Excellent 3D terrain visualization with FSX - Flickr link

[LAdamson 240]

>This makes no sense?? Have you looked at the images? When>was the last time you looked at anything 40+ miles away and it>was clear? Also, there is NO blending at all with the>horizon?>Out my back door, I can see over 60 miles almost all the time. In GA flight, a good 120 miles or more. Of course, if there is a storm out here in the Mountain West, then visibility wil decrease.L.Adamson

[Guest wyoming]

You find yourself a code expert, a garage in Cupertino, and the world is yours!

[Guest cbuchner1]

20 years too late for that. ;) Hey, why Cupertino? How about Redmond for a change.

[Guest robains]

Some obvious issues:1. Shadow perspective and light source2. 3TB+ worth of terrain data3. local data loading would require $100,000 storage solutions with very large intermediate RAM drives to keep the scenery loading smoothly at 400 ktsRob.

[DadJokeCinema 145]

>Some obvious issues:>>1. Shadow perspective and light source>2. 3TB+ worth of terrain data>3. local data loading would require $100,000 storage>solutions with very large intermediate RAM drives to keep the>scenery loading smoothly at 400 kts>>Rob.>>There some obvious work arounds.Streaming data, first off, and predictive algorthims to try to stay a step ahead. There's not a terrible amount of lag in loading the images on google maps or other AJAX map viewers. The concept, instead of storing it all locally, would be to stream the data from an internet source provider.Of course, the bandwidth and hardware to do this would be massive, but we are getting closer and closer to solutions like this all the time.Then, the data would get mapped into temporary texture files on the local machine and loaded into place on the local harddrive. You could have lower resolution textures available with the install in case people want to fly offline, or for whatever reason don't get the full texture. It would be like the "blurries" but not quite so bad.I'm not saying that a solution like this is immediately available or possible, but it would be something to work towards. There's already a lot of buzz over the internet with "streaming" games, where you download a small install file when you buy the game digitally, then levels, character models, etc, are streamed through a distibution network to your computer as you play.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"Out my back door, I can see over 60 miles almost all the time. In GA flight, a good 120 miles or more. Of course, if there is a storm out here in the Mountain West, then visibility wil decrease."Same visibilities down here in AZ after one flies out of the Phoenix smog. Rare is the day I can't see the San Francisco peaks during a flight lesson, and they are 100+ miles away.However, the distant scenery still fades into the horizon even on the clearest of days, and even when I am in the air--the San Francisco peaks don't stand out in sharp contrast to the horizon.In FS9 I made "Soft Horizons" which added a nice haze even at 150 mile vis. If FSX uses the same env bitmaps, perhaps Soft Horizons could be applied to help with the same issue. Most FSX shots I've seen look better than the default "out of the box" FS9 haze. But maybe someone can apply a tweak like mine for FS9 and improve it better or make it more suited to their own personal experience.-John

[DadJokeCinema 145]

So the default texturing is too blurry in the distance, and this is too sharp.I guess we need a mid-range.

[ryanbatc 12,815]

Wow!Though I could see the people complaining about lack of autogen....and how in the world could that be programmed into realistic scenery without adding too much noise? I think we'd have to do away with autogen. So then what do you do about that phase of flight from the ground to around 1000 ft AGL? It would be amazing to discover a way to enable autogen during the low flying parts of flight, and let it fade away or something when transitioning to a higher altitude where just the ground textures are pleasant enought to look at.

[Guest wyoming]

I don't think it's so much a haze than a sort of white transparency that is kind of missing. I mean that colors are more vivid, or more "frank" (?) in the sim than they are in reality. It's like the air is not thick (not sure I'm making sense here...)

[DadJokeCinema 145]

>I don't think it's so much a haze than a sort of white>transparency that is kind of missing. I mean that colors are>more vivid, or more "frank" (?) in the sim than they are in>reality. It's like the air is not thick (not sure I'm making>sense here...)Makes perfect sense to me.

[Guest wyoming]

is also a possibility. Maybe is there also some sort of mathematically better way to encode/decode the data?Of course, that'd be even better with the sim using only what is needed (visibility radius, 0 in the soup), in my opinion the most elegant point missing in what we have.

[Forkboy2 27]

Sheesh....what is with all these people and the negative comments. This is an amazing proof of concept of what the future of flight simming could be like by someone spending only 30 hours of development time. If doesn't take a huge imagination to see what could be possible if MS or a 3rd party developer decided to use a technology like this. I guess some people just love to complain.Also, this technology could be used RIGHT NOW by a 3rd party developer such as MegaScenery using their own licensed imagery, with autogen, night textures and seasons. Obviously it would'nt cover the entire world, but I sure would rather stream imagery over the internet then try to find a terrabyte of hard drive to store 1 meter/pixel imagery of San Francisco. The developer could even charge a monthly access fee to use the network. And to top it off, it would be pretty much pirate proof since you'd have to access the network to use the product. And did someone actually complain because the textures are too crisp?? I had to laugh when I read that.Matt

[Guest cbuchner1]

Can you spell PHOTOREALISM? Here's a new flickr photoset for you, guaranteed to make you cry.Slide show link:http://www.flickr.com/photos/71882461@N00/...413142755/show/Photo set link (use "all sizes" button for the full versions):http://www.flickr.com/photos/71882461@N00/...57594413142755/Some more background on this photoset:I am working on getting good loading performance just not in very limited areas like Oahu. I think I am almost there now. Enjoy a new photoset, this time uploaded in 1920x1200 pixels on a FLICKR PRO Account (meaning you can access all these at full resolution).The high detail phototerrain is now being streamed on demand. The closer I fly to something, the better the detail level gets. This is a new feature I just added today.All these screenshots were made during testing. Enjoy me flying a Robinson R-22 helicopter in San Diego County. I used the same software and hardware as before, but I applied a 10m mesh for the US west coast (again a free download from fsproject.com, thanks!) Things you will see include:* Balboa Park and the aerospace museum* Coronado Island and the famous Hotel Coronado* Downtown San Diego (not a lot of scenery detail enabled), the convention centre etc...* The power plant at San Onofre, and red algies in the water on the sandbanks (WOW!)* Torrey Pines* UC San Diego* Mount Soledad and La Jolla* Point Loma (but where is the lighthouse?)* Sea World (I didn't see Shamu either)* Interstate 8 meeting the 165 in Mission Valley* various other interesting sights like a golf course, the harbour, etc.. I still feel attached to San Diego, used to live there for 30 months or so.. It was fun spying down on all the places I know. And it is great fun to discover new things from the air.For all the naysayers: NONE OF THIS IS FAKE. And yes, there is some haze towards the horizon (blending to white). And I do get good frame rates and no stutters. And really, I think it's incredible. I forget about the remaining programming tasks on this project when I fly.I am about to get in touch with Microsoft about this. That's all I can say at the moment ;)And again a disclaimer: This is work in progress, merely a technical demonstration - a prototype really. I have currently no plans to go commercial or freeware with this. This software will not and cannot be released as is because of troubling legal issues with the online satellite data feed.Christian

[Guest cbuchner1]

Thanks for the kind words.I have some more crunchy crispness for you, I posted a new flickr photoset.

[Guest FxF3]

Looks nice glad your having fun.:) Guess we can expect a lot from the payware guys as time goes on.