So, I have chosen over the last 10 years to let our customers handle the spread of information, good or bad.       As a result, I probably won't be responding much here if at all.

 

 

I've been following the development of this product since you first posted some preliminary information on your website a while back. Although I am not as personally familiar with those SE US cities as some others here are, I think that the product substantially improves the immersion in P3d. The best part is that the performance hit is less than I expected and when combined with avduke's AI Traffic Optimizer app, you can get very good performance around these metro areas at high IQ settings in P3d. I'm looking forward to your other products, especially, the Northeast US cities.

Here we go.  My review of Extreme Cities using my home city of Dallas, Texas.

 

Excellent review, you showed just the information that I wanted to see and nothing else...bravo. This is a definite buy for me when they release Southern California!

 

Ryan

Personally, I would vary the tree density a bit. Some of the screenshots that I have seen seem to show single trees in generally repeating patterns (probably more of a problem in some of the US cities with their "grid style" design). Repeating patterns (whilst to some extent unavoidable) shout "this is not real" at the human brain.

 

Are the trees just added at random, or do they conform to clusters of trees that are actually depicted in the photoreal base image? I don't know how difficult it is to add trees when compared to buildings, but getting the tree density variation correct adds enormously to the realism of a scene.

Personally, I would vary the tree density a bit. Some of the screenshots that I have seen seem to show single trees in generally repeating patterns (probably more of a problem in some of the US cities with their "grid style" design). Repeating patterns (whilst to some extent unavoidable) shout "this is not real" at the human brain.

 

Are the trees just added at random, or do they conform to clusters of trees that are actually depicted in the photoreal base image? I don't know how difficult it is to add trees when compared to buildings, but getting the tree density variation correct adds enormously to the realism of a scene.

 

I THINK, don't quote me on this, but think they hand placed the trees based on data available to them.

Personally, I would vary the tree density a bit. Some of the screenshots that I have seen seem to show single trees in generally repeating patterns (probably more of a problem in some of the US cities with their "grid style" design). Repeating patterns (whilst to some extent unavoidable) shout "this is not real" at the human brain.

 

Are the trees just added at random, or do they conform to clusters of trees that are actually depicted in the photoreal base image? I don't know how difficult it is to add trees when compared to buildings, but getting the tree density variation correct adds enormously to the realism of a scene.

Hi,

 

The tree placements are generated automatically from their locations in satellite images (algorithm looks for a certain color hue and brightness range).    However, if I remember correctly, no 2 trees can be positioned within 5m of each other to keep the densities from being too heavy (and hurting frame rates).     

 

I believe that any grid-like look for the trees comes from the following:

 

1) In subdivisions, a lot of developers plant at least 1 or 2 trees per house.   If you look at aerials in Dallas and filter out the houses, the grid-like roads also contribute to the grid-like tree areas.   So naturally, there is a bit of a grid-like tree arrangement in reality.

 

2) The fact that we eliminate overlapping trees (for better performance) could be a factor.

 

3) The image scanning algorithm (row by column) could add something to this appearance.    Before planting each tree, we also randomly offset each one by 0 to 2 meters to stagger them a just a bit more, but keep them close to their real world position.

 

If you look at an aerial image of our coverage areas, you should see trees appearing in their accurate locations.   The only exceptions at times are some building shadows that may have a green tint to them.    I have seen a few trees appear in these locations.

 

Appreciate the feedback.

 

To Kuragiman.   That is a very nice review.  We will be building a reviews page on our website later on.   Do you mind if we post a link to your video ?

 

Thanks.

Allen

To follow up with the tree post.   Here is a screenshot from our development software interface that shows the tree locations.   The green + plusses show the locations and the size of the plusses represents their related sizes.

 

 

Cheers

Thanks for the explanation, Allen. I appreciate that you need to keep tree density at a certain level to maintain performance. That top down view gives a good indication of the method that you are using, and it actually looks pretty good.

Knock yourselves out.   Mi Review, Su Review.  

Hi,

 

The tree placements are generated automatically from their locations in satellite images (algorithm looks for a certain color hue and brightness range).    However, if I remember correctly, no 2 trees can be positioned within 5m of each other to keep the densities from being too heavy (and hurting frame rates).     

 

I believe that any grid-like look for the trees comes from the following:

 

1) In subdivisions, a lot of developers plant at least 1 or 2 trees per house.   If you look at aerials in Dallas and filter out the houses, the grid-like roads also contribute to the grid-like tree areas.   So naturally, there is a bit of a grid-like tree arrangement in reality.

 

2) The fact that we eliminate overlapping trees (for better performance) could be a factor.

 

3) The image scanning algorithm (row by column) could add something to this appearance.    Before planting each tree, we also randomly offset each one by 0 to 2 meters to stagger them a just a bit more, but keep them close to their real world position.

 

If you look at an aerial image of our coverage areas, you should see trees appearing in their accurate locations.   The only exceptions at times are some building shadows that may have a green tint to them.    I have seen a few trees appear in these locations.

 

Appreciate the feedback.

 

To Kuragiman.   That is a very nice review.  We will be building a reviews page on our website later on.   Do you mind if we post a link to your video ?

 

Thanks.

Allen

To follow up with the tree post.   Here is a screenshot from our development software interface that shows the tree locations.   The green + plusses show the locations and the size of the plusses represents their related sizes.

 

[...]

 

Cheers

 

Some great info there!

Thank You very much for it!

 

 

 

Here we go. My review of Extreme Cities using my home city of Dallas, Texas.

 

A very, very fine video!

Thank You very much for all the effort and sharing!

Here's their tentative list of NE USA cities:

 

USA Northeast (15)

 

Maine

Bar Harbor

 

Massachusetts

Boston

Martha's Vineyard

Nantucket

 

Rhode Island

Providence

 

New Jersey

Atlantic City

 

New York

Albany

Niagara Falls

New York City

 

Ohio

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbus

 

Pennsylvania

Philadelphia

Pittsburgh

 

Vermont

Burlington

Cool. So nice to see my home city is coming soon. Will definitely buy a copy once NE USA cities is out

Detroit would be cool

http://www.flight1.com/images/xcusasouthcentral/xcusasc5.jpg

 

Pics are very ordinary to put it mildly

I think there is more explanative content now on this thread.  That first shot didn't do anything for me, as well, but the follow up is garnering interest...

Detroit would be cool

 

yeah! michigan has always kinda been underrepresented in fsx, would love to see ann arbor, kalamazoo, lansing...pontiac..ypsi...some stuff up north like traverse or sault st marie..  this tech looks pretty cool, definitely on my wishlist now

 

cheers

-andy crosby

Here we go.  My review of Extreme Cities using my home city of Dallas, Texas.

 

Wow....Kurag...when you turned off E.C'ies...as you were on pause..it was like a slap-upside-the head!  You are right...if that is plain P3D Dallas...and when you turned it back on...what a difference.  I know that I am interested....Detroit (Michigan in general) would be nice....very nice...do you know..is the wonderful State of Michigan in the works?

 

Mitch

yeah! michigan has always kinda been underrepresented in fsx, would love to see ann arbor, kalamazoo, lansing...pontiac..ypsi...some stuff up north like traverse or sault st marie..  this tech looks pretty cool, definitely on my wishlist now

 

cheers

-andy crosby

Just my thoughts Andy....I'd buy it.....and this slays me...NEW JERSEY is in...but Michigan isn't even on the list?   LOLOLOLOL....go figure.....

Knock yourselves out.   Mi Review, Su Review.  

You know...as you were flying over Fort Worth..and you mentioned the 30 to 20 FPS drop and spike-pause, etc.

 

For myself...I can 'filter' that out with my 'sense-of-expectation'...but...to pick up visual reality...or at least...a greater semblance of it...is a good trade off in my own meets/needs department.  Yes..I love a smooth animation like the next user...but...I also need everything turned on...which in P3D, I do.... and can get a spike/pause/chunk, here and there...I just ah..er..'mentally, fly right by it...and move on'....

 

Looks like something to purchase, for sure.....

 

I do have a question...can you clarify...if you have ORBX Global 1.30....does this software ONLY blend in around a published city..or can this software GLOBALLY produce a better tree-scape besides roads and highways, etc?  That is the part that I am not sure of yet...and thanks for the review...a good job, you did!

 

Mitch 

Reading from off of the F1 page..you can NOT use your one purchase to cross over between P3D and FSX.  You must buy the program for that sim.  You can purchase a different 'version' of either sim,  like going from the base P3D to let's say P3D for FTX..and your P3D first purchase KEY will open that second of the same platform.

 

So...here's my problem...if you purchase for P3D...which is truly a BETA..and morphing each and every time...with the next version update  (Look how ASN and FTX, needs to keep releasing a compatible update for the 'current' version)...will you 'orphan' out with this product...that it might not work any longer with the next version...or do you have to wait for a major re-write update from the Dev?!?!?

 

At least with the version of FSX...you know it will work...now...and ten years from now.  I just thought to bring up this important point....  FSX has no more tweaking done to it...and perhaps that is the one for a sure bet with this product.  Allen...what will happen to those that purchase for an evolving platform, such as P3D at least three times per year...? What is the guarantee-of-useful product life, for the P3D franchise user?  What contingency do you have for that purchaser?

 

Mitch