Have you Found Your Street in XP10?

[alpilotx 505]

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).

Well, Greg, the problem, is that halfway correct urban zoning is not an easy thing to come by (I mean the raw, low level, government info about population density). But your comments on this subject made me a bit curious, and I try to get some better info here than we have now (I think I have found some stuff, which my help here). This might then improve the distribution of the different building types (but no promise until I know if it works in the end) ...

[Geofa 108]

 

Uwe-your argument assumes a couple things: 1) that most simmers want to simulate the entire world. And 2) that technology does not improve

 

Re1: most simmers I have come across want to simulate their area of the world-I personally have pretty much simmed exclusively the US since the start of simming and 95% of that time is within a couple 100 miles of my home for training purposes. The high detail is really important for where I am flying a rw flight-not someplace I will never do so rw. I'll for present take database scenery in far off places where I have no idea if reality is portrayed, but for areas I am familiar with scenery that doesn't even closely resemble reality is not useful.

 

Re2: guess you were not around in the early days of computing like I was when there were predictions that we would never be able to get above 640 in ram and a hard drive was a whopping 10 gigs-this stellar technology after using a cassette recorder for storage and using a commodore 64. Technology does Improve and one can easily see where it is going by looking at google earth with its now hi def scenery and mesh, 3d "walking" , and vast collection of worldwide user created cities. There also is live streaming....

In the 1990's the fser's said that the new 3d mesh system used by pro pilot ( it covered only the US at the time) was not practical for the world due to lack of data, and storage space-yet the next version of pro pilot included also Europe , and fs finally abandoned its hand drawn scenery for the same in fs2000-but worldwide. History is there, vision is present, and combining the two one can usually make a reasonable plot of the future.

 

Alpilotx-hoping you are successful-this would be a great start!

[jasonX 24]

 

 

I was when there were predictions that we would never be able to get above 640 in ram and a hard drive was a whopping 10 gigs-this stellar technology after using a cassette recorder for storage and using a commodore 64.

 

Hi Geofa

 

I remember one occasion in a computer shop. Was interested in moving up from my Amstrad to a PC. People were stood around in awe as the guy behind the counter was showing us his newest aquisition. A new HD with a whopping 10mb. It also had the added advantage that if/when it failed it could be used as a boat anchor. How times change.

 

Regards

[scotchegg 4,170]

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.

Interesting example because in terms of scenery giving a sense of 'being there', I would also choose Hawaii, but the MS Flight version. No matter how high the resolution or how temporarily pleasing photo scenery is, you're guaranteed to run into a dissonance at some point, be it the shadows out of place, or some static object. Sure, many people are not so anal as to worry about it, but for those poor afflicted ######s like me that are, it's an immersion breaker that makes the scenery unusable.

 

On the other hand I'm also all for choice so any option that allows photo or landclass is tops.

[LAdamson 240]

Interesting example because in terms of scenery giving a sense of 'being there', I would also choose Hawaii, but the MS Flight version. No matter how high the resolution or how temporarily pleasing photo scenery is, you're guaranteed to run into a dissonance at some point, be it the shadows out of place, or some static object. Sure, many people are not so anal as to worry about it, but for those poor afflicted ######s like me that are, it's an immersion breaker that makes the scenery unusable.

On the other hand I'm also all for choice so any option that allows photo or landclass is tops.

When something looks right, or has the right sensation, then I call it a "wow" moment. I flew real airplanes over some very interesting scenery for lot of years. I don't expect a desktop sim to fulfill those experiences with total accuracy. Therefor whatever

Method is employed to recreate a few moments of reality , then I'm all for them , and wont dismiss them because of eventual flaws.

[Geofa 108]

Also matters if you just want to get a "flavor" of flying or you want to use the sim as you would fly rw:

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/409755-gps-vfr-flight-sim-savvy-photoscenery-vs-generic-for-vfr-flight/

[alpilotx 505]

Geofa, I absolutely agree with your comment and point of view. 

Only, I question if its fair to ask/expect this kind of scenery from a - more or less - generic, world wide thing like the Global Scenery is. Of course we all want to have this one day ... its still a long way. But for the stuff like you want, there are 3rd party sceneries / developments (if you are lucky) and other more local approaches, where people invest their time / resources to make a selected region look good. As an example, you might take my NZ Pro scenery ... which is still far from 100% perfection, but is above the Global Scenery ... Or to go to an extreme, take ORBX (but also see their resource investment to get to their level ... and at which scale).

[Geofa 108]

Oh I am not debating that generic database scenery should and could ever be this quality as I don't think it is possible--after all reality is reality! 

[tttocs 301]

 

 

Therefor whatever
Method is employed to recreate a few moments of reality , then I'm all for them , and wont dismiss them because of eventual flaws.

 

Or to put it another way, all scenery methods have flaws, cause some measure of dissonance, and require some suspension of disbelief.  The question is, for a given flight or region do the benefits of one method outweigh the flaws for that flight and that area.  As one who is painfully ambivalent when it comes to photo, (and who probably spends too much time ragging on its flaws) there are places, like much of the US SW, where I don't want to fly with anything else.  And honestly, for all of its flaws, if the photoscenery is good, and there are developed airports and areas at each end, it's hard to beat.

 

The question isn't so much whether you're picky, it's what kinds of flaws bother you the most.

 

Scott

[alpilotx 505]

Oh I am not debating that generic database scenery should and could ever be this quality as I don't think it is possible--after all reality is reality! 

Ok, then I think we really agree B)

 

Reality is reality and plausibility is .... uargh ... plausibility. Something remotely like "art". And as we know, art is a very  ... uhm ... elastic term which is a lot about taste, preferences, shortcomings, misconceptions, and often also fun or even a little bit of ingenuity.

 

Just as a side note: I for myself (its an absolutely personal statement) am not a big fan of photoscenery, but I think that at least I know its advantages and disadvantages quite well. And I can really understand (and accept), why so many like it.

[uwespeed 497]

Uwe-your argument assumes a couple things: 1) that most simmers want to simulate the entire world. And 2) that technology does not improve

 

Re1: most simmers I have come across want to simulate their area of the world-I personally have pretty much simmed exclusively the US since the start of simming and 95% of that time is within a couple 100 miles of my home for training purposes. The high detail is really important for where I am flying a rw flight-not someplace I will never do so rw. I'll for present take database scenery in far off places where I have no idea if reality is portrayed, but for areas I am familiar with scenery that doesn't even closely resemble reality is not useful.

 

Re2: guess you were not around in the early days of computing like I was when there were predictions that we would never be able to get above 640 in ram and a hard drive was a whopping 10 gigs-this stellar technology after using a cassette recorder for storage and using a commodore 64. Technology does Improve and one can easily see where it is going by looking at google earth with its now hi def scenery and mesh, 3d "walking" , and vast collection of worldwide user created cities. There also is live streaming....

In the 1990's the fser's said that the new 3d mesh system used by pro pilot ( it covered only the US at the time) was not practical for the world due to lack of data, and storage space-yet the next version of pro pilot included also Europe , and fs finally abandoned its hand drawn scenery for the same in fs2000-but worldwide. History is there, vision is present, and combining the two one can usually make a reasonable plot of the future.

1. I'm not assuming anything, or at least not that most simmers want to simulate the entire world - although I've read several accordingly posts elsewhere. Although I am also using photoscenery here and there, I just wanted to show some figures, what would be possible today and what not.

    

   By the way, I did some other similar calculations (just for fun, nothing more): some people are complaining about the long installation times for the “ludicrous” 80 GB of the stock X-Plane worldwide installation (let’s say this would last only 1 hour). Now, imagine you would have to install 37.5 TB (ZL17 120 cm/px) for the worldwide scenery – consequence: 469 hours of installation = 19.5 days. For ZL19 (30cm/px) – 7,500 hours = 312.5 days (if you are installing around the clock).

   And remember, the complete XP installation doesn’t take only 1 hour, but (don’t know exactly) 2-4 hours, so double or quadruple the above figures. Of course anyone may adapt these figures to his needs.

    

   And herewith we can talk about item ...

    

2. Did I say anywhere that technology doesn't improve? :rolleyes: 

   And as you are writing "guess you were not around in the early days of computing" - you are absolutely right, insofar that you are guessing ... and guessing wrong . I learned BASIC on a Commodore PET, my first own computer was a VIC20 with datasette and later (of course) the C64 with the 1541 floppy drive. Yes, we have come very far compared to the 170 kb floppy disks of the 1541 (or 340 kb when punching a hole to the edge of the disk jacket) ...

 

Remark: the figures in my first post about this item were a bit messed up, insofar that in Europe (the not Anglo-Saxon countries) the thousand separator is the dot, in contrary to the comma in the Anglo-Saxon language area. With so many GBs, TBs, commas, dots etc. one can get confused. Additionally it was late ... However, the figures in my second post finally :clapping:are correct.

 

Oh I am not debating that generic database scenery should and could ever be this quality as I don't think it is possible--after all reality is reality! 

 

Very true ... and ONLY reality is (and can be) like reality.

[Geofa 108]

With high speed streaming and storage devices always getting bigger and coming down in price I just don't see the storage issue as much of a future problem, and for someone who wants to simulate in an area the size of the United States it certainly hasn't been a problem for several years.

 

Alpilotix, I am very happy right now with Xplane as my primary ifr simulator (though I have worries that this will be able to continue if a new rw ifr certified gps that utilizes present hardware does not appear for 64 bit).

 

However, as a vfr simulator-at least in my part of the world-presently xplane is deficient. Yes-there are some excellent add ins like Toronto, and certain areas can be good-but as a whole there is too much missing/wierdness. The heading of this topic is "have you found your street in xplane"-yes I have.

 

Now I wish I could find my city-it is missing and what is there is just not very accurate!

 

As my shots show-serious simulation of flying vfr is actually very, very difficult in my area of the world,actually I could say that for the United States. After you fly ifr for a long time you start to realize the difficult flying is vfr-I'd sure like to be able to practice that-that is if I want to use Xplane as a serious simulator in this aspect of rw flying.

 

For the past decade and 1/2 scenery based on databases has been used in flight sims. For me, it is time to embrace new technology and Google has been showing the way. What if for now-osm data of buildings could be overlaid on photoscenery-then we would have something-accurate sized 3d building structures on real terrain. . With the pace it is going I don't realistically see this osm/data thing working out for about 4-5 years if users contribute-and what will the technology be by then?! To me it is embracing an old technology of painfully reproducing the world bit by bit with numbers-but never really getting there because all the digital data in the world can't really recreate it. We keep hearing about with the short staff how tedious and long a process it is-I am sure of it-I've never doubted it! 

 

For now I am happily using xplane for ifr and for vfr I am getting the most stunning experience in that other sim. Guess what-it isn't fsx-it is Google flight sim!

 

In any case-if I could get scenery like in the shots I put on the screenshot forum in xplane now I would be very happy as that is what I need to get gainful use as a trainer in the vfr department. Maybe some palm trees for Southern California too...

[scotchegg 4,170]

 

 

When something looks right, or has the right sensation, then I call it a "wow" moment. I flew real airplanes over some very interesting scenery for lot of years.

 

Good way to describe it and agreed, the "wow" moment is the main motivation for me to sim. Naturally the wow comes from different places for different people and it's good to have a flexible platform that helps us get our own particular wows. Until recently XP wasn't the sim for me because it seemed to be aiming at people who get their wows from fidelity of flight model, completeness of control systems etc. but now it's starting to provide some stunning scenery which tickles my pips.

 

I can also imagine photoscenery might suit people who fly VFR real life and want to prepare for that better. 

[woweezowee 10]

Mannheim, germany

 

[MdMax 233]

Awesome shot ! :Applause:

 

And it's still possible to improve OpenStreetMap and X-Plane:

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/411153-openstreetmap-21-million-miles-of-roads/