UTX + SceneryTech FTXG test

[Pe11e 812]

I had UTX Europe only enabled yesterday when testing FTXG. I was pretty impressed with the textures and autogen, tested it around EDDM and across Europe. Bought SceneryTech few months ago only to cover the Balkans, the part of the Europe that UTX don't cover. Enabled again SceneryTech, and moved the entry just above UT landclass vegetation entry, just to assist UTX for vegetation placement. I tested that combination before with default FSX textures and it was fine, but the story with FTXG is completely different.

 

See it for yourself:

 

(tested just above EDDM)
UTX + FTXG

 

 

 

 

UTX + SceneryTech + FTXG

 

 

 

 

With SceneryTexh entry squeezed between UTX entries, the difference is quite huge, I'm not sure why, it is dealing only with vegetation. It is obvious that SceneryTech is using completely different set of textures here, and with very different placement techique. And to be honest, I don't like the result, it reminds me of default FSX world (instead of good placed autogen).
I moved the SceneryTech entry just below all UTX entries, just to deal with the Balkans. UTX + FTXG for the rest of the Europe is a brilliant combo.

I found this results quite interesting, because with default FSX textures the results with UTX + SceneryTech combo are similiar to default (same textures) just with much more variation due to two landclass addons dealing with, well, landclass.

Why the result is completely different with FTXG textures is beyond me. :huh:

[hs118 707]

What does online satellite imagery show for this area?

 

EDIT: just checked, definitely more like the 1st shot.

[dave2013 1,123]

Frankly, I've found that Scenery Tech landclass is not very accurate in most parts of the world.  In some parts of the world it is hardly different from the default landclass.

 

UTX Europe actually contains its own custom vegetative landclass for Europe that is generally accurate, so in this case I think you're seeing that, i.e. UTX landclass more accurate than Scenery Tech.

 

I've actually unistalled all my Scenery Tech landclasses as they just don't make much of a difference in many areas and in some cases even make the scenery worse.

[Pe11e 812]

What does online satellite imagery show for this area?

 

EDIT: just checked, definitely more like the 1st shot.

 

Yes, that is exactly why I'm liking much more only UTX for the rest of the Europe..

I forgot to mention that I tested the Balkans (mostly Serbia) with SceneryTech (as I mentioned UTX don't cover that part of the continent), and the results are good, Belgrade and Vojvodina looks really good now. But one thing in what SceneryTech isn't good is a very repetitive texture patterns. UTX isn't that good regarding patterns, but not that obvious as SceneryTech.

Frankly, I've found that Scenery Tech landclass is not very accurate in most parts of the world.  In some parts of the world it is hardly different from the default landclass.

 

UTX Europe actually contains its own custom vegetative landclass for Europe that is generally accurate, so in this case I think you're seeing that, i.e. UTX landclass more accurate than Scenery Tech.

 

I've actually unistalled all my Scenery Tech landclasses as they just don't make much of a difference in many areas and in some cases even make the scenery worse.

 

Maybe, but I'm not reffering to accuracy, I'm reffering to texture choice.

[Drumcode 1,892]

It would be interesting to see them all: Scenery Tech vs. FTXG, Cloud 9 vs. FTXG and FS Genesis vs. FTXG.

 

I am quite honestly at the crossroads deciding which landclass to get for the time being until the OLC's come out.

[Pe11e 812]

It would be interesting to see them all: Scenery Tech vs. FTXG, Cloud 9 vs. FTXG and FS Genesis vs. FTXG.

 

I am quite honestly at the crossroads deciding which landclass to get for the time being until the OLC's come out.

 

FS Genesis is a high resolution terrain mesh, not a landclass. I'm using it for the Europe.

 

----------------

 

Oh yeah, look again second screenshot, you'll notice that desert like part on the left part of the image. I think that FTXG didn't replaced that texture, looks like default. Also I can't find out what exactly is, a dry grass part?

[mmann 72]

FSGenesis makes a USA only landclass.

[dave2013 1,123]

 

 

es, that is exactly why I'm liking much more only UTX for the rest of the Europe..
I forgot to mention that I tested the Balkans (mostly Serbia) with SceneryTech (as I mentioned UTX don't cover that part of the continent), and the results are good, Belgrade and Vojvodina looks really good now. But one thing in what SceneryTech isn't good is a very repetitive texture patterns. UTX isn't that good regarding patterns, but not that obvious as SceneryTech.

 

You're right about the urban landclass.  Scenery Tech does, in some cases, provide more accurate urban landclass, but the vegetative landclass has just never impressed me.

[Drumcode 1,892]

FSGenesis makes a USA only landclass.

 

Which I own. Sounds like I'm better off waiting for the OLC's for the rest of the world?

[1st fltsimguy 466]

It would be interesting to see them all: Scenery Tech vs. FTXG, Cloud 9 vs. FTXG and FS Genesis vs. FTXG.

 

I am quite honestly at the crossroads deciding which landclass to get for the time being until the OLC's come out.

 

 

Here is what I don't fully understand yet.  That FTXG has in fact modified the lclookup table to fit their textures to give their desired results - which are very impressive.  But or therefore older or other landclass products which call the base FSX texture calls based upon the older lclookup table will call some other texture that was intended. Am I not correct.  Which means these other landclass products will do exactly what it depicted above and that is mess with their original intended results.

[Alan_A 1,650]

Hmm, interesting.  I've been using Cloud 9 US landlcass in my local area (Washington DC).  Looks OK to me but I'll have to try without it and see if FTXG alone does better.

[Drumcode 1,892]

Here is what I don't fully understand yet.  That FTXG has in fact modified the lclookup table to fit their textures to give their desired results - which are very impressive.  But or therefore older or other landclass products which call the base FSX texture calls based upon the older lclookup table will call some other texture that was intended. Am I not correct.  Which means these other landclass products will do exactly what it depicted above and that is mess with their original intended results.

 

I think FTXG texture files are named the same as the FSX stock ones. I might be wrong.

[1st fltsimguy 466]

I think FTXG texture files are named the same as the FSX stock ones. I might be wrong.

I think the names are the same but there might be a reassigning of, say by example of when a particular texture is displayed by its lookup number.  Texture files are the same numbers but the table that dictates when(where) to display that number might be different. 

 

I will need to study this some more.

[scott967 62]

Here is what I don't fully understand yet.  That FTXG has in fact modified the lclookup table to fit their textures to give their desired results - which are very impressive.  But or therefore older or other landclass products which call the base FSX texture calls based upon the older lclookup table will call some other texture that was intended. Am I not correct.  Which means these other landclass products will do exactly what it depicted above and that is mess with their original intended results.

 

Note that a "landclass" bgl is simply a file with a grid of unsigned integers in the range 0 -255.  Same thing (with smaller range) for the regions and seasons file (and waterclass for that matter).  It is the job of the control file lclookup.bgl along with terrain.cfg to map the combo of landclass, region, and season numbers into a set of texture files (typical is about 5 or so in each set, chosen I guess randomly).  Holger Sandmann (who IIUC is with Orbx now) and others have determined that mapping and published spreadsheets with that info for developers. 

 

So with any landclass product you can easily use the TmfViewer from the sdk and get the landclass integer for any lat/lon and then use Holger's spreadsheet to see what actual texture files will be placed (where multiple landclass files exist for a location, highest scenery area priority wins).

 

Since FTXG is modifying lclookup.bgl, Holger's spreadsheet isn't valid any more, and you would have to experiment (create a test landclass with the same value everywhere for example) and see what actual textures the mod lclookup.bgl is calling.  If FTXG wasn't so expensive I might do that myself out of curiosity.

 

If you examine commercial landclass files, I think you find that there aren't in general large blocks of identical landclass values, instead there might be 2 or 3 similar ones kind of randomly placed.  That was done based on the visual appearance using FSX lclookup.bgl.  That method might be broken by the FTXmod lclookup,bgl.

 

Another potential issue is the default lclookup.bgl didn't provide for unique texture set for each possible landclass and region combo.  So you might have a couple different landclass values that result in the same texture being applied.  If FTXmod lclookup.bgl changes that, that would cause a difference in how it looks in the sim.

 

scott s.

.

[hs118 707]

this has been so far one of the most informative and least argumentative threads on this subject. thanks for all the good info.