Looks fine, on my end. Nicely detailed airport, sadly low resolution textures.

 

Are you referring to the surrounding terrain textures, or the airfield itself? If it is the former, have the terrain textures in the New York area not been "upgraded" like they have in the South Western USA region?

Are you referring to the surrounding terrain textures, or the airfield itself? If it is the former, have the terrain textures in the New York area not been "upgraded" like they have in the South Western USA region?

 

Yes, they have, but they are still low res in a lot (if not most) places. The highest res, also in the South West, usually can be found around airports: most of the scenery is still quite low res. Not as completely low res as it is outside of the DLC regions, or course, but still, not very high res.

I jave just checked out the current ORBx product list, and it looks like they have a total of fifteen airport packages that match the airports that are included in the South Western USA region of AeroFly FS2. I wonder if we will get to see all of those in this simulator at some point?

Maybe. The Aerofly defaults are nice, but does anyone really doubt orbx can top them? Especially if they can get peopleflow and other things working?

You don't need to have doubts. The ORBx versions of those fifteen airports are light years beyond the AeroFly FS2 versions where detail is concerned. The only problem is that I am probably going to have to make do without food, power and shelter to pay for it all!

I rather have DETAILED regions (so no flat spots on the (high res) photoreal where buildings or trees should be) than (very) detailed airports. The thing is, I almost always fly from A to B and so I spend most of my time in between A and B and so those area's are more important to me. I only see A and B for a rather short while and while I do want them to look good, I don't need TOO much detail which I won't even see whenever I am actually flying. And btw Orbx airports would only make the current default scenery outside of airports look even worse. I like everything to be on the same quality level (rather then some parts looking awesome and others looking crap).

For a couple of weeks ago John Venema (Orbx) said:

 

There is in fact photoreal coverage of the entire planet in AFS2, but it's very low resolution, about 20m/pixel I think. The developers did host some discussions on Steam asking if customers wanted a 5m/pixel coverage of the whole world for about 160GB worth of files, and the response was overwhelmingly 'Yes!'. That would give us FS2004 resolution visuals for the whole planet.

Was this just a poll? Anyone know anything about this?

For a couple of weeks ago John Venema (Orbx) said:

Was this just a poll? Anyone know anything about this?

 

I believe it was probably this: http://steamcommunity.com/app/434030/discussions/0/351660338723844330/

So, where did that figure of "5m per pixel" come from? That poll mentions "30-60m per pixel", which makes more sense considering that the total download size would only be 160GB.

So, where did that figure of "5m per pixel" come from? That poll mentions "30-60m per pixel", which makes more sense considering that the total download size would only be 160GB.

How come more sense...? 30-60 would lead to terabytes already, I think...? 160 GB for 5 is already a bit low number...?

5m per pixel is a higher resolution than 30-60m, so it would occupy far more disk space. Based on the latter figure, I assume that the resolution of the existing global textures is probably 120m per pixel.

Zoom Level 11 corresponds to about 76 m/pixel at the equator, and 38 m/pixel at 60 degrees Lat. In that case the entire Earth is covered with 4,194,304 tiles (256x256 pixels each).

 

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Zoom_levels

 

If each tile size is 42.8 kB (the expected size for a DXT1 compressed texture), that gives a total disk space of about:

 

4,194,304 * 42.8 kB = 171 GB.

 

If they use a single repeating texture for oceans, that could save about 80% of needed space, and hence require a disk space of about 34 GB.

5m per pixel is a higher resolution than 30-60m, so it would occupy far more disk space. Based on the latter figure, I assume that the resolution of the existing global textures is probably 120m per pixel.

 

Oops! My bad completely! I read 30-60Cm...! Sorry! :wink:

Zoom Level 11 corresponds to about 76 m/pixel at the equator, and 38 m/pixel at 60 degrees Lat. In that case the entire Earth is covered with 4,194,304 tiles (256x256 pixels each).

 

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Zoom_levels

 

If each tile size is 42.8 kB (the expected size for a DXT1 compressed texture), that gives a total disk space of about:

 

4,194,304 * 42.8 kB = 171 GB.

 

If they use a single repeating texture for oceans, that could save about 80% of needed space, and hence require a disk space of about 34 GB.

Level11? How the hell I'm supposed to cope with L11 when in Xplane I start to dismiss L17... :wink:

Level11? How the hell I'm supposed to cope with L11 when in Xplane I start to dismiss L17... :wink:

 

You should cope with it by flying very high and not looking down too much. The idea is that this 'higher' res scenery should cover the entire world to make flights from one detailed scenery to another less ugly.

 

This is what New York looks like now at FL320 or so: a two times higher res would improve it a bit. BTW This is NOT the NY DLC LOL but the kind of default scenery you will see outside the default US region and any DLC. (If you look straight out of the window it isn't TOO bad for longer flights from one DLC to another...)