My world landclass-opinion

[Guest 1who_likes2_fly]

If we had some LAT LON coords I am sure we could fire up Google Earth and get a decent comparison to real life yes? I snooped around for 15 minutes "outside Miami" alas, I could not find this location in GE from the screens provided.Best Regards,Michael Smith

[Guest babua]

If this needs be corrected along with autogen and detailed buildings I think MS will have to release a patch DVD of 4 gb in size!!

[Holger 0]

Hi Garett,nice way of showing the differences between FS9 and FSX. Interestingly, my conclusions from your comparison are the exact opposite ;-)The FS9 4.8-m vegetation textures are essentially "white noise", artistic renditions of something meant to vaguely resemble the respective class content. Do you see sage brushes in them, or grass? I don't. In contrast, the FSX 1.2-m textures are made from aerial photography, actual places on this earth, and clearly show individual sage brushes and patches of grass.Yes, it is the uniformity of some of the FSX texture sets that looks bad on the landscape but that is a general issue with generic texture tiles: recognizable pattern detail often leads to visible tiling. And this issue becomes more difficult to deal with the higher the texture resolution.A rush job? Well, you go ahead and create a replacement set for desert sage or another class: find suitable aerial photography, pick the detail and variety you need but make sure all variants are 100% tileable (each edge blends with any other edge), have appropriate seasonal sets, work with the provided blending masks (or create your own), blend well with neighboring classes and those that FS switches to automatically on steeper slopes, have suitable autogen coverage, and are appropriate throughout the entire region(s) the land class file assigns them to. Then multiply this effort by some 150 classes and tell us about the opportunities for a rush job ;-)The FS land class system, with its mind-boggling interaction of texture tiles, blending masks, autogen objects, terrain, time of day, and seasons is easily the most complex part of the FS scenery "engine". A German FS insider recently published a technical analysis of the system and his document has 500 pages! Moreover, some of the techniques used are cutting-edge applied geometry, such as the Wang variations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_tileYou're correct that it won't be easy to come up with custom land class files that minimize uniformity without ending up looking like a checker board but I still believe that carefully developed land class files will provide much better visuals, never mind accuracy and realism.On the other hand it'll be very interesting to see what third-party texture replacements will look like because they will be much more difficult to make than for FS9. First off, one needs to purchase or licence suitable aerial photography as a base. Then all the other steps outlined above need to take place without leading to visible tiling or other issues. I'll have to create a few sets of my own for my projects and I'm not really looking forward to that challenge ;-)I'm not defending "the look" of FSX land class and textures nor the choices made by ACES. I'm just trying to point out that some things are not as trivial to make or change as they may appear. Cheers, Holger

[Guest victorwest]

Have I got this right?1. FSX textures are more closely related to the landclass classification they represent then the textures in FS9. 2. The reason we see so much "desert" in FSX is due to the poor landclass distribution information available to the FS team. Use of a more correct landclass distribution file will eliminate the "desert" textures in areas where "desert" textures are inappropriate. 3. Current FS9 landclass files will not necessarily take full advantage of the FSX textures sets and may not fully eliminate the "desert" textures. 4. Finally, MS autumn (fall) textures may be considered too brown in some circumstances.

[Mike T 208]

Geoff:I went to college in Florida and my mom lives in Florida. I can tell you that while I am sure that the landclass is improved (how could it not be?) that still looks nothing like Florida and expecially Miami!That looks like Iowa or maybe Southern Illinois. Miami is a very dense city with the Atlantic to the east and the United States largest wetland (read: swamp) to the west. Textures for the area should reflect either lots of concrete or lots of swamp...not pretty neat farmlands. I think the problem remains the default textures that doesn't allow either screenshot to even remotely look like Miami...or FLORIDA for that matter!This is also an issue with New York city...it is WAY, WAY, WAY too green, and especially in Manhattan, I only wish NYC looked that green and pretty in real life.

[cklink 0]

Agreed Holger,It will not be easy to fix. I have read almost all the posts I could find on the issue, including some very good technical explanation by yourself and others. I think regardless of the reasoning, what remains is these "textures of choice" is truley an issue to alot of FSX customers from the West Coast to east of the UK. One post as Eg:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...59750&mode=fullI just don't want to see fellow simmers (epecially newer one's to the hobby) mislead (by thier understanding) into purchasing a "Land Class" itself, expecting to see a vast improvement reducing the "desert texture" issue. This was the main reasoning for my post.There is no doubt in mind that this can be resolved (detailed LC & different textures) to increase the visual quality of FSX. Especially as we now have 1024 tiles to work with. Harder yes, but the possibliies are exiting. However, one of my questions remains that is MS happily content about this issue - resulting in thier belief that nothing is wrong or required on thier part?I just think that if better "choices" were made on the seasonal ground textures in the begining, scenery/landclass deveopers would have had alot less work cut out in creating thier workpieces... and those "flying out of the box" would be alot happier.BTW - How you making out? Holger I have no doubt yourself and others with the knowledge will get this fixed up for the entire community. But I still think MS should be sending you guys funds your way to do so... Better yet, they should have just got a few of you to do it in the first place ..;)One last thing, when I say rushed - this is my perspective. I run an equipment manufacturing company and see the overall benefits of what "a few more hours" can do (I'm simplifing, I know). But I do my best to try and understand what all is involved with bringing a product like this to market, but with a primary focus of being such a "visual" product - personally I would have allocated more time and resources for land class and textures, as this is the "canvas" of the game. The new default mesh is great, just wish they would have done that with the parts in mention. I would have glady cut the missions' guys resources for a better canvas if money or time was the issue. Just my opinion. That shuffleing you hear is just me putting on my kevlar ...;)Best Regards'Garett

[Midnight Music 252]

Maybe just wait for Flight 1 Ground Environment to upgrade to FSX. They sure improved the look of FS9 for me.Lee

[Mike T 208]

Yep, my opinion exactly. Get FSGenesis landclass and sit back and relax until Peter, Anthony, Carl at Ground Environment get their texture replacement product out. AND then add Ultimate Terrain for FSX to provide a accurate replacement for the "accurate" FSX roads.All three products are as SORELY needed in FSX as they were in FS9, maybe even more so with the scope of incorrect textuers in FSX.

[Guest wyoming]

the area I live in (SE WY), let alone CO (where the closer you get to the Rockies the greener it gets) is pretty dense with irrigated farmlands and that from up there it's pretty much sage all over. Which makes me think that a smaller LC definition would go a long way toward solving the texture problem. Who knows, perhaps the yellow (which could have been a little darker) will even look good?

[GHarrall 494]

I have just read this, and while I appreciate the explanation from Holger, I stll dont see how the pic above of 'Cool Grasses' from FSX looks ANYTHING like, well, grass! There isn't even a hint of green on it!I can see that the tile is more 'detailed', but the colour is terrible when compared to that same tile from FS9.Roll on GE for FSX indeed............Glenn

[Geofa 108]

Thanks Mike-yeah I've flown to Florida though not there and I don't remember it looking quite like that. I hope fsgenesis improves their landclass too-as right now using it doesn't make where I live look right-though other areas look much better. I am also waiting for Ultimate terrain-hopefully won't be too long.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest Fjorko]

Hi GuysI would just like to add that I'm not american, I have never been to Florida or Miami, I just picked a random airport, took off, and headed north for about 30 -45 mins in the Cessna 172. ( from where you see the screenshots )Tell You what I'll do..... I'll go to Miami international again, and then take off and take a few shots ( with Coordinates ) so we can compare to Google Earth !!! What do you say ?Cheers

[Gdavis0101 0]

I spent a couple hours exploring portions of the west coast and found that the default lc matches better than that of the payware LC, especially when it comes to small towns.

[Guest Fjorko]

So you recon I may have been ripped off yeah ? As I said, I don't know the difference and which is better....I like the way Myworld clusters forests etc...it makes the ground look less repetitive.

[Holger 0]

Hi Glenn,"I stll dont see how the pic above of 'Cool Grasses' from FSX looks ANYTHING like, well, grass! There isn't even a hint of green on it!"That's because Garett posted the fall textures. The summer texture has quite a bit of green in it though keep in mind that "Cool Grasses" are meant to be dry and high elevation areas according to the Olson land classification system.Cheers, Holger