Sign in to follow this  
LAdamson

30cm resolution possible for FSX? I'm totally stunned!

Recommended Posts

Someone is developing 30cm aerial terrains for FSX. The initial photos are mind blowing:http://www.simpilotnet.com/index.php?optio...=16&Itemid=9999Yet I vaguely remember reading previously about how FSX pushes the 4m resolution of FS2004 to 1m. Is 30cm really possible. Can any current machine has the power to handle it? If so, maybe we should also consider a 30cm version of tileproxy to stream the "bird's eye view" of MXXXXXXX'S "XX EARTH". Anyway the future is very bright indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I would love a tileproxy like subscription service, where you get the FSX type fewer texture files instead of TP/FS9 style millions of files.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Default ground textures in FS X are 1 meter per pixel, so there is not normally any reason to push the display slider higher than that, but the game is capable of displaying up to a resolution of 7 centimeters per pixel.Best regards.Luis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks nice indeed but 1. what will the impact be on fps and 2. the regions are quite small. You will have flown accross it in a few minutes. It's the same with Megascenery Hawaii (which doesn't have THAT hires textures): looks cool but when you are up in the air you can see the whole island at once...To me the only interesting VFR photoreal projects are those like Horizon's England and Wales: that gives you something to fly above! But I'd rather like to see some other countries made that way, like Norway. Small change that will happen...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another unconsidered implication is the impact of lower resolution data (autogen and other sources). No point at all in ghaving accurate ground data of a 100 foot tree is going to impede the view, or cars will apear to be four times their actual size. And surely 30cm detail needs 30cm mesh to be `accurate` in its rendering?Allcott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Another unconsidered implication is the impact of lower>resolution data (autogen and other sources). No point at all>in ghaving accurate ground data of a 100 foot tree is going to>impede the view, or cars will apear to be four times their>actual size. And surely 30cm detail needs 30cm mesh to be>`accurate` in its rendering?>In addition to 10 more fps, I usually skip autogen. It looks far to "cartoony" which spoils some of the effect of high resolution photo looking textures. As an example, is with MegaScenery Hawaii. I get a lot of photo quality scenery, in which the effect is wiped out, if I have cartoonville houses overlaying the photo-real material.I now generally prefer to get 1500' altitude and enjoy photo-real, rather than pay attention to all those crummy looking housing effects on the climb out. Even at 1500' trees, as especially seen with the new Ultimate Terrain, have great shading effects, that make them appear to be three dimensional. I still have all major building structures with the global settings.Some correct dimension trees at a certain altitude range would be fine, as has been discussed before.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But surely, if the resolution is that fine, then we are back to the conversation of a couple of months back, of rendering 3d using mesh, not autogen? At 30cm resolution you will see garden walls and dustbins, be able to name the make and model of car, never mind see trees with shadows! But what is the point unless those walls have height, AND texture - and cars look like cars, not painted obejcts on the ground? Now the problem is you won't because the definition of `terrain` and `mesh` becomes blurred in diametric opposition to the increase in resolution. At this sort of level `mesh` and `terrain` are almost the same thing - if the mesh defines a `lump` then terrain had better `describe` it as a garden wall, rather than place some random object on it. If either fails, then the other is simply meaningless. As you say 1m without autogen works above 1,500ft AGL - or rather it does until the slant angle (say when you're flying in a valley looking at the slopes) doesn't provide the protrusions of objects necesary for 3d and speed perception. At that point you need some degreee of dimensionality to objects to make them objects rather than pictures - 30cm won't solve that problem, it will magnify it.And without the mesh at the equivalent level how do the lumps and bumps get defined? Allcott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with everything you've said except that 30cm will magnify the problem. When you're dealing with that level of detail, it becomes analogous to a bump map, since the data is obtained from aerial photography that captures the terrain lighting so well. But, as you say, once you see those images in the sim at an angle, you'll lose the (IMO better) illusion progressively.So, the problem won't be solved until the sim has parallax mapping of photo terrain based on relative color brightness algorithms, I suppose. Then you'd have to get really extreme with the viewing angle. By then, we should have some pretty sophisticated autogen and engine lighting, maybe even displacement mapping, which could provide a very nice garden wall without needing extremely detailed mesh which we won't see on a wide scale anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion whether autogen looks "real" depends how it is handled including light shading. FSX is already a patch work of photo textures with autogen of course and most people think that looks pretty good. It would of course look even better with dust/particle light diffusion:http://www.windwardmark.net/products.php?page=windlightLet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the point. With current technology, we can't just go for higher and higher aerial photographic texture without considering its negative impact. I just read a debate over whether we should have high definition porn or not. Many think it would ruin the immersion, lol, not completely unrelevant to our case.Surely the extreme high definition will do harm to urban scenes if over the limit, but nature scenes as mountains and lakes are much more tolerant as Wizard of OZ said, maybe allowing up to the limit of 7cm set by Microsoft. So, still a lot to hope for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the nature scene can be harmed by excessive details.Take a look at yellowstone national park in google earth. It must be in extremely high resolutions. I guess it is almost at 30cm/pixel level, yet it is a complete mess, and looks totally surreal. Every tree seems to be cut down and lying on the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this