HD Mesh Scenery v3 for X-Plane 10 released

[User72 28]

Hi all

what happens if I use Swiss ortho photo sceneries ZL17 over hd mesh v3? Do I get any problem?

Greetings

 

You have to recut the .dsf's with g2xpl to do that. It won't work properly otherwise.

[tonywob 4,769]

 

 

BTW i landed at the wrong airport. Thought it was Shoreham but landed at Gatwick. Hey even real pilots make those mistakes  

 

LOL Mr. Z. That's a bit of an oversite, I'm sure nobody would have noticed in real life ;-). Have you tried OSM data in the area, I wonder how populated Brighton is (Although judging by the rest of the country, it's probably empty also).

 

 

 

Hi all
what happens if I use Swiss ortho photo sceneries ZL17 over hd mesh v3? Do I get any problem?
Greetings

 

Please have a read through http://forum.avsim.net/topic/430976-scenery-and-openstreetmap-osm-faq/ and http://forum.avsim.net/topic/442361-scenery-and-hd-mesh-v2-qa-with-andras-fabian-alpilotx/. But basically, no, ZL17 already contains HD Mesh v2 and will be updated to v3.

[Humpty 751]

@Tony

 

 I have some kind of Buildings for England which I downloaded from .org which I guess would be Osm based. There are also custom buildings for London City hence I get the dome / the bridge / palace and stuff looks pretty cool but with a frame hit.

 

 Shoreham area looks empty.  But I do have Shoreham Osm generated which I can use.

 

 I think London area is the most populated with OSM for England as I see a lot of houses but again I am also using European Library so cannot be sure.

 

 I am on a scenic tour .

[Raxnor 0]

 

Please have a read through http://forum.avsim.net/topic/430976-scenery-and-openstreetmap-osm-faq/ and http://forum.avsim.net/topic/442361-scenery-and-hd-mesh-v2-qa-with-andras-fabian-alpilotx/. But basically, no, ZL17 already contains HD Mesh v2 and will be updated to v3.

 

Thanks  :rolleyes:

[Humpty 751]

I was checking google maps of Canada Pitt Meadows and comparing it with V3 BC area I must say it looks too close  .

 

In Paris the Eiffel Tower is in the air , in fact there is a small hill below it . Can that be rectified ? like editing the .dsf  for that geo location ?

[Humpty 751]

Nice looks nice.

[Longranger 148]

In Paris the Eiffel Tower is in the air , in fact there is a small hill below it . Can that be rectified ? like editing the .dsf  for that geo location ?

It should be obvious by now. The dsf files are NEVER editet by hand, at least not from AlpilotX! There can only be checks for the source data, and if someone mioght be able to fix the source data, or if there is a misinterpretation by the workflow and if a change in the workflow might be more harmfull.

[Humpty 751]

@longranger

 

Thanks. got it

[alpilotx 505]

In Paris the Eiffel Tower is in the air , in fact there is a small hill below it . Can that be rectified ? like editing the .dsf  for that geo location ?

Here is a little background info on such little "hills" in urbanized areas which is a little known fact:

 

The way the elevation data is often gathered, especially with data from satellite measurements (which for example the SRTM DEM data is) has always the problem, that such measurements DO NOT measure the ground level elevation, but the detectable (from above) surface of the terrain! This means, that if there is some serious foliage, or big buildings etc. then the measurement might often capture the elevation of those features (because thats what the LIDAR or radar measurement gets its reflections from). This then - in the end - after some averaging (at 90m resolution for example) you might see some "nice" little hills introduced where in reality "big objects" reside etc. !

 

You can find a lot of discussions / papers on this on the net, like:

• http://ned.usgs.gov/faq.html#LIDAR
• http://topochange.cr.usgs.gov/assessment.php

Or you might search for keywords like "first retrun srtm radar elevation" etc.

[tonywob 4,769]

Thanks Andras

 

This will explain an area I saw in the UK which is just a small hill of 60-70 metres or so. It's like a plateau, which goes straight up vertically, and I only noticed because the cars are driving straight up and it looks quite bizarre :smile:. I had a look in google maps and noticed that around are lots and lots of tall trees, so what should be a smooth climb, isn't. 

[Humpty 751]

@Alpilotx.

 

 Thanks that explains a lot.

[alpilotx 505]

Thanks Andras

 

This will explain an area I saw in the UK which is just a small hill of 60-70 metres or so. It's like a plateau, which goes straight up vertically, and I only noticed because the cars are driving straight up and it looks quite bizarre :smile:. I had a look in google maps and noticed that around are lots and lots of tall trees, so what should be a smooth climb, isn't. 

Hi Tony,

 

Do you have a screenshot and an exact location of that place? Just out of curiosity I would like to know whats going on there (sometimes one can learn from things like this) ...

[tonywob 4,769]

 

 

Do you have a screenshot and an exact location of that place?

 

Hi Andras

 

Yes no problem, I'll post you a shot and OSM link when I get back later this evening.

[tonywob 4,769]

Do you have a screenshot and an exact location of that place?

 

Here you go. Here is how it looks

 

 

The location is here https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/53.77357/-0.58891. The road, appropriately named "Steep Hill" looks good, however the main road Beverley Road goes vertically straight up. In real life, this is a hill with an airfield on the top "Airey Hill" which isn't in X-Plane unfortunately, known locally as Scarey Hill because of the deceiving approach. However, the hill is much smoother in real life https://www.google.pl/maps/@53.7737461,-0.5890054,3a,75y,60.48h,83.23t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sDuYrJyYHCHgAjxLegej4bw!2e0?hl=pl

[mwilk 1,106]

Kind of looks like "the wall" in Game of Thrones. :rolleyes: