17 hours ago, mSparks said:

this is what it looks like in unigine 

...

 

8 hours ago, tonywob said:

Default MFS uses rasters for some features (vegetation, water, elevation etc)... and that looks really good. I see this as a positive step, as long as we can fall back to vectors if we need to for really tight detail that rasters can't encode.

Any raster looks good if it's fine enough, however fine rasters usually draw complaints from those trying to run maximum eye candy in VR on a 486DX.

4 hours ago, Bjoern said:

from those trying to run maximum eye candy in VR on a 486DX.

I think it's actually the other way round.

rasters are great for perf, because you can just take alternate samples for 2x 4x 8x the perf.

the main disadvantage aiui, is that when using that for scenery it's prone to "popping", the lack of which is one of xplanes greatest strengths atm.

Edited March 6, 20242 yr by mSparks

14 hours ago, tonywob said:

fall back to vectors if we need to for really tight detail that rasters can't encode

This is one of my questions too. You can only get so much resolution with raster. I don't get the impression vectors will go away e.g. roads. I'm also wondering how this will potentially affect road light draw distances (LOD?). 

Isn't this just unnecessary eye candy?

No.

14 hours ago, jarmstro said:

Isn't this just unnecessary eye candy?

In a sim with working flight dynamics and ground behaviour I think we all agree that eye-candy can only be a plus.

And the reason for our investments in better hardware too... 😉