Hi all,In FS2004 the max simulator-scenery resolution was 5 meters/pixel so it was meaningless to use satelite images of better resolution to make scenery.Has this changed in FSX? Will we be able to get real resolution of 1 meter / pixel on the simulator-scenery? To fly over 1 m/pixel scenery? At last to make out houses and cars from 300' ASL?manolis

Technically, 7cm is possible I believe. The size of scenery packages at that level would require terrabyte levels of hard drive space, so it's not going to happen anytime soon.You want to search the forums for the thread with a link to a video showing what could be done using mesh at ultra-high res to provide 3d interpolation of buildings, trees and foliage, Its a rendered (nonFSX) demo, but the results look amazing.Also, check out the screenshot forum for GeofA's thread about not using autogen, instead using the higher settings for photo-detail textures. Some interesting food for thought!With original photoscenery, the `flatness` put me off, but when you combine it with very high detailed mesh now available, the lumps and bumps actually enhance the 3d perspective, which the oversized autogen buildings actually destroy. The only place it lets itself down is literally in the airfield or airport environs in smaller fields which don't have `height` scenery around, but if the airport has detailed buildings then use higher scenery settings on the slider - very dense or extremely dense- set autogen to `none` and the mesh and texture resolution to high levels and try for yourself.For a good example try TFFR - Le Raizet. Looks stunning in FSX with no autogen, becasue there isn't much there that needs autogen normally!Allcott

"You want to search the forums for the thread with a link to a video showing what could be done using mesh at ultra-high res to provide 3d interpolation of buildings, trees and foliage, Its a rendered (nonFSX) demo, but the results look amazing."Allcot, can you point to where you saw that. Thanks!

yes I want to know too. The only thing that is getting me down about FSX really is these flat satellite images. It's interesting to know that mesh is the elevation factor and high res mesh can improve this.

>>"You want to search the forums for the thread with a link to a>video showing what could be done using mesh at ultra-high res>to provide 3d interpolation of buildings, trees and foliage,>Its a rendered (nonFSX) demo, but the results look amazing.">>Allcot, can you point to where you saw that. Thanks!http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=searchI deliberately didn't post the link because the link to the videos is dead, or the video has been removed.Allcott

Hi there,here's a link to a very well argued, IMO, reasoning *against* using 1-m imagery in FS, at least for larger areas:http://www.georender.org/georenderforum2/viewtopic.php?t=446Cheers, Holger

Maybe you could summarize since I wasn't able to figure out why 1m was so bad.

>Maybe you could summarize since I wasn't able to figure out>why 1m was so bad.Are think the argument was against 1m resolution for photo scenery of specific areas rather than for 1m general generic resolution.

What I took away from the discussion was that 1 M PHOTOscenery didn't work very well. The problem being that the shadowing built into the texture is correct from only one angle at one time of day. Viewing the textures from any other angle is just wrong.Dealing with this problem is very time consuming. The other problem with photoscenery at this resolution also increases it's size immensely (I wanted to say exponentially, but, forgetting that portion of my math brain, I don't think this is technically true), which makes downloading a problem.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

I dont understand either, how will having lower resolution textures on hilly areas be better...The higher the res the better....

"Maximum rendering-engine-supported scenery resolution of 7cm/pixel (not available with default scenery)." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Flight_Simulator_XNow what does this mean?? In order to achieve this 7cm/pixel resolution it's up to 3rd party developers to produce?? I am totally confused with photoreal scenery and scenery in general. Is FSX default scenery photoreal?? I would have to imagine that it is because when viewed from high altitude looking straight down it looks fine because that's how the picture was originally taken. But when flying at an angle lower to the ground such as landing or taking off we see it as a blurred flat image. How would we be able to see it as a 3d image when taking off/landing?? Is this where auto-gen comes in?? Can someone please explain this to me. I'm very confused. Thank you for your time.

HiI too am finding the benefit of turning off autogen as mentioned by Geoff and Alcott. I have given up on the autogen until there is definite fix. I must congratulate all the true hobbyist who have been tackling the autogen issue with their mods and suggestions, but to be honest I don't see a big enough improvement at least for me to turn it on. I have been able to max out the mesh and texture settings and still allow for the use of low.2 water settings as long as the autogen has been disabled. As mentioned in Alcotts message, the flatness is really noticeable of course at the airports. Geoff's idea of merging in the autogen at a lower altitude would be a great feat but seems to me that it would be piece of functionality that would need to be integrated with the scenery engine. I am still trying to make sense of this release. So many it seems have given up at least for the time being and loading up FS9. A big question in my mind is whether or not 3rd party developers will be able to justify development efforts for a system that currently does not appear to be able to hold any more weight. I truly hope that MS or someone can come to the rescue.RegardsBob

Ah, I see. Yes, I suppose if you weren't willing to retouch the photos then you would get more artifacts with higher resolution. We retouch our photos to some degree as well as our generic textures (which are also based on photos, BTW) in order to make them work with Autogen, our seasonal variations and lighting system. It's really up to the developer how much effort they want to put into this.

The idea of merging high detail mesh with `generic` textures does not appear to have been explored as yet. I can precis the video you guys can't see (while I try and find a copy online): The low flight takes place over a mesh `field` that clearly has enough resolution to pick out individual buildings and possibly even trees, but certainly `woodland` and `forested` areas as opposed to individual trees or coppices. Obviously, their approach has been to render an image of a `photoreal` area, and the argument that to do that on a global scale would require hardrives the size of living rooms is clear. But my suggestion was that the generic `lumps and bumps` rendered from a very detailed mesh could be faceted with building frontages of all types, woodland and rural frontages, kind of like a billboard stuck to the front of the building. Nobody needs to see the brickwork behind, it's just something to mount the board to, whcih carries all the detail.Clearly the autogen concept has reached a turning point. Now maybe the I/O throughput possible with Vista and DX10 and newer cards will transform this limitation, but as things stand today, the concept of many thousands of repeated textures on top of many thousands of repeated texture tiles is crippling our computers capability to render FSX to anything like its potential. The ideal would be BOTH high quality textures and autogen on top, but for the time being we simply have to accept that we cant have both. And I dont think anything in developmkent on cards or graphics is likely to sove that soon.But the idea of using the meash, not the textures, to create the 3d impression of buidlings, structures and foliage might be worth exploring, now that FSX does actually support that kind of detail. Allcott

Thanks for sharing these "technical" links.I try to figure out, when I will see them ;) .http://www.wcm.at/forum/attachment.php?postid=1954704But a very good idea to have it!Kind regardsHorst