HD Mesh V3 necessary?

[citationjet 3]

Hell guys, just a quick question as i saw different postings and answers in the web. Is the Mesh HD V3 necessary if i use Ortho4xp or not? 

Thx for your help in advance

Cheers, 

Mark

[Pascal_LSGC 298]

No. Ortho4XP creates it's own mesh. X-Plane displays only one mesh for a given place, whichever is higher in the scenery_packs.ini file.

Now, I'm not sure if during the creation process you can reuse the overlay elements like roads, forests, autogen from HD mesh V3. Someone else might answer to this more precisely.

Pascal

[citationjet 3]

Thx Pascal. I read several times that users both use HD Mesh plus Ortho4. Lets see the other replies 

[ProfessorMadman 8]

Pascal is correct.  Ortho4XP generates its own Mesh from 3rd party data retrieved during the tile creation of the mesh (step 2 during o4xp tile creation).  

I personally use the default X-Plane 11 Global Scenery to generate the overlays as I believe that they contain later OSM data than alpilot's HD Mesh v3 (he did mention his intent to update HD Mesh to v4 with later data - see here).  If you want HD Mesh v3 as your base Mesh you'll have to use g2xpl to generate your tile instead.  Do t this you'll have to backup the original and overwrite the DSF with the HD Mesh v3 one in Global Scenery first then create your tile as g2xpl grabs the DSF from the Global Scenery folder.  Then after the tile is generated, copy the original DSF back into Global Scenery (you will now have a g2xpl tile that you can dump into Custom Scenery).

[citationjet 3]

Ok thx for the explanation. So i will keep using the XP Global Scenery as you mentioned it and use Ortho Mesh.

[strider1 575]

I would stay clear of HD Mesh since the OSM data is long in tooth. Also when you use the HD mesh in SOCAL it turns the scenery into a dessert with very little vegetation.  

[ryanbatc 12,832]

Does anyone know why large cliffs appear at certain parts of my Ortho (that aren't present in real life)?  I'm just using the default global scenery mesh I believe.

[bonchie 2,305]

20 hours ago, strider1 said:

I would stay clear of HD Mesh since the OSM data is long in tooth. Also when you use the HD mesh in SOCAL it turns the scenery into a dessert with very little vegetation.  

I don't know if it's a different method being used, but I still find HD Mesh to look more accurate even if the roads aren't as up to date.

For example, in the stock XP11, there's zero city buildings in Jackson, MS. With HD Mesh, they are there (a representation at least of a downtown with higher buildings). Same for several other cities in the SE US I've flown to. 

[kakusso 12]

So for Ortho4XP overlays what configuration you chose at 6m32s in the video ? In the video it seems to use default.

 

I find HD mesh V3 necessary to get better overlays, mainly better defined roads.

[Paraffin 2,197]

53 minutes ago, bonchie said:

I don't know if it's a different method being used, but I still find HD Mesh to look more accurate even if the roads aren't as up to date.

For example, in the stock XP11, there's zero city buildings in Jackson, MS. With HD Mesh, they are there (a representation at least of a downtown with higher buildings). Same for several other cities in the SE US I've flown to. 

Another big difference with UD and UHD mesh is more accurate and detailed boundaries in landclass like farmland and forests (in theory, anyway). Also more sharply defined mountain features, and better rivers and coastlines, so you don't get as many straight lines and triangles at the water boundary. Since I fly more in remote areas and not so much over big cities, I'll take those features over more up-to-date OSM roads.

I don't know how this impacts Ortho-based scenery since I don't use it.