it can be much more complicated (this not only applies to photo scenery, but to all scenery, and especially Global Scenery).

 

And to complete your calculations ..... even if you don't want to store it all on your HD, but "only" want to stream it ... well, you still need the bandwidth to get it all (in a reasonable time, at reasonable costs).

 

Oh, and did we talk about the quality of satellite / aerial imagery ... and how "consistent" it is over extended areas?

 

So, no, there is no silver bullet as of yet .... Maybe in 10-15 years, when we all have out Petabyte storages, or at least gigabit network connections, and Googles drones have captured the entire planet at 5cm resolution in a consistent, shadowless, cloudelss, etc. etc. quality ....

[scotchegg 4,186]

Have to agree with Mr Meyer, photoscenery is garbage for the kind of low, VFR flying I like doing. I also tried the HK Simheaven photoscenery and it was off the hard drive within 5 minutes. Awful colours and blending with native textures (just straight lines around the photo area) and of course the normal problems with photoscenery - shadows that are only right once a day, static cars on roads, gaps in satellite passes, basically lots of stuff to break the immersion and remind you you're just flying over a 2D photo. Not to mention it takes up too much space.

 

So just say no to photoscenery!

[tttocs 301]

Oh, and did we talk about the quality of satellite / aerial imagery ... and how "consistent" it is over extended areas?

 

This, coupled with the "how high do you have to be for this to look good" issue are the real Achilles heels of photo and the primary reasons I have a love/hate relationship with it.  I just purchased a recent photo release for "another platform" :ph34r: a couple of days ago, was test flying it last night and ran smack into this.  On takeoff from my real world home airport, the quality was poor and ground I've flown over countless times/hours IRL was almost unrecognizable.  Even at considerable altitude, things never really "popped" into 3D.  A few miles to the west, colors and quality completely flipped and the experience at reasonable altitude was excellent and extremely immersive (that is, so long as I ignored the fact that the terrain shadows were early morning, and my flight was early evening).

 

Photoscenery (for reasons as noted above and for many others, I hate the misnomer "Photoreal")  is an answer, and in specific areas and ways may sometimes be the answer but not always and not everywhere, at least for me.

 

Scott

[Geofa 108]

Ok guys, time for a reality check . A zoomlevel 16 (ZL16) tile of 1x1° needs about 2-2.5 GB, so let's say, 2.25 GB at average.

As an example for Germany (357,000 km²) we need approx 45 such tiles -> 101.25 GB. No problem, hard disks have plenty of space these days and are cheap.

Ok ... Europe: 10,180,000 km² (28.5 times larger than Germany) -> 2,886 GB. Uhmm, my new hard disk is labelled with 3 TB (what in fact is only around 2930 GB).

Let's not forget Australia (7,700,000 km² -> 2,180 GB), Africa (30,222,000 km² -> 8,570 GB), North America incl. Central America (24,930,000 km² -> 7,070 GB), South America (17,840 km² -> 5,070 GB), Asia (44,615,000 km² -> 12,650 GB). Antarctica and the Arctic are only white (so we leave them out).

To sum up, we would need 38,426 GB (=37,500 TB). Do you have enough money and a PC which has enough space for so many harddisks?

 

Do you still remember what I wrote above? This is an example for ZL 16. Unless you are flying above 3,000 ft (or so), you will find ZL 16 washed out - even with texture resolution at max. So, let's take ZL 17. For ZL 17 we need 4 times the space as for ZL 16 - i.e. for the entire world 150,000 TB. But ZL 17 is not 50 cm/px (let alone 30 cm/px), but 2 quality levels below. So, ZL 18 needs 600,000 TB for the entire world and ZL 19 (30 cm/pixel) 2,400,000,000 TB. Now, finally we are satisfied, right :LMAO: ?

 

Do you think I'm finished? No way! . Don't forget the RAM and VRAM you need, with so many GB's per tile, and finally think about the loading times. Unless you have harddrives with, say 100,000 rpm, you might have to wait 30 minutes (or even more?) when you are loading up with (I think 4 at once in XP) complete 1x1° tiles in ZL 19.

 

Nevertheless - have fun ... 8P

Hey Uwe-I already have had the entire United States ( which is only where I care to fly) in 50 cm resolution on 1 single portable drive-made by Sim Saavy for FSX. Yes, some of the Eastern US is hit or miss-but for anything West of the Mississippi it is the only way to go IMHO. I' d be glad to post some compares if it wouldn't be turned I to a FSX vs xplane thing.

 

Point is-what makes a Sim successful is the end users ability to customize it into exactly what they require.

[Geofa 108]

Have to agree with Mr Meyer, photoscenery is garbage for the kind of low, VFR flying I like doing. I also tried the HK Simheaven photoscenery and it was off the hard drive within 5 minutes. Awful colours and blending with native textures (just straight lines around the photo area) and of course the normal problems with photoscenery - shadows that are only right once a day, static cars on roads, gaps in satellite passes, basically lots of stuff to break the immersion and remind you you're just flying over a 2D photo. Not to mention it takes up too much space.

 

So just say no to photoscenery!

Yes-I've seen lots of poor photoscenery-I didn't care for the xplane ones I've seen. ^_^ I've also seen lots of bad vector scenery-as with all things isn't it best to have access to what gives one the best experience and what they need?

[greggerm 312]

Truth be told, I think Austin was referring more towards the pseudo-photoreal textures which have been used in nearly all platforms since the dawn of bitmap textures in flightsims.... (as opposed to real-world orthophotos).

 

In this layman's opinion, those types of generic textures are exactly what XP10 could really use right about now, as his reliance on the "blades of grass upwards" method still hasn't translated into a plausible experience for me in suburban and urban areas. It looks great out in the wilderness, but in my primary areas of flight it continues to struggle with the "suspension of disbelief" test. Of course, that creates a challenge if you're going to use a real-world road network.

 

Much like orthophotos, from a distance the XP10 suburban and city world looks rich and inviting. As you get closer, the gaps, repetition, and uniformity of it all (autogen & texture) end up more distracting to me than the low-altitude muddiness one might encounter from a photoreal texture.

 

In an answer to the original subject line - yes indeed I have found my street. I know autogen can't be perfect, but there are more 20-story apartment buildings within a mile or two of my house in the sim than there are 20-story buildings in my ENTIRE STATE in reality (*yes, I checked - there are "8" buildings with 20 or more floors in my state).

 

Now that the 64-bit hurdle is overcome, here's to hoping more/continuing efforts can be put towards the entire scenery experience, rather than more "airflow over the 3rd rivet on the right wing of the Baron 58 was enhanced" updates...  

[LAdamson 240]

Have to agree with Mr Meyer, photoscenery is garbage for the kind of low, VFR flying I like doing.

 

So just say no to photoscenery!

Some of my favorite scenery was Hawaii Mega Scenery for FSX. Looked like an aerial photo, and had a real sense of depth when looking at the mountain canyons below/ And yes, I also like flying lower VFR altitudes.

[uwespeed 497]

Oh, by the way ... for my calculations, accidentally I took 2 tiles from Germany which are ZL17 and not ZL16 :ph34r:. Consequence: the amount of required storage is less than I pointed out above, namely "only" a quarter of the figures. I.e. for the whole world: ZL16 (240cm/px) - 9.375 TB, ZL17 (120cm/px) - 37.500 TB, ZL18 (60cm/px) - 150.000 TB, ZL19 (30cm/px) 600.000 TB.

 

Now, that's a fair amount and quite reasonable. Just tomorrow I will walk to my computer dealer and ask for an appropriate PC :LMAO:.