Loving the avatar Dave! Have they completed Terminal 2 yet? :wink:

Loving the avatar Dave! Have they completed Terminal 2 yet? :wink:

Find new worlds, transcend the rational;

Fly Llandegley International.

 

I think the Smelterville project is still on the go but I'm waiting to see updated photos. A knowledgeable Radnor man told me the owner is in conversation with Richard Branson regarding a scheduled service to the ISS but the Radnorshire hills are well known for their abundance of certain fungi.

 

D

I'd like to add that an issue I have observed for far too long were not only the buildings out of scale, but the mere increase and decrease of altitude wasn't as accurate as it should be.  For example, I watch a lot of Youtube videos of sim pilots coming in for landings, and as the countdown begins as 500ft down to contact, the point of view (perhaps) or just the descent seems like it doesn't change much.  To me, the environment on the ground doesn't appear to get bigger, properly.  That may sound weird, but with the scale of buildings and houses being much bigger than they should, it just never felt right when coming in for a landing.  Another example is when you are over 30,000ft, the ground scenery objects don't appear to be as small as they should.

 

I haven't seen this issue with XP though, and it's realism for take-offs and landings appear to be much more accurate for ground scaling.

I totally agree. I have spent years playing with different sceneries and zoom levels, in FS2004, FSX and each version of P3D, and have always been disappointed with the results.

 

I find that it is often impossible to judge altitude from the visual appearance of the ground with any kind of accuracy. From my background in both low level and high altitude air reconnaissance, I have a fair idea of what I expect to see at any particular altitude. There should be a marked difference between 200 ft and 1000 ft, or between 20000 ft and 45000 ft.

 

In general I always feel that the rate of change of the scenery appearance with change of altitude is insufficient. But I would say that it needs something more sophisticated than a simple increase in the rate of change.

 

When almost at the threshold the autogen buildings close by don't look to me to be as oversized as the buildings beneath the aircraft when at 3 miles and 900 ft. I think the reduction of size with altitude needs to be greater than it currently is at the lower altitudes. This would have the knock on effect of making the objects smaller at all altitudes. How this should be done I don't know, but it must be possible. 

For reasons above (mostly performance) I rarely use autogen at all. Most of my flying is airliners and I don't even miss it.

 

 

This guy has just released a freeware package for fsx/p3d that seems to fix the 'over-sized' trees issue. His YT channel certainly has some interesting content.



https://www.youtube....h?v=pJvZXDwOQPA



https://drive.google...1BqVkNtU28/view

 

Interesting.  Has anyone compared them to FTX Trees?

For reasons above (mostly performance) I rarely use autogen at all. Most of my flying is airliners and I don't even miss it.

 

I agree and I now have my building autogen set on 'sparse'.  I don't find them to be realistic at all as you don't see that amount of buildings IRL.  Usually they are hidden by trees so I prefer to increase my vegetation autogen over the buildings. 

it's definitely possible, the fsx/p3d engine is rather inefficient at that stuff, tho i have no idea what their technical reasons for that are, i'm sure there's some compromises they made for reasons but i dunno...

compare to something like this ps3 game.

for reference a ps3 is like a 3ghz processor with a geforce 7000 type card (from 2006, around the time fsx was release 10 years ago). the ps3 also came out in 2006.

now this game can have an easier time since it's just specific areas instead of the entire globe but there should be a way to cache those areas in and out like fsx does.

 

The viewing distance in that game doesn't look very large. That's probably why it runs so well compared to FSX.