Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Sesquashtoo

w2xp SimHeaven pre-generated Canada_OSM_AG files...are amazing!

Recommended Posts

First off, if you using W2XP files...you can NOT also have UrbanMaxx textures also in play. 

 

I found that UrbanMaxx totally destroys the w2xp format and placement.  

 

I removed my UrbanMaxx folder...and took a flight around British Columbia...and my jaw dropped.  I am now ONLY going to run with any W2XP_OSM-AG or HD generated scenery (thanks Tony!)...for this is what you get....WOW!

 

 

Car_C337_9.png
 
 
 
Car_C337_10.png
 
 
 
Car_C337_11.png
 
 
Car_C337_7.png
 
 
Car_C337_13.png
 
 
I think that I died...and went to Tony Wob 'simHeaven'....
 
Car_C337_15.png
 
 
 
Car_C337_14.png
 
Car_C337_18.png
 
 
 
Car_C337_17.png
 
Car_C337_19.png
 
 
 
Car_C337_20.png
 
 
The following shots are near Petawawa, Ontario, Canada....with the new w2xp Canada_osm_ag file driving XPX.35...I don't even recognize the 'old' osm driven sim!  This is like having just purchased a newly upgraded version. Simply fantastic depictions.... I mean...look at this...
 
Car_C337_25.png
 
 
 
Car_C337_22.png
 
 
 
Car_C337_26.png
 
 
 
Car_C337_24.png
 
 
 
Car_C337_23.png
 
The town of Petawawa...so easy on the eyes....wow.
 
Car_C337_27.png
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you post the direct link to where those are?

Would love to try

Here you go, Turbine:  

 

Grab all of these country files...especially USA and Canada...wow...

 

http://simheaven.com/?page_id=3260

 

You need the World Models as well....and follow the instructions, if you haven't had any experience with W2XP files and format.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, my final shot of this flight.  I need to make a statement...

"I have no idea what has happened between the 1 year old OSM files I had driving XPX.35 for the countries of the United States of America...and Canada.  What ever they were...they produced generic, repeating, computer graphics...that LOOKED like generic, repeating, computer graphics. 

 

Since loading in OSM converted by Tony Wob's W2XP program (which was pre-generated by SimHeaven (link above in this thread)....an entire flight simulator has been regenerated as well. I have both ORBX 'Global'...and now W2XP's OSM data's driven version of Global Textures (and landclass placement that OSM also renders), and after three hours of flying over Canada...different provinces...after that time flying over different States...it is my opinion, that the most believable GLOBAL rendering...is NOT to be found in FSX or P3D...NOPE...it is to be found by an W2XP OSM (data)_ag driven XPX.35 graphics engine. What is created, is non repeating, a huge vast, MOST BELIEVABLE topography, I have ever seen in a flight simulator.

 

I felt for the first time...that I was TRULY...truly flying a flight path over real...plausible terrain. I have no idea what mechanics are behind my XPX.35 TOTAL transformation...post W2XP/OSM_ag/hd file injection...but...what ever version of this OSM is translating out to the stellar graphics...that of the roadways, the trees, Tony's artwork....OMG!   I would buy this any day over ORBX Global, for real-world plausibility...and this just fell into my lap!  I love what ORBX does...I do like Global very much...but THIS....OMG...I could have flown for hours and hours.....  This/These global depiction(s)...farm fields...the roadways, and street placements with fabulous building and housing graphics upon them (blows FSX/P3D and UT out of the water!)...the forests..and their placements....clear out to the horizon...is the most real visage...I have ever seen to date in a flight sim...and to think..that I only recently had tried out Tony's project...and what it did for not only XPX...but in my view...real world depiction...over all.

 

Tony...congratulations, man.....wow.....XPX.35 has the most realistic landscape of them all....now. After hours of joyful flying...Tony...your project driven by the latest OSM files, is the RING to rule them all. Bravo! Bravo!"

 

I most highly recommend that everyone try this out...and judge for yourselves....:)

 

 

Car_C337_29.png

 

 

Mitch 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still the question remains (to make things fair) ... how much of what you show is because of the OSM scenery, and how much comes from below (the base mesh scenery ... which ever you use). Because OSM alone can not do everything you see in some of the "natural landscape screenshots" you show above (yes, it can - maybe - tune forests ... but even those are still partially quite lacking in Canadian OSM data ...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreeing with Andras and not wanting to knock the original poster (Who is only complimenting the scenery :) ), but I'd say 90% of the scenery is simply the default or HD Mesh v3 which looks great in this part of the world (So all compliments here should go to Andras). The buildings are X-Plane's default autogen except the few I see which have come from W2XP. In Canada at least, there is some areas with good forest coverage (so the forests might be from W2XP). But there is very little building data in this part of the world except for the major cities and towns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony, and Andras...the only thing I did from having, to be honest...really lousy looking terrain, forests, fields, etc...from the OSM data that I had installed for about 12 to 18 months...and never changed it...was to download SimHeaven's latest OSM, that was processed by Tony's W2XP format.

 

What you see in all my pics on this thread, is beyond that install.  I had NEVER seen farms, rivers, streams, towns, villages, their formats, forests, tree placements, etc...such as I have now.  It is quite the realistic scene...so much so..that I'd pick this hand's down, if I had to only have one 'Global' look for my flight simulator.  

 

Yes...Andras..those are your fabulous mountains...but Tony...everything else...is yours.  It is (I believe), how your W2XP 'logic' when parsing OSM data...is what later gets played out as landclass...and holy ****...is it totally realistic.   So...if there is not truly too much difference in the 'data' from what I had installed as raw OSM for Canada, from a year ago..to what I have as OSM data in play now......then...yes...whatever your program does to the OSM calls...is what you see...

 

No matter though...it is spectacular.  I was flying in parts of Ontario, yesterday...that looked as real...as a photograph would be...farms and fields how they should look...waterways....town orientation(s)...etc.   

 

You can take the 'bow' on that....   Your new OSM W2XP 'global look'..coupled with Andra's HD mesh...and it is the one-two...simulator knock-out punch ....  :)))

 

P.S. Tony and Andras....before any of the W2XP OSM_ag files now in my XPX.35...the forests were abysmal....blotches of trees, here and there...no natural look to them...their placements..etc.  Now....just look at that landscape...WOW!

 

Mitch


Hi Mitch,

 

 Could you please post some shots of Las Vegas and Phoenix?

Sure I will...and will post the grabs on this thread.  You won't see too many 'farm rurals'...lol...but lots of sand...


Still the question remains (to make things fair) ... how much of what you show is because of the OSM scenery, and how much comes from below (the base mesh scenery ... which ever you use). Because OSM alone can not do everything you see in some of the "natural landscape screenshots" you show above (yes, it can - maybe - tune forests ... but even those are still partially quite lacking in Canadian OSM data ...).

Andras..I use your HD mesh....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most important thing Mitch is that you are enjoying the scenery, and getting excellent results :-)

 

The latest version of OSM for Canada is more detailed than it was a few months ago. Everyday several tiles of data are being imported into OSM for Canada, and the areas that have been imported contain forests, and other bits of information that can be used. It's not complete coverage yet (and I think it might be a while off yet), but the improvements are there.

 

I also believe (and correct me if I'm wrong Andras), that Andras used the same vector data (that is currently being imported into OSM) in HD Mesh v3 for lakes, roads, forests. etc.. So you will also being see better data in HD Mesh v3 as well. 

 

Either way, it's good times for this part of the world for data, and I'd expect it to only get better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also believe (and correct me if I'm wrong Andras), that Andras used the same vector data (that is currently being imported into OSM) in HD Mesh v3 for lakes, roads, forests. etc.. So you will also being see better data in HD Mesh v3 as well. 

Yes, indeed water data should be from the same source (CanVec) which is slowly imported into OSM (thats why I switched to the "original" source when it comes to water in Canada ... because OSM is still far from completed) . Other vector information (raods / railroads) is taken from OSM.

 

But, as you see forests 8and every othe landclass info) is NOT take from OSM (I never take forests / landclass data from OSM) but from other, complete (with complete regional coverage) sources. Which in Canada comes from "Canada, Land Cover, Circa 2000" .... and this data source should be quite accurate. Of course, it is never as perfect as completely vector based forest info ... but this is also because of the way the (Laminar) scenery generator creates the mesh scenery: for forests (because its treated as a landclass) it generates ground texturing AND the 3D forests in a way that they are visually synced (so 3D forests should cover more or less exactly the areas on the mesh, where we put forest ground textures). ... The other way around this also means, that the detail (shape) of 3D forests is constrained by the detail in the mesh (to make them both stay in sync).

 

In the default mesh, these forest stand are grossly simplified (and even in HD mesh Scenery v2) .... but in HD Mesh Scenery v3 I did go to great lengths to represent as much detail from the source (forest / landclass) data s possible (and tolerable in size / detail)l. So, usually, HD Mesh Scenery v3 based forests should be quite accurate (but of course, never as perfectly detailed as in areas where good vector forest data exists .... but which is not the case everywhere in Canada).

 

Maybe these three comparison images help to see this (a little bit at least) ... how the forest detail (much smaller scale variations etc.) improves over the different scenery generations (while it also shows the improved water data):

 

Default:

Canada_c400_19.jpg

 

HD Mesh Scenery v2:

Canada_c400_19_hd2.jpg

 

HD Mesh Scenery v3:

Canada_c400_19_hd3.jpg

 

There are quite a few more similar comparisons here:

https://picasaweb.google.com/101666907909842492197/HDMeshSceneryV3FINALComparisonShots?authuser=0&feat=directlink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a very interesting technical discussion between you, and Tony, Andras...and is explaining to me, for what I am seeing, and SO MUCH enjoying to fly over.  I wanted to make one mention though...that some of the fabulous forested reaches...were in relatively flat, Petawawa, Ontario.  Before those W2XP files injected, they were 'here and there'...stunted, blah, blah.

 

Now...they look as the area looks...so I don't know exactly what those files are doing, as XPX.35 reads them...but whatever it is...a conceived event...a fluke...things coming together...whatever it is....KEEP DOING IT, you two!

 

WOW!, and with  much thanks.  XPX.35 has never looked better...in one man's opinion...never!  Thanks for all these initiatives, and this is said to everybody that has had a hand in where XPX.35 is today.  Wonderful!  :Applause:  Simply, wonderful!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony...you and Andras say there is no LandClass data in OSM files.  Or that is what I think you are saying, right?

 

But here is the question...if there is no landclass data...how in the world, can I follow a major highway west out of KFNT...towards the east coast of Lake Michigan, and see a constant global changing, like here, mid-state, out from KFNT (Flint-Bishop).   There is no terrain, and forested area around Flint-Bishop like this...but there is where I am flying....right now.  Since putting in the W2XP files...I can follow any landmark highway system, with NO repeating terrain.  I am doing that right now with this screen grab. This is fabulous.  Nothing is getting repeated...towns...streets...orientation(s)...nothing.  I have never seen this before.  I am so enjoying now...grabbing a highway at 2,800 to 3,500 feet AGL...and just going with it...seeing 'what comes up'.  

 

That is exactly what I doing in this flight. So...if there is no landclass in OSM driving the complete scene updating and rewrites...WHAT IS...doing this?  I don't get it....obviously.  You can't find this within 15 miles surrounding the airport, just off I-75. Nope....

 

Car_C337_30.png

 

 

Here I am a further 15 miles west of the last shot...look at the complexity of the scene...different neighborhoods, the commercial and farm complex out in the center distance of the shot...always changing..never repeating...and this is not landclass in action?   I dunno......and BTW...I have to compress these shots 10 percent or greater, before I can get them accepted for upload. Too bad...they are crystal clear on the monitor... :(

 

Car_C337_33.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The textures you seen on the ground are not from W2XP, they are part of the mesh and can't be changed without rebuilding the mesh (or swapping out the textures in a library). The roads are from W2XP, and the forests could be from either (If they are in OSM, then they'll be from W2XP)

 

The autogen is part of HD Mesh/X-Plane (Although the next version of W2XP will now also place autogen), but if there are buildings in OSM then W2XP will hide X-Plane's default autogen and place the buildings. W2XP will also do other things to the scenery, such as place shrubs around farms or ponds, small trees in residential areas and clip roads going through forests.

 

So, you're likely getting a combination of both mixed together to produce some variation. If you used the same area with photoscenery, you'd see more clearly where the details are coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The textures you seen on the ground are not from W2XP, they are part of the mesh and can't be changed without rebuilding the mesh (or swapping out the textures in a library). The roads are from W2XP, and the forests could be from either (If they are in OSM, then they'll be from W2XP)

 

The autogen is part of HD Mesh/X-Plane (Although the next version of W2XP will now also place autogen), but if there are buildings in OSM then W2XP will hide X-Plane's default autogen and place the buildings. W2XP will also do other things to the scenery, such as place shrubs around farms or ponds, small trees in residential areas and clip roads going through forests.

 

So, you're likely getting a combination of both mixed together to produce some variation. If you used the same area with photoscenery, you'd see more clearly where the details are coming from.

Ok..here's another example,  just west of my last shot, is a bend in the river...and as in real life, you will get a greater forested build up in a bend..as there is a slowing down of the water, and more of it per linear meter. Just as expected...here it is, in depiction, as in a real life scenario!

 

Thank you Tony, for taking the time with me, to explain the 'underlay' of XPX. Thanks!

 

Mitch

 

 

Car_C337_34.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very likely the forest is actually inside OSM, as well as the river (or in the CanVec data), both will be there in real-life, and I bet if you get out a VFR chart, you should be able to navigate using the rivers, roads etc. Since both sceneries use real-life data, they should line up and work well together :-)

 

Also, have you installed Andras's treelines and farms?, this is another nice addon which will add some variety to the scenery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Also, have you installed Andras's treelines and farms?, this is another nice addon which will add some variety to the scenery

 

Yes...they are both installed..and you should be seeing their output, along those great roads! :)

 

Havin' a blast....great hobby!  <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch, your enthusiasm for whatever you happen to be flying is truly joyful and contagious.  Whenever you post, I always end up considering installing what you're flying. ^_^

 

Those screenshots are really, really nice.

 

My only nitpick, and this is valid for absolutely every scenery depiction of farmland, across every sim, is those circular fields that result from pivot based irrigation.  They always bug me.  In reality, they are only ever found in certain regions (I especially hate seeing them in areas where there is no irrigation at all), and they are almost always found in real life as full circles.  The high cost associated with pivot irrigation means that generally farmers want to cover a full 360 degrees with them.  Occasionally you'll see less than 360, but not as a matter of course.  And of course, you'll never see trees and roads cutting across them...  However, in sims, you'll see them as part of the landscape, cut up into chunks, and often where really not appropriate.

 

It's a small thing, but since I grew up on an irrigation dependent farm, it bugs the hell outta me!!  I'd rather have pure rectangular / square / irregular shaped fields than cut off pivot circles!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch, your enthusiasm for whatever you happen to be flying is truly joyful and contagious.  Whenever you post, I always end up considering installing what you're flying.

 

Hi Jimmy!

 

 

Yes...those very same dry-climes irrigations crop circles bug me too.  As you also state..they can get quartered in the scenery. I just cringe...roll my eyes...and fly on.  You're right though...I think they are too well defined as a pattern, to be in any sim....for if you don't get four-border tile placement, and a full circle (of which you do in XPX more than not...) it can look ugly.  Yep...you're right!

 

Cheers!

 

Mitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My only nitpick, and this is valid for absolutely every scenery depiction of farmland, across every sim, is those circular fields that result from pivot based irrigation.  They always bug me.  In reality, they are only ever found in certain regions (I especially hate seeing them in areas where there is no irrigation at all), and they are almost always found in real life as full circles.  The high cost associated with pivot irrigation means that generally farmers want to cover a full 360 degrees with them.  Occasionally you'll see less than 360, but not as a matter of course.  And of course, you'll never see trees and roads cutting across them...  However, in sims, you'll see them as part of the landscape, cut up into chunks, and often where really not appropriate.

There are good reasons for all of this (well, they are not necessarily good for the user ... but "good" in a technical sense).

 

Two major problems are associated with agriculture:

  • for persons who know a region well, its always "obvious" where / what type of land should be (where the irrigation is, where a forest is, where the city border is etc.) .... but for the scenery, this information needs to come from somewhere as clearly defined data. And that data is never perfect, nor does it has unlimited accuracy. Thus, the change of some land classification might not occur where you would expect it, might not occur in the correct pattern/shape, or might not even have the right land type. Especially with agriculture ... its often not trivial - which might seem to some users - to get good data at all .... Like information about where irrigated and where non irrigate areas might be (and even if one gets that data ... its not necessarily accurate down to 100m-s !! ... which might seem a lot for local observers .... but not much in terms of land cover geo data).
  • second .... at the moment there is absolutely no technique in X-Plane (especially not in  the scenery generator), which does sync natural landscape (all the landclass based terrain) with the road grid (the only place where this happens are cities with the "urban zoning"). Thus, the underlying landscape texturing is just depending on the mesh ... but does not know much (at all) about the road grid (and the trees which get plant along the for example by my "tree lines and farms" scenery). So, thats why you get those "strange" roads cutting trough those fields ... And no, neither is this a trivial algorithmic task, to sync - especially when you automatically generate scenery - two quite well defined "geometric" systems (the road network is well defined ... but your agricultural fields would like to have their well defined shapes too ... otherwise they look "goofy"). To my knowledge,  Ben Supnik has some ideas on his long term agenda to improve this agriculture misery ... but I wouldn't expect to see results from these ideas anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony...you and Andras say there is no LandClass data in OSM files.  Or that is what I think you are saying, right?

Well ... I think there might be some great "misconception" about the different data types and how they can affect the scenery.

 

First, not everything you see is something would be called landclass data. Or if we want to be correct, landclass data is not even a term which is usually used by scientists ... its a term mostly defined by flightsims (especially by MSFS). Still, there are two scientific terms, which would add up to our "landclass" idea. Those:

  • land cover - usually meaning all types of natural features on the ground
  • land use - usually used for the more human induced use of the land (agriculture, industry, urbanization ... you name it)

But all of these have in common, that this type of data sets (land cover, land use ... or the mix ... lanclass) are usually datasets which just "plain" describe, what generalized(!!!) class a given surface area has. And that surface area can either be described via some vector polygons (which you might usually find in OSM .... or other scientific data sets ... and those polygons can either be very detailed or extremely inaccurate) ) .... or via raster data (pixels ... where each pixel can be understood as an area of n-by-n meter / kilometers or what ever ... depending on the resolution of the dataset!).

 

So ... our - now lets stay with this term - landclass is "only" responsible to describe what type of land / terrain we would find in a given, smaller patch of land (and a good dataset usually gives us this information across a large entity of land ... states/ countries or even global). Like .... in this area we have a city, there we have a forest, and again, in that other place some agriculture. And usually we try to have all of this a bit more detailed (but still in discrete classes) .... Like for example I try to have forest info at least in 6 different classes:

  • coniferous dense
  • coniferous sparse
  • deciduous dense
  • deciduous sparse
  • mixed dens
  • mixed sparse

And the same holds true for agriculture (irrigate, non-irrigated, orchards etc.) .... or cities (four density levels and info about industry)  ... etc. etc. (like: rocks, ice, snow, sand, wetlands, morains, mining, shrubs, sparse vegetation, grass, meadows ....)

(but still, depending on the landclass source, I almost never get all of these details, and often need to derive them by mixing in other data sources, which can give me the right hints about those "extra" infos I need).

 

OK, but what happens with landclass data? Landclass data is usually - at least for default Mesh, HD Mesh Scenery v3 or UHD Mesh Scenery v1 - "only" responsible to specify how the terrain gets textured in the end. The scenery generator "makes up" a gigantic triangle mesh depending on elevation data in the first place, and then cuts it up in myriads of tiny triangle patches depending on the additional landclass data (which I always mix in in its raster form) .... and assigns some "terrain type" (and terrain type is the abstract name which later gets a real texture assigned to the mesh in X-Plane ... the colors you see on ground!) to each of those triangle patches. ... Thats the main use of landclass. Then in the default mesh (and HD Mesh Scenery v3 or UHD Mesh Scenery v1) ... you also get 3D forests assigned ... and all of them are created (they are all defined by polygons which specify the shape of the forest) by deriving the shape from the mesh patterns ... thus the forests usually exactly match the ground texturing (so, where you have forest textures on the mesh, you usually also get 3D forests on top) . Of course, their shape is dictated by triangle structures in the mesh, so they are not necessarily 100% accurate (when compared to the original source landclass data) ... but the higher the mesh resolution, the more accurate the forests get too (thats why in HD Mesh Scenery v3 ... and even more so in UHD Mesh Scenery v1 ... they should be quite good ... at least as far as the landclass accuracy goes).

 

AND this is really ALL which Landclass is responsible for. But landclass is NOT responsible for the placement of road networks / railroads / power lines .... nor is it responsible for all water features (rivers / lakes / coastline). Both of these are defined by vector data, which in most cases is - definitely in default Mesh, HD Mesh Scenery v3 or UHD Mesh Scenery v1 - sourced from OSM (only exception: the CanVec water data for Canada in HD Mesh Scenery v3!).

 

Now ... the "interesting" thing for you is, that OSM does of course have some landclass information too ... Yes, indeed it has in forms of polygons (you can for example easily and nicely see those polygon defined forests in OSM etc.). Some very detailed ... and sometimes absolutely non existing. And this latter is the reason, why I - for large area scenery which I do - never rely on OSM based landclass info (even if in some areas its so great), because in some areas its non-existent or not detailed enough for my needs (often it really jsut says forest or non-forest ,,,, but as you see above, I usually try to work with 6 different forest types ---> and yes, even map them to differences / versatility in the X-Plane landscape).

 

BUT, yes Tony can (and does) fetch those forests - as an example - where they exist, and can - because of the nature of well defined polygons - drape(!!!) nice / detailed forests on the landscape (where the good data in OSM exists).

 

So, most of the time it all boils down to a mixture of both (or even more sceneries!) .... B) ... But if you have good base data (landclass!), then usually HD Mesh Scenery v3 can already look quite detailed / good on its own (and then w2xp can add a really nice icing on the cake .... if it has good OSM data for a given region :-) ),

 

@Sesquashtoo: maybe one question .... as you say, that without w2xp things look quite "bland" in some Canadian areas ... are you 100% sure, that your HD Mesh Scenery v3 installation is correct and working? You wouldn't be the first one implying that he uses HD Mesh Scenery v3 while XP10 does not even load it because of a tiny installation error :wink: ! You might (should!) try this, to make sure everything is working as intended: http://www.alpilotx.net/downloads/x-plane-10-hd-mesh-scenery-v3/#How-to-know-if-the-installation-was-correct

 

PS: and by the way, I had a very detailed description about how landclass and mesh work together (and how landclass data influences the mesh) on simflight.de some time ago .... Yes, ts in german ... but also has some nice illustrations to give you an idea (or you might try google translate ... hehe): http://www.simflight.de/2014/08/15/mesh-und-landclass-der-x-plane-welt/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


@Sesquashtoo: maybe one question .... as you say, that without w2xp things look quite "bland" in some Canadian areas ... are you 100% sure, that your HD Mesh Scenery v3 installation is correct and working? You wouldn't be the first one implying that he uses HD Mesh Scenery v3 while XP10 does not even load it because of a tiny installation error ! You might (should!) try this, to make sure everything is working as intended: http://www.alpilotx....ion-was-correct

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

 

Thank you Andras...GREAT post!    Yes..here is the log file HD Mesh v3 entry, from my LOG:

 

+45-078.dsf (0 tris)
0:00:00.000 I/SCN: DSF load time: 12500274 for file Custom Scenery/zzz_hd_global_scenery_v3/Earth nav data/+40-080/+45-078.dsf (1506711 tris)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also worth noting that the landcover data inside OSM (Particularly forests, buildings or farmland) is often too generic. Most times I don't know what type of forest it is, or farmland so it's generally randomized (or changed based on region or some other factor). But, as far as forests are concerned, I don't think anyone notices unless you're seeing forests of English oak trees in the arctic. For the GB scenery I did, I had more information to play with, e.g. Types of woodland, bog etc so I could make the scenery more accurate. Generally, when using W2XP with third-party data, it becomes difficult to setup for average users (requiring a database, or scripts to interpret the data), which is why I keep that bit disabled.

 

Regarding the repeating farmland, well I had an idea some time ago to try and get round this, and it was to use something akin to an annotated terrain file (A texture). Basically, you'd create a large, let's say 2x2km texture containing some fields, and then annotate it with objects, such as hedgerows, small wooded areas or ponds in the middle. If the objects matched the TER file below then it would look more realistic, and with a set of these 2x2 tiles to add variety, it would look quite nice and I think this is exactly what ORBX do. 

 

The problem is that X-Plane doesn't support this (not that I could find anyway), so I had to place the .TER files with SV coordinates, and then place the objects over the TER files hardcoded into the DSF. It worked, but I couldn't place TER files without having an entire mesh (i.e. I couldn't create an overlay scenery with them, POLs could also work but are dreadfully slow), and secondly without the data available, I didn't know what should go where and it never got out of me experimenting with a few fields on an untextured mesh :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch, your enthusiasm for whatever you happen to be flying is truly joyful and contagious.  Whenever you post, I always end up considering installing what you're flying.

 

Lol, I was only thinking the same thing, it's adorable really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Lol, I was only thinking the same thing, it's adorable really.

 

Shhhhhh, don't scare him away back to P3D. We need more of his kind in the X-Plane forum ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shhhhhh, don't scare him away back to P3D. We need more of his kind in the X-Plane forum ;-)

(smile...)  "it's adorable really."

 

Wha?

 

 

Ses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...