Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

FIVE-BY-FIVE

Have you Found Your Street in XP10?

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Well - for my area/town it seems to be quite accurate (using the hd scenery from alpilotx). You can easily compare autogen to reality due to the ortho scenery used in this shot.

 

Car_C152II_v10_8.jpg

That looks great. Where is that and what orthoscenery are you using?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That looks great. Where is that and what orthoscenery are you using?

 

Thanx - it's the ZL17 stuff from simheaven. The area is a smaller town a little south of Stuttgart / Germany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no doubt that if the generic land textures happen to match your area of the world, and the generic autogen houses/trees happen to match your area of the world that there can sometimes be realistic results. Problem is the world is too,too diverse in land textures/buildings/trees to recreate all that diversity/accuracy

 

Where I used to live autogen worked reasonably. Houses tended largely to be similar, vegetation ditto, and generic farm/city textures did a reasonable job.

 

Where I live now going 11 nm east is the desert, 8nm east are pine covered mountains, where I live is Mediterranean climate with mountains with gigantic and unique boulders, vegetation of every kind ( still waiting for palm trees in xplane). Houses are unique and when portrayed certainly don't match the presently depicted farm houses, or the Chicago appt. buildings that manifest all over my city. When large populated areas are presently missing it is hugely disorienting if trying to simulate flying Vfr.

 

In the 90's when the debate started over using vector charts over rw ones in electronics I used the same argument-why would one want to look at a vector chart when one can look at reality?

 

Same goes imho with a vector recreation of our world vs. a reality recreation. When you can get photoscenery in a sim with sharp 50 cm resolution how much more real can it be? If osm can put accurate buildings of accurate heights on top of this we would have something that could be flown over with a chart and no instruments. Of course with google populating worldwide cities with accurate 3d ones why use generic at all? Xplane 10 roads do take simming to a new height-but I have to say the real ones on photoscenery look more real.

 

Spend hours, years and never really get there to try to recreate a database that can recreate the rw, or just use the rw....or at least for now a combo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geoff, didn't you hear???

 

Austin Meyer says... (Link)

Orthophotos are garbage.

 

(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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok guys, time for a reality check :O. 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! :P. 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok guys, time for a reality check :O. 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! :P. 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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) ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites