Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Autogen question

Recommended Posts

Guest Dave65

Are you guys saying it is supposed to look like that?If so I wasted 2 days trying to get the blurr out but came up empty.It looks good @ 32000 ft though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TomOOO

You have to remember that the default setup in FS is for the entireworld, which is approximated with a set of textures that are drawnin different places depending on the "landclass". MS cannot hopeto create very high resolution textures for the whole world ...1) As you increase the resolution of the textures you have to makethem more right (ie if people can recognise features they expect thefeatures they see locally). This means more unique textures, somuch more data as you need many more different textures.2) Higher resolution textures are larger - more data again3) MS is an American company - you should see the default Europeantextures (low resolution) - looks like the middle ages. This sortof thing is much better done as an addon by people who know whatthe local area looks like4) Larger textures, and more unique textures puts a heavierload on the texture engine. Look how many comments on blurries thereare on this site - and that is with low resolution textures. Thetime to fetch and render is proportional to the square of the resolution. So twice the resolution requires four times the power(FSB speed) to do the same quality of render.The default is a compromise between looking at something, and thespeed of computers, cost to MS to employ someone from every countyand size of installation.You can get very high resolution textures. BlueSky for centralLAX (FS9) is less then 1 meter, and it looks good from 100 feet,but then this is a 80Mbyte download (compressed) for a coupleof square miles at the centre of LAX. You can get photographic scenery from various companies that lookgood from a few 100 feet, these will be small areas only and arelarge download/installation. UK comes on something like 6 DVD's.Also you need a beefy computer to use this and you need to flyslow and steady.As as been noted, in a few years we might get 1 meter textures forlarge areas of the world + 1 meter mesh + landclass at 1 meterresolution - but we are probably talking of a computer with 250Gbytesof RAM, 100 Tbytes of disk space, and 32 processors at 1Thz Think not As reals as it gets, rather "as real as it gets today".Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest davewins

Good post Tom.I just wish there was a way that they can either fix autogen to make that look more realistic or just do SOMETHING to help with the graphics at lower level flight. I know that most of a flight is done at altitude. You're not going to fly across the country at 500 feet in a jet. I know it would take a lot of time and a lot of cpu power still to do this but I think they should at least try to improve in surrounding airports and maybe just popular airports. Just make a fairly wide radius around the entire airport and really try to get these parts down better or at least have some more accurate and different types of autogen. I just think that this is something that they should work on for FS11 and beyond. In the picture above (with the heli) I really lose my depth perception because of the blurry ground mixed in with the higher resolution autogen trees and buildings that just pop right out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, don't judge the FSX ground textures from these old gamespot screenshots - their PC obviously was not capable of displaying high quality (1 m per pixel) textures, there was not even antialisasing active. Look at Mango's screenshots at Flightsimworld (http://www.flightsimworld.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=128136&st=440) to see what FSX can look like on a good PC.Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest davewins

>Please, don't judge the FSX ground textures from these old>gamespot screenshots - their PC obviously was not capable of>displaying high quality (1 m per pixel) textures, there was>not even antialisasing active. Look at Mango's screenshots at>Flightsimworld>(http://www.flightsimworld.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=128136&st=440)>to see what FSX can look like on a good PC.>>Regards>I just used that as an example of the blurry ground with buildings that are higher detail just popping out of it. Just an example at a particular thing not an overall look at the graphics. I do own the game and have owned it since last October.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>I just used that as an example of the blurry ground with>buildings that are higher detail just popping out of it. Just>an example at a particular thing not an overall look at the>graphics. I do own the game and have owned it since last>October.>Back to my "old" pics, seeing how I have not updated lately.All three are addon payware scenery, where higher detail is done for smaller areas. If you want detail, these kind of products are always available for limited flying areas.This one is FSX with MegaScenery Hawaii. No autogen to mess up the look, but has an extreme look of 3D as the city scape blends with the foothills. http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/178970.jpgThe next two are FS9 & FlightScenery Portland. Very crisp textures right down to the ground, including grass blades along the runway & taxiways. http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/178971.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/178972.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Lennyt

>Good post Tom.>>I just wish there was a way that they can either fix autogen>to make that look more realistic or just do SOMETHING to help>with the graphics at lower level flight. I know that most of>a flight is done at altitude. You're not going to fly across>the country at 500 feet in a jet. I know it would take a lot>of time and a lot of cpu power still to do this but I think>they should at least try to improve in surrounding airports>and maybe just popular airports. Just make a fairly wide>radius around the entire airport and really try to get these>parts down better or at least have some more accurate and>different types of autogen. I just think that this is>something that they should work on for FS11 and beyond. In>the picture above (with the heli) I really lose my depth>perception because of the blurry ground mixed in with the>higher resolution autogen trees and buildings that just pop>right out of it.Do you mean autogen - buildings, trees, or do you mean ground textures? I don't mind the autogen at all it's those ground textures which are butt ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest davewins

>>>>I just used that as an example of the blurry ground with>>buildings that are higher detail just popping out of it. >Just>>an example at a particular thing not an overall look at the>>graphics. I do own the game and have owned it since last>>October.>>>>Back to my "old" pics, seeing how I have not updated lately.>>All three are addon payware scenery, where higher detail is>done for smaller areas. If you want detail, these kind of>products are always available for limited flying areas.>>>This one is FSX with MegaScenery Hawaii. No autogen to mess up>the look, but has an extreme look of 3D as the city scape>blends with the foothills. >>>http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/178970.jpg>>The next two are FS9 & FlightScenery Portland. Very crisp>textures right down to the ground, including grass blades>along the runway & taxiways. >>>http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/178971.jpg>>>http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/178972.jpg>that is simply amazing. I have FZ portland but the other one of Hawaii I don't of course. That's an awesome shot. I wish FZ would come out with more for FSX but I guess they're not going to?? The megascenery hawaii how does that look when taking off and flying really low?? You look like you have some altitude but still that is awesome. Do you have anymore pics or can you take anymore?? Thanks man awesome pics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest davewins

>>Good post Tom.>>>>I just wish there was a way that they can either fix autogen>>to make that look more realistic or just do SOMETHING to>help>>with the graphics at lower level flight. I know that most>of>>a flight is done at altitude. You're not going to fly>across>>the country at 500 feet in a jet. I know it would take a>lot>>of time and a lot of cpu power still to do this but I think>>they should at least try to improve in surrounding airports>>and maybe just popular airports. Just make a fairly wide>>radius around the entire airport and really try to get these>>parts down better or at least have some more accurate and>>different types of autogen. I just think that this is>>something that they should work on for FS11 and beyond. In>>the picture above (with the heli) I really lose my depth>>perception because of the blurry ground mixed in with the>>higher resolution autogen trees and buildings that just pop>>right out of it.>>Do you mean autogen - buildings, trees, or do you mean ground>textures? I don't mind the autogen at all it's those ground>textures which are butt ugly.Yeah I guess it's the ground textures that really I have a problem with and not the autogen. The autogen could use some work imo but it's definetley not as bad as the ground textures. I really feel as though it's a 2d picture pasted on so when flying at altitude looking straight down it's fine but when you get lower everything starts to look really awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

>Yeah I guess it's the ground textures that really I have a>problem with and not the autogen. The autogen could use some>work imo but it's definetley not as bad as the ground>textures. I really feel as though it's a 2d picture pasted on>so when flying at altitude looking straight down it's fine but>when you get lower everything starts to look really awful.Unfortunatly even the photo scenery looks blurry and flat from down low, though it does look amazing from above. I'll post a few pics from down low when I get home in a couple hours, otherwise here a couple to show how good it can look from altitude, including one of default scenery, which I still think is better than a lot of the photo scenery out there due to the awesome autogen....http://sio.midco.net/111lll/megascenery.jpghttp://sio.midco.net/111lll/oahu.jpghttp://sio.midco.net/FTP5/Eurotrip2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On my 4 year old rig-using autogen causes the textures to blurr. Not using it causes them to sharpen to a photo real look. From about 400' agl the non autogen looks better and more realistic.I am hoping fs11 has an autogen fade-where it displays it while on the ground and up to about 400' -then fades it out so the textures can show up in their new sharpness and performance can be maxed.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure the ground texture looks "blurry" compared with the trees and buildings. There is a discrepancy in texture resolution between ground and autogen that is a compromise ACES had to make to keep it playable (well, almost playable on some machines ;-) ). The autogen textures have a varying resolution of about 5 to 30 cm per pixel while the ground textures show 1,2 meter per pixel (provided your FSX settings allow it). As each ground texture tile covers about 1 square kilometer, an increased resolution of say 30 cm per pixel means 16-fold (the same step that we had from FS9 to FSX) increased ground texture sizes of 11.2 MB (but compressed as DXT1, in graphics memory it will be uncompressed 65 MB).Imagine a landscape with 15 different landclass types (not so very much) and you end up with a graphics memory usage of 980 MB for ground textures only. So maybe in FS11...The other option - autogen textures with a resolution matching the ground textures would result in ugly blurry autogen. In most situations either you look down to the ground from at least some 100 feet AGL or you look straight ahead (eg during approach) facing the autogen nearly perpendicularly while looking at the ground texture at a very shallow angle concealing its lower texture resolution.Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

>Sure the ground texture looks "blurry" compared with the>trees and buildings. There is a discrepancy in texture>resolution between ground and autogen that is a compromise>ACES had to make to keep it playable (well, almost playable on>some machines ;-) ). The autogen textures have a varying>resolution of about 5 to 30 cm per pixel while the ground>textures show 1,2 meter per pixel (provided your FSX settings>allow it). >>As each ground texture tile covers about 1 square kilometer,>an increased resolution of say 30 cm per pixel means 16-fold>(the same step that we had from FS9 to FSX) increased ground>texture sizes of 11.2 MB (but compressed as DXT1, in graphics>memory it will be uncompressed 65 MB).>>Imagine a landscape with 15 different landclass types (not so>very much) and you end up with a graphics memory usage of 980>MB for ground textures only. So maybe in FS11...>>The other option - autogen textures with a resolution matching>the ground textures would result in ugly blurry autogen. In>most situations either you look down to the ground from at>least some 100 feet AGL or you look straight ahead (eg during>approach) facing the autogen nearly perpendicularly while>looking at the ground texture at a very shallow angle>concealing its lower texture resolution.>>CheersAwesome post!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not normal. It it? I have seen lots of pics that the ground detail is much sharper than that? In many pictures, including original FSX pictures posted by ACES, you could even see the side-walks around culdosacs!!

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  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...