Is a mesh addon still recommended in P3Dv5?

[JRBarrett 3,074]

11 hours ago, Benjamin J said:

also, I’d somebody can verify whether the lack of vector also gets rid of the 3D streetlights, or whether this might still be part of another orbx global package. The product page of global base actually does seem to suggest that 3d streetlights are part of it, but I doubt that this also covers vector roads.

frnakly, I will miss that feature of vector... it made a huge difference for my night environment. Perhaps orbx can be convinced to release this vector feature as a separate product in v5?

I think that the streetlights I saw on my night test flight actually come from Orbx OpenLC, since there are several folders in the Orbx library referring to “OpenLC lights”.

I assume the lights are placed on whichever roads exist in the vector data. There was a distinct difference in the lighting of city streets compared to the interstate. Since I now have all my Orbx textures and LC installed outside of the core sim, it would be an easy matter to temporarily disable Orbx to compare night lighting in pure default scenery.

I would not want to do any protracted flying without Orbx, as the default textures and landclass look pretty horrid. (Fields with brown winter grass that look like desert etc.) unfortunately that has been the case with the default scenery in every iteration of the sim going back to FSX).

I want to check the terrain around Las Vegas also, as this was problematic in P3D when using an add-on KLAS in conjunction with Pilot’s ultimate mesh. I originally had FSDT KLAS, which caused the main runway 8/26 L&R to sit on a high plateau at the east end, looking much like an aircraft carrier. The newer Fly Tampa KLAS fixed that, and I will probably reinstall the FT scenery, but I am curious how the default airport and terrain looks in V5.

[Dominique_K 10,149]

37 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

 I have only checked my own local area so far, but the default vector data includes several cell phone towers and two broadcast towers that were only built within the last 5 years, so the data source must be relatively recent. Obviously that may not be the case everywhere.

In terms of water bodies, the ponds in Bradford county of northern Pennsylvania that I am familiar with from actual flights I have done over the area, are correctly placed, and have clean, well-defined rounded edges.

Likewise the depiction of the Finger Lakes just north of here, and the Chemung river that passes through my local area. Both look as good as they did using Orbx Vector - the shape of the river is actually better in native P3D V5 that it was in P3D V4 with Orbx Vector.
 

On the other hand, another user pointed out that a large lake to the west of KEYE airport in Indianapolis is completely missing in V5, even though it has always been depicted in every FS version going back to FS5, so there are obviously some scenery errors in the new P3D, which will hopefully be corrected as users bring them to LM’s attention.

LM has said that tunnels and long roadway underpasses that Orbx Vector depicted well are not found in the default vector data, so that is a point in Orbx’s favor.

I used Orbx Vector in FSX and all versions of P3D up until V5, and it brought a lot to the table, but it came with many terrain anomalies affecting the underlying mesh, and especially airport elevations.

I plan to do a flight today from NYC south along the Atlantic beaches of New Jersey to see how the coastline is depicted in V5. There are many barrier islands and inlets there. I link my sim to the moving map of ForeFlight on my iPad, which can be set to show aerial and satellite imagery, so I can compare what I see “out the window”, to actual photo imagery of wherever I am flying.

Thanks for the first infos.

Assessing if V5 data are better overall than Vector is, of course, an almost impossible task. I’ve been using Vector extensively all over the world almost  since it came to the market and checking every nook and cranny would need several lifetimes. Anyway, that Orbx has given up on Vector is no surprise. So be it. Just a bit annoyed by Orbx spin.  

The elevation anomalies you refer to come from  the AEC tool in Vector not the vectorized data themselves. Originally, the AEC (under another name I think) was on the Pilot’s mesh disks. I never understood why Orbx didn’t ask Pilots to put it outside as a separate tool. 

If you fly South go to the Outer Banks in North Carolina and report 😉. Vector was not extremely convincing there.
 

Edited April 15, 2020 by domkle

[mpw8679 428]

I do not have v5 yet.  But KBIL would be an excellent airport to do a comparison.  The airport sits on a plateau.  I have never been able to get an accurate rendition there.  Always end up with airport plateau issues and issues with the surrounding scenery.  Hopefully V5 improves this area.  

[dave2013 1,130]

18 minutes ago, domkle said:

Thanks for the first infos.

Assessing if V5 data are better overall than Vector is, of course, an almost impossible task. I’ve been using Vector extensively all over the world almost  since it came to the market and checking every nook and cranny would need several lifetimes. Anyway, that Orbx has given up on Vector is no surprise. So be it. Just a bit annoyed by Orbx spin.  

The elevation anomalies you refer to come from  the AEC tool in Vector not the vectorized data themselves. Originally, the AEC (under another name I think) was on the Pilot’s mesh disks. I never understood why Orbx didn’t ask Pilots to put it outside as a separate tool. 

If you fly South go to the Outer Banks in North Carolina and report 😉. Vector was not extremely convincing there.
 

Actually, FTX Vector AEC is not the same thing as the Pilot's flattening mesh they include on disk if you buy their terrain mesh.

AEC actually changes the default airport altitudes, which in some cases can reduce or eliminate the cliffs that result from the airport being on a high plateau or being in a basin.  In other cases it doesn't help much or at all because the altitude may be correct for one side of the airport but way off for the other side.  AEC may help a bit but it can only do so much due to the flat, 2D, single altitude airport backgrounds. 

The Airport flattening meshes actually smooth the terrain mesh around the whole airport eliminating the cliffs entirely.

I do like the fact that v5 has newer vector data so FTX Vector is no longer needed(according to ORBX at least - how convenient for them), but does that also mean it is more accurate and does it cover the entire world?

I'm going to wait until at least the first sub-version comes out(.1) before I get this.  It seems like there are a lot of negative issues being reported.

Dave

[Pilot53 544]

It seems like a lot of people here are confusing a mesh addon (FS GLOBAL) with vector road and coastline data.  They do two different things.

[Benjamin J 751]

Just now, Pilot53 said:

It seems like a lot of people here are confusing a mesh addon (FS GLOBAL) with vector road and coastline data.  They do two different things.

I think this is clear to all in this thread though, isn't it? Just keep in mind that some people are talking about FSPilot's GLOBAL mesh, while others are talking about OrbX's GLOBAL line of products, which are different things. To add to the confusion, Pilot's did make OrbX Vector, which is part of OrbX's GLOBAL line of products, and is not the same Pilot's GLOBAL mesh product.

[JRBarrett 3,074]

4 hours ago, Benjamin J said:

Excellent, thank you for your efforts! Looking forward to hear back!

OK, here is the community of Point Pleasant, NJ, taken from 2,500 feet flying southbound using default P3DV5 vector data, with Orbx global textures and OpenLC NA.

The shape of the canals in the residential area and overall shape of the inlet shoreline correspond perfectly with the aerial image of the same location in ForeFlight and Google maps. Obviously any buildings are generic autogen, but certainly no complaints regarding how Version 5's default vector data depicts shorelines.

 

Edited April 15, 2020 by JRBarrett

[sfgiants13 83]

Did anyone ever come to a consensus on whether or not freemesh is useful in v5? My SSD is starting to run low on space with v4 still installed so if i could avoid having to use freemesh that would help. 

[Mischung 48]

14 minutes ago, sfgiants13 said:

Did anyone ever come to a consensus on whether or not freemesh is useful in v5? My SSD is starting to run low on space with v4 still installed so if i could avoid having to use freemesh that would help. 

It's not Freemesh, but I did a comparison using my good old FS Global 2010 and the P3DV5 default mesh (Comparison)

I found out, that the default mesh is pretty good already, but in the meantime I enabled the "old" FS Global mesh anyway because I have seen some issues with the low-res-default-mesh when you're in mountainous terrain from a certain distance...when coming closer, the next LOD level takes over and everything is ok, but sometimes there are some walls in narrow valleys from a distance.

So the FS Global version has a better base (low-res) mesh compared to P3DV5...but maybe this will be improved too over time 😉

Marc

[pgde 571]

I use Toposim and did a comparison with default -- I am going to keep using Toposim.

[Ian S 214]

To answer the OP. I have Freemesh installed on both P3Dv4.5 and P3Dv5, sharing the same files from my Addons folder so there is no additional space used up. I haven't used V5 enough to comment on its need but it doesn't appear to cause any harm or take any extra space up in having it installed.

Re the comments about vector. If you compare like scenarios in Vv.5 and V5 you'll see a lot of traffic, especially on secondary roads disappears, making towns look like a ghost-town in V5. If you still have vector installed in v4.5, this can be overcome by injecting some files into your v5 addon scenery from v.4.5 

Edited May 21, 2020 by Ian S