Differences between XP11 default Global Scenery and HD Mesh Scenery v3

[alpilotx 505]

Because it has been "asked" here and there:
 

Let me try to quantify the differences (and where I write HD Mesh, there UHD Mesh would apply equally - generally speaking). And with the XP11 default Global Scenery I mean the one replaced with public beta one (later this might change).

• HD Mesh Scenery v3: older data (approximately 2 years old) - XP11 default: newer OSM data (August 2016)
• XP11 default has updated landclass data for many regions (compared to HD Mesh Scenery v3)
• HD Mesh Scenery v3: older autogen placement algorithms and no special European roads during scenery generation (XP11 default has a slight edge here - at least urbanized areas might look better)
• HD Mesh Scenery v3 has much higher resolution Mesh (this has NOT been changed in XP11 default do to scenery size constraints!)
• HD Mesh Scenery v3 has much more accurate landclass representation (even if its based on older data as described above) because of its higher res mesh (landclass is bound to mesh triangles)
• HD Mesh Scenery v3 has older (because of older OSM data) but more accurate coastlines (rivers, lakes, ocean) as XP11 default needed to simplify vectors ... again because of scenery size constraints.

So, in the long run (especially to iron out the first 3 "disadvantages") I will possibly release a HD Mesh Scenery v4 (and likely some similar update to UHD Mesh). But this will not happen anytime soon ... especially as I also wait for some further planned improvements in the scenery generator from Laminar (like including building height data, which  has NOT been included in this first scenery released by Laminar with the public beta ... yes, I can confirm this information as I discussed it with Ben Supnik).

I would also like to - again - point to my post about general Mesh Scenery informations (what exactly is in those DSF files) to clarify it further:

• http://www.avsim.com/topic/498605-mesh-in-x-plane-has-extra-features/?p=3516077

Info and statement is also posted on my website (for others to reference):

• http://www.alpilotx.net/2016/11/07/statement-about-the-compatibility-with-x-plane-11/

[Humpty 751]

Yes the terrain looks way better now.

[Pastaiolo 1,688]

Thank you for sharing all that information with us

[MarkSC 122]

That was very helpful. Thank you.

[tonywob 4,768]

Thanks Andras, pinned for future reference

[alpilotx 505]

Yes the terrain looks way better now.

For India that should be definitely true! Especially as we have now much better landclass data in that region.

[Humpty 751]

For India that should be definitely true! Especially as we have now much better landclass data in that region.

 

Haha yes Andras i did try the south of India and again up North in Kashmir it looks nice . 

WAIT ! so can we expect a HD or UHD v4 / v2 for India  now :wink:

[alpilotx 505]

WAIT ! so can we expect a HD or UHD v4 / v2 for India  now :wink:

Honestly ... do not expect anything! At least I think / hope I will be able to updated existing HD / UHD Mesh coverage within the next 12 months. Anything beyond that would be pure speculation. Remember, that its not just about creating the scenery but also managing the entire pony show :smile:

[Humpty 751]

Honestly ... do not expect anything! At least I think / hope I will be able to updated existing HD / UHD Mesh coverage within the next 12 months. Anything beyond that would be pure speculation. Remember, that its not just about creating the scenery but also managing the entire pony show :smile:

 

aye aye

[wolke85 150]

Thank you for sharing all that information with us

+1

Thank You Andras!

[Sethos 4,333]

So when we're building overlays with Ortho4XP, would we be better off using the default scenery now?

[alpilotx 505]

So when we're building overlays with Ortho4XP, would we be better off using the default scenery now?

It depends ... it really depends.

 

For example the forests are very coarse in default Global Scenery (because they are aligned with the mesh .... which again is low res ...). So, they would likely not look good on top of a pohotoscenery ...

 

I think, if you strive for best results, then you might be better off with OSM based overlay scenery combined with a "blank" Ortho4XP based mesh (but again, this makes things even more complex and neither do you always have good enough OSM data - in some regions).

[MarkSC 122]

I think my plan is to stick with default mesh for flat terrain and perhaps HD for mountainous areas. I tried a flight this morning in my home region of coastal SC, and the default landclass was amazing.  Coming from P3D, it was way better than Orbx Global + OpenLC for instance (no more tropical water colors in SC--yea!).  The rivers did have fairly sharp edges, though, which I would guess is due to the coarsness of the default mesh?

 

Andras, what is your recommendation for users not using Ortho4XP?

[alpilotx 505]

Andras, what is your recommendation for users not using Ortho4XP?

 

Well ... there can not be a real recommendation at the moment :smile: . You should decide depending on the points I listed in my original post in this thread.

(I for my part stick with HD / UHD Mesh where ever possible as it vastly improves the landclass detail representation - not only in the mountains - and  gives - usually - a tad smoother coastlines, plus better elevation detail .... but of course, you always need to keep in mind the pros-and-cons listed above).

[Sethos 4,333]

It depends ... it really depends.

 

For example the forests are very coarse in default Global Scenery (because they are aligned with the mesh .... which again is low res ...). So, they would likely not look good on top of a pohotoscenery ...

 

I think, if you strive for best results, then you might be better off with OSM based overlay scenery combined with a "blank" Ortho4XP based mesh (but again, this makes things even more complex and neither do you always have good enough OSM data - in some regions).

 

Appreciate the answer. I'll stick to the 'old' HD Mesh overlays for now then. 

 

Many of the areas I frequent doesn't have good enough OSM data, so it ends up looking a bit so-so.