Differences between XP11 default Global Scenery and HD Mesh Scenery v3

[InfWizard 12]

Good info. Seems like HD Mesh is still a great option despite the top few "cons".

[captain420 3,099]

So for those of us who have XP10 and HD Mesh v3/ UHD Mesh, can we simply copy those files into our XP11 directory and use them right out of the box without having to mess with any files?

 

I was thinking about moving the contents of my entire custom scenery folder into XP11, but not sure if this is a bad idea since some stuff may be incompatible.

[Humpty 751]

So for those of us who have XP10 and HD Mesh v3/ UHD Mesh, can we simply copy those files into our XP11 directory and use them right out of the box without having to mess with any files?

 

I was thinking about moving the contents of my entire custom scenery folder into XP11, but not sure if this is a bad idea since some stuff may be incompatible.

 

Yes. 

[alpilotx 505]

So for those of us who have XP10 and HD Mesh v3/ UHD Mesh, can we simply copy those files into our XP11 directory and use them right out of the box without having to mess with any files?

Simply put: yes !

 

But because it is a new Scenery folder for XP11, you again need to take care (once) about the scenery order scenery_packs.ini (as described in the instructions).

[Longranger 148]

You don´t even have to copy. A link is enough.

[N9718 28]

I flew out of KCMH in XP10 today and the HD Mesh v3 removes almost all of the downtown buildings that were present in the default mesh. That seemed really odd.

[Humpty 751]

I flew out of KCMH in XP10 today and the HD Mesh v3 removes almost all of the downtown buildings that were present in the default mesh. That seemed really odd.

 

 

Do you mean the height of the buildings ?  if that is the case then my thinking is there is no buildings elevation data in HD meshes. 

[alpilotx 505]

Building elevation is irrelevant in this case (it was less relevant in Xp10 and even in XP11 it will only be more relevant for very dense urban centers where there are high-risers ... and even if the height info is absent, it doesn't means it completely removes urban areas).

 

Back to the question: yes, urban areas - and almost everything else in the scenery - can change between XP10 Global Scenery and HD Mesh Scenery v3 as the latter used more detailed landclass representation (and much newer OSM vector data). All of this can easily change the shape of the landclass representation (and also urban autogen placement) in the scenery.

 

BUT: this is an XP11 thread (not XP10).

[N9718 28]

Building elevation is irrelevant in this case (it was less relevant in Xp10 and even in XP11 it will only be more relevant for very dense urban centers where there are high-risers ... and even if the height info is absent, it doesn't means it completely removes urban areas).

 

Back to the question: yes, urban areas - and almost everything else in the scenery - can change between XP10 Global Scenery and HD Mesh Scenery v3 as the latter used more detailed landclass representation (and much newer OSM vector data). All of this can easily change the shape of the landclass representation (and also urban autogen placement) in the scenery.

 

Wouldn't the HD Mesh v3 look the same in XP11? (Since I have both, I'll check it out tonight. I'll try to post some comparison pics.) I guess my point is that with the stock XP terrain, Columbus actually looked like, well, Columbus. With HD Mesh v3, Columbus, the 15th largest city in the US, now looks like a small town. While I appreciate the added detail provided by HD Mesh v3 in certain areas, the loss of urban / city detail is surprising to me.

[alpilotx 505]

Wouldn't the HD Mesh v3 look the same in XP11? (Since I have both, I'll check it out tonight. I'll try to post some comparison pics.) I guess my point is that with the stock XP terrain, Columbus actually looked like, well, Columbus. With HD Mesh v3, Columbus, the 15th largest city in the US, now looks like a small town. While I appreciate the added detail provided by HD Mesh v3 in certain areas, the loss of urban / city detail is surprising to me.

Did you read the original post? Then you should not be surprised.

And no, XP11 Global scenery would not look identical to XP10 HD Mesh Scenery v3.

 

There are definitely data differences (landclass and OSM data updates) and newer version of the scenery generator used.

Still, the mesh density (and thus landclass detail representation) is far lower in default XP11 Global Scenery.

 

(only a HD Mesh Scenery v4 would remove the "shortcomings" of the current HD Mesh Scenery v3 ... which won't happen before Ben Supnik had time to add some more features about real building height usage in his scenery generator)

[N9718 28]

Did you read the original post? Then you should not be surprised.

Yes. It was very informative. Thank you!

 

And no, XP11 Global scenery would not look identical to XP10 HD Mesh Scenery v3.

I understand that. My question was concerning whether HD Mesh v3 would look the same in XP11 as it does in XP10. I'll take a look at Columbus tonight in XP11 w/ and w/o HD Mesh v3.

 

There are definitely data differences (landclass and OSM data updates) and newer version of the scenery generator used.

Still, the mesh density (and thus landclass detail representation) is far lower in default XP11 Global Scenery.

 

(only a HD Mesh Scenery v4 would remove the "shortcomings" of the current HD Mesh Scenery v3 ... which won't happen before Ben Supnik had time to add some more features about real building height usage in his scenery generator)

Got it. Thanks again for the clarification.

[Humpty 751]

I understand that. My question was concerning whether HD Mesh v3 would look the same in XP11 as it does in XP10. I'll take a look at Columbus tonight in XP11 w/ and w/o HD Mesh v3.

 

 

 

 

Yes because the mesh will the V3 but i think the new autogen or whatever you call it , if it's a newer one than like textures and better models it shud look a bit better , because i think all these buildings and stuff are burnt in with the .dsf file ,  other thing I can think of would be the rendering because of the new lighting and stuff so should look nicer

[alpilotx 505]

because i think all these buildings and stuff are burnt in with the .dsf file ,  other thing I can think of would be the rendering because of the new lighting and stuff so should look nicer

"Buildings and stuff" are not burnt into the mesh. Only references to artwork definitions (autogen defs, forest defs, terrain defs. etc.) are associated with each geometric entity (point, line, polygon, triangle mesh patch) in the DSF meshes. And this does not change (of course, as it is really in the DSF). But when ever that artwork definition changes (points to newer textures, newer object, newer autogen objects), then the same scenery can look differently.

 

With XP11, the trerrain textures and forest textures for example didn't change, so this should look relatively identical to XP10. But autogen has received some changes, so it then looks different (even if its the same geometry layout in the DSF). Like for example Europe looks completely different now with the same mesh (because it has some regionalized autogen).

 

And of course ... changes in the rendering engine will make the same scenery look a bit different too :smile:

[Paraffin 2,197]

There are definitely data differences (landclass and OSM data updates) and newer version of the scenery generator used.

Still, the mesh density (and thus landclass detail representation) is far lower in default XP11 Global Scenery.

 

In areas like the lower Pacific Northwest that now have good UHDv1 coverage, it sounds like it would be possible to use the default XP11 to generate cities like Seattle and Vancouver with more building density, and then "stitch" around it with UHD tiles for better scenery in the outskirts. In effect, leaving "holes" in the wider UHD coverage for the newer XP11 urban data. 

 

Does that sound like a reasonable approach in the interim? Assuming one can run UHD mesh, that is.  I wonder if transitions between OSM data at the different mesh boundaries would be noticeable. 

[Humpty 751]

"Buildings and stuff" are not burnt into the mesh. Only references to artwork definitions (autogen defs, forest defs, terrain defs. etc.) are associated with each geometric entity (point, line, polygon, triangle mesh patch) in the DSF meshes. And this does not change (of course, as it is really in the DSF). But when ever that artwork definition changes (points to newer textures, newer object, newer autogen objects), then the same scenery can look differently.

 

With XP11, the trerrain textures and forest textures for example didn't change, so this should look relatively identical to XP10. But autogen has received some changes, so it then looks different (even if its the same geometry layout in the DSF). Like for example Europe looks completely different now with the same mesh (because it has some regionalized autogen).

 

And of course ... changes in the rendering engine will make the same scenery look a bit different too :smile:

 

Haha I meant reference actually but the word got lost .