Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Guest allcott

FSX + photoscenery + mesh... Do we need that autogen an...

Recommended Posts

Guest Tesla

I found photoscenery video showing 1 meter mesh geometry with 0,5 meter textures... Do we need that autogen anymore? I think no. Imagine whole country phototerrain (for example Switzerland) with 1 meter mesh... (hint to all photoscenery creators) :) (low resolution video, 15,2 MB) http://www.crs4.it/vic/data/multimedia/sho...eo111divx_s.avi(high resolution video, 75,2 MB) http://www.crs4.it/vic/data/multimedia/mov...ideo111divx.aviFSX supports 1 meter mesh and up to 0,2 m textures. Do you think it is possible to create such scenery in FSX? This will be awesome!!! (sorry if there are mistakes in my english)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah! Autogen suddenly redundant! Also, while scenery may take longer to load, there probably wouldn't be much of a frame rate hit. Very average system specs on the demo machine.Pity really, I was enjoying the forests in FSX.Mike.PS. Your English is faultless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest cwright

> Do we need that autogen anymore? Yes. Best regards, Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck yeah!! You can always turn it off if you like landing on a photograph, LOL. Sorry when I am on final a flat, barren landscape is not my idea of exciting.The ONLY time photoreal looks good IMO, is when you are at altitude and can look straight down on it.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/ambanner.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not just a 0.5 metre photo texture in the video. It's also a 1.0 metre terrain mesh, and I think it shows pretty clearly that there's nothing flat about a mesh at that resolution. A 1.0 metre terrain mesh shows everything from buildings, cars, and even trees. And it looks pretty good too.A 1.0 metre mesh would reduce the autogen load at least.Mike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest allcott

Interesting way to contemplate using the much higher mesh resolutions possible with FSX. I don't think it could do away with autogen altogether, but it could massively reduce the load in dense urban areas, or other places where the autogen is heaviest. Another possible use might be in heavily forested woodland. Now, the only way to create dense vegetation is to use large numbers of tree and shrub objects (assuming that FSX doesn't introduce a `forest` cumulative assembled autogen object) and that's pretty pointless since the only way to see the inside of a forest is to crash into it! A mesh forest just bordered by autogen trees would be a huge leap for large-scale rural display.But where the dense autogen suffers is when it's combined with detailed airports and their heavily-textured environment. With this technique maybe the mesh could be used to display the buildings outside the airport boundary with an exclude on the autogen, much like photoscenery does now, but without the manually inserted autogen objects to create a 3d landscape? Possibly, the texture for the airport buildings inside the airport boundary could even be overlaid on the mesh building, as a kind of `cladding` so you'd only need to display the point-of-view facing surface, while still retaining the structure, not a flat facet, and you could substantially reduce the number and size of textures displayed at once?Certainly something to think about.Allcott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Yes we do. Im sorry but just looking at a 2d picture on a flat landscape without trees, buildings, bridges, etc popping up looks completely unrealistic and kills the experience for me. why cant we have the best of both worlds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest allcott

Did you even download and watch the video? it's not flat, the buildings and trees are present, it's better than photoreal and nothing - nothing - `pops` up. At least watch what we're all talking about before expressing an opinion!Allcott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what he meant was the trees and the houses! They really give it a very sense of reality when you are landing or taking off!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, have you calculated the video memory needed? With the cited resolution of 0.5 meter textures and 1 m mesh you would need 290 MB of video memory only for the terrain textures (if they are 24 bit) when a visibility radius of 15 miles is set - maybe only some 50% of that with mipmapping. Not to talk of the fancy 0.2 meter textures.And a small country like switzerland would amount to about 6 GB of terrain data (only day textures and no seasons!).Another question is where to get such high quality imagery covering a whole country without clouds, shadows, mist, color differences and other problems (maybe still possible, but I really don't know an affordable source of 1m-mesh).So we can be sure that autogen will even be further improved and diversified in the next years to get a typical-looking landscape all over the planet.Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tesla

>And a small country like switzerland would amount to about 6>GB of terrain data (only day textures and no seasons!).>Another question is where to get such high quality imagery>covering a whole country without clouds, shadows, mist, color>differences and other problems (maybe still possible, but I>really don't know an affordable source of 1m-mesh).I think there is no need to create night or other season textures. For example whole "Switzerland Professional" scenery takes 1.5 Gb, so 6 Gb is not so much for such quality. Of course the problem is where to get mapping data and detail photo... The source of mesh on that video was: French "ISTAR HR Cartographic Database"http://www.infoterra.fr/Infoterra/reference_mapping_data.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest david W.

It's best to right click on the link, select "save as" and let it download to your hard drive. Then open it and watch it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest david W.

>Yes we do. Im sorry but just looking at a 2d picture on a>flat landscape without trees, buildings, bridges, etc popping>up looks completely unrealistic and kills the experience for>me. why cant we have the best of both worlds?Flying across a large flat photo would be 2D and very flat. However that is not the case.See if these screenshots of FS9 and some photo scenery look at all 2d or flat or without trees or buildings etc. (quality of shots had to be reduced for size limit)[http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=147&topic_id=243008&mode=full]I would be surprised if anyone flew around with this scenery and did not enjoy it. Those who would not enjoy it probably would also not enjoy looking out the window of a real plane, because you would see pretty much the same thing.With FSX allowing for even greater resolution, the next generation of Photo Scenery should be even better.regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why there is no need for seasons? At least outside the tropics they are surely a grat improvement of realism.And the pure amount of data is important if you want to "get rid" of autogen and generic textures - there has to be modeled a whole world!There are some more drawbacks of this now 3 years old technology: aerial photos are taken perpendicular from above - so in the textured buildings the side walls will be covered with something awfully blurry, not recognizable as facades. Also the trees will have that look - unless you provide some generic textures for the vertical surfaces of buildings and vegetation. The demo video may be taken with some reason from a quite high altitude.Also, rendering a "living, dynamic" world seems to be more complicated with such terrain (at least no seasons).Another problem could be the high computational power needed for such type of a completely 3D-meshed world. After all, we want to get the physics of flight and some atmospheric processes computed with an increasingly better fidelity - that also needs a fast processor.In my opinion, if ACES will increase the number of landclass zones further (let's say - up to 128), increase the land cover types to.. say 1024, and make smaller landclass tiles (500 m will be sufficient) AND reliable high resolution landuse data for the whole globe are available... (dream) - then the FS11 terrain should look awesome at a comparably low price (in terms of GB harddisk space).But imagination and the ability of our brain to fill the gaps was always an essential part of virtual reality, and we shouldn't forget that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I found photoscenery video showing 1 meter mesh geometry with>0,5 meter textures... Do we need that autogen anymore? I think>no. Imagine whole country phototerrain (for example>Switzerland) with 1 meter mesh... (hint to all photoscenery>creators) :) Stunning!!! But why does he land on the taxyway? :-lol Marco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest allcott

>Why there is no need for seasons? At least outside the>tropics they are surely a grat improvement of realism.>And the pure amount of data is important if you want to "get>rid" of autogen and generic textures - there has to be modeled>a whole world!>>There are some more drawbacks of this now 3 years old>technology: aerial photos are taken perpendicular from above ->so in the textured buildings the side walls will be covered>with something awfully blurry, not recognizable as facades.>Also the trees will have that look - unless you provide some>generic textures for the vertical surfaces of buildings and>vegetation. The demo video may be taken with some reason from>a quite high altitude.>Also, rendering a "living, dynamic" world seems to be more>complicated with such terrain (at least no seasons).>Another problem could be the high computational power needed>for such type of a completely 3D-meshed world. After all, we>want to get the physics of flight and some atmospheric>processes computed with an increasingly better fidelity - that>also needs a fast processor.>>In my opinion, if ACES will increase the number of landclass>zones further (let's say - up to 128), increase the land cover>types to.. say 1024, and make smaller landclass tiles (500 m>will be sufficient) AND reliable high resolution landuse data>for the whole globe are available... (dream) - then the FS11>terrain should look awesome at a comparably low price (in>terms of GB harddisk space).>>But imagination and the ability of our brain to fill the gaps>was always an essential part of virtual reality, and we>shouldn't forget that.>This is true, but if you `faced` the mesh object with an autogen single-sided object you could also manipulate the characterstics quite successfully. I dont think anyone was proposing that 1m mesh could replace the entire landscape of FSX, that's not a practical proposition until much larger, faster storage mediums exist, or online resources with vasr bandwidth capacity can be accessed at the data rates necessary, but it could be used in conjunction with it in certain specific instances - forests and the areas adjacent to airports and airfields, as an extension of the existing photoscenery technique. At the moment, all that can be done with ohotoscenery is hand-map appropriate 3d textures on the flat photo base. A time-consuming and unprofitable resource. If mesh could be landclassed with additional generic traits such as `building, red brick, single storey` then it might be possible to use landclass in a perpendicualr manner. And landclass is very sympathetic to frame rates. The inherent advanatage of generic texture and autogen is repeatability - load it into memory once, use it again and again. Photoscenery - and mesh - is a `one shot` deal which usually requires CPU processing time before the sim launches. If there was a happy medium between the two, then it could be a useful tool for spreading the load more equally between gpu and cpu in peak-useage scenarios such as heavy urban or cityscapes or the dense areas around airports and airfields. in exactly the same way a simmer can now choose more detailed mesh for the areas he/she wants, and leave the generic elsewhere, the option could exist to replace or augment autogen textures with landclass-generated buildings, trees, factories or parkland.A furher use for this high-fidelity mesh might be to provide shading cues for light variation. You don't actually need to see a 3d building from much above 500 feet, the suggestion of the building can be made from a bright side facing the sun, a dark side away from it, and shadow in the lee. Instead of using the fidelity to display actual detail, it might be used to provide very advanced lighting cues to imply 3d objects. If the autogen could be reduced by 2/3rds and the balance replaced by `light sculpture` I doubt most of us would see the difference in anything other than static screen shots. Certainly in the real world I deduce a building rather than see it from the pilots seat. I'm not looking for buildings, I'm looking for the VRP or the bend in the river, or the large quarry. The onyl time the buidling becomes significant is at a very low angle such as when I'm on base, turning to final. Then the substance of the building is much more important as you find yourself noticing things like different coloured tiles where a roof has been repaired, or the white wall on the garage contrasting with the red brick of the house, or the large gates in front of the property, or the pool house and the pool. Allcott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest davewins

I wish this link wasn't dead. Anybody happen to save the video??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest davewins

Ok now for some reason the video worked. Simply amazing!! This is very interesting. What exactly is taking place here though?? I read something along the lines of this was taken from an altitude of 20,000 feet?? How did it get so detailed from up there and what was it taken with?? Satellite imagery or from a plane?? I am totally lost. What actually is this video???? Is this a rendition or is this real scenery???? Please help I am so lost. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest davewins

Tesla, can you get back to me on this video clip?? Or anybody here that might know. I am very curious how this video was produced. I don't know if this is a rendition or what??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy crap, that looks seriously good, even on the low res clip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest davewins

>Holy crap, that looks seriously good, even on the low res>clip.yes, this is why I am so curious as to how this video was made. It had to be some sort of rendition because they wouldn't use numbers regarding pixels etc. What really gets me about this is it's numbers are FSX not even maxed out. It's FSX mesh maxed with some more room for FSX's incredible 7cm/pixel text res!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...