Posts by Trespassers

    So If I understand correctly the Aerofly scenery will have less than 4 times less polygons than the above screenshot under FSX.

    Not exactly, since the FSX test screenshot only covers intramuros while the AFS2 scenery covers Ile-de-France, with much much more features.

    This more detailed source was also initially tried out in AFS2, it ran quite smoothly, but not knowing how users’ systems would handle the final scenery when we load everything we went for the same sources as in the FSX/P3D scenery, with the less detailed (though still very detailed) source.

    Some places of the AFS2 scenery locally use the more detailed source, let’s see if you find them when the scenery is available ;)



    5 Minuten darf nicht sein ! Viele Szenen haben Fehlende Referenzen, die Ladezeit kosten, da AFS2 scheinbar nach Dateien sucht und sucht.

    Ich habe aber mehrmals erwähnt, dass Cultivation in solchen Riesen-Dateien zusammenfassen ziemlich ungünstig war : Cultivation sollte man lieber in Grid Level 10 Kacheln unterteilen...



    Merci Antoine, la sortie est pour la semaine prochaine ?

    No fix schedule: it will be in February.
    We are rushing to have a Release Candidate by mid-February and hopefully a short packaging process for release, but you know what it is with deadlines. It’s ready when it’s ready and if we identify any issues we’ll fix them before to release...

    Thanks for your patience!



    You say you can't load 2 aircraft but we do have statics and now we have flying statics using animation, so is there scope for a cheap and cheerful multiplayer?

    I was thinking exactly the same : no need for 2 parallel flight models, you just display the traffic as an object. But just updating the static position with received data is not enough : you need a soft extrapolation after last-received point due to communication lags. I think GPS display work quite the same...



    Antoine, a very good test, which open ones eys for level blending effects.

    Do the empty areas between yellow and red mean that we always also should convert a level 10?

    Nope, it was a quick workaround because Geoconvert simply skips source photos when they're fully painted (it apparently kind of rejects "oversampled" photos) => I left a band of original HR photo to fool Geoconvert.

    Level 11 is actually displayed up to the border with Level 9.

    For photosceneries, Level 10 actually doesn't bring much, the Level 9 quality is good enough at that distance (Level 10 would just load the graphical engine for little visual benefit).

    For elevation mesh levels, it's a different topic though.

    Anyway, for such a test scenery I think it would be best simply painting a checkerboard color/photo over the whole surface and repeat it over a wider range.




    What I expect is happening is that Aerofly has one universal "what tile to display where" algorithm that works 90% of the time, but isn't doing what's (arguably) more optimal at high altitudes.

    This I cannot tell, but I don't think its showing *one* Level9 tile underneath, it looks much bigger in Kenneth's screen.

    Kenneth is just seeing the border of the Level 9 display zone in the upper screen because colors don't match with the underlaying default scenery, while in the lower screen L9 and levels below match quite accurately so you don't see the difference.

    I cannot tell you whether this distance is optimal. At least when colors match you don't see that border, so in that sense it isn't suboptimal.

    Regarding display distance, I made once a quick test scenery to get a feel of it, and Level 9 already starts at quite short distance ahead... (cf. my unofficial reference document)



    If you look at Kenneth's screens you don't need for better resolution in the distance. What you simply see is a color mismatch when the Level 9 and upper tiles (custom scenery) don't blend with Levels 7 and lower (default scenery).

    There are 2 cases :

    - either the default scenery colors are good and then the custom scenery should be tuned to blend smoothly (easiest case)

    - or the default scenery colors are not so good and the lover Level tiles should be replaced with custom textures (extreme case, since you may need to much extend your coverage).

    The choice of up to where in the distance Level 9 is displayed is sure an optimization topic, but the L9 border will most probably ever show up in the distance at such altitudes...



    There is suitable coverage for the scene in the screenshot, namely the other level 9 tiles around it.

    The logic in Aerofly that is deciding to show, when above a certain altitude, a level 9 tile directly below you, and level 7 tiles everywhere else is a questionable choice. It's inevitably going to lead issues like this.

    Remember that a level 7 tile is putting the satellite imagery of an entire small country in a file <2mb. It's pixel mush. Showing it is a bad idea when there are higher res options available.

    The amount of pixels to display is a question of distance and resolution : if you try displaying too high resolution in the distance you get glitter.

    BTW between Levels 7 and 9 have you tried Level 8? As the case might be this could be a good compromize...

    Anyway that's what you have in AFS2 : Level 7 is visible in the far distance (at least without available Level 8).

    When generating hardwinter textures in Levels 9-13 over the Alps I systematically had summer in the distance => if we ever want to create a winter scenery we have to geoconvert down to low levels to prevent this...



    The sim is over-optimising things, which probably makes sense on mobile, but it doesn't need to on PC, given that an average level 9 tile is under 3mb.

    Having to create single texture tiles that are the size of a small country is nuts.

    Why ? if there's no suited default coverage and want to fly in orbit over custom sceneries, then you need to compile wide areas if you don't want the scenery border to show up in the distance (I reckon the upper screen shows a place where default scenery is really poor).

    Or, if the default scenery is ok, then the custom scenery colours may be adjusted to blend and then there's no need for lower Levels than 9. That's typically the case over Europe or USA for instance.

    On other places, it's different.

    In the Antilles, even for cruising VFR at 5'000ft I had to compile down to Level 7 to prevent isles from popping up in visual range, because Level 9 only loads and shows up in a "far-but-visible" distance ahead.

    BTW if you don't have the sources for the complete Level 7 grid then let Geoconvert generate masks for the missing bits.

    In other sims this is solved with mipmaps and LOD levels...



    Shaking in VR is just calling for trouble :D

    If there's a switch, it may be disabled in VR if causing troubles. Or even forced off when unsuited to VR.

    IRL we rest some fingers on whatever accessible on the panel when we need to reach accurately on an instrument (e.g. softkeys) - Jan's mouse pointer trick would do that.



    "Werft den Purschen zu Poden…" :D

    No - :D my goal is to seamlessly border IPACS Swiss. :)

    Dasmuss ich aber erst noch probieren - habe da mein eigens Konzept und 1 Mio. Ideen! Ich bin ein unendlicher Pool an Kreativität! ;)

    Schön ! Ich schreibe weiter auf Englisch, damit jeder lesen kann.

    For the "France-Voisine" scenery I made a KML file of the Swiss border and used it as a mask for FSET.

    It works very well but needs some quick editing afterwards with GIMP to generate the right B/W masks format for Geoconvert tool.

    I don't think Aeroscenery can generate masks, but you can probably use the same sources and set the same tiles size in FSET to complete your scenery next to borders...

    There's no clear Scenery priority setting in AFS2, so it is important not to overlap neighbouring sceneries without accurate masks.



    Well, that's not what I would call sad news - actually as a pilot when I read messages starting with sad news and somebody flying for real my heart stops beating and my blood freezes =O, but I was quickly relieved and happy to read further that the scenery release is simply postponed, ouf ! 8)

    Take your time and thank you for sharing your work.

    BTW looking at previous posts your scenery coverage seems to stop before the Swiss border, do you confirm?



    In circles, sure. But not arriving or departing. And please don't assume I didn't read the entire post!

    Then you may have noticed my link was quite accurately addressing the statement and questions quoted below.


    It will be awful flying near the border of this region now... (which is cleverly (almost) kept out of sight on all these screenshot). (...) Or does this addon come with basic surrounding textures?!

    We sure would love having a much wider playground, but we needed a start point and Ile-de-France region is by far the highest density and complexity you can face in France, so when the technology works here it will easily work for any further French region, if successful...

    We had first to prove the concept.

    Anyway, with some 24'000 square km of HR photo I think you may afford flying a long final without fearing the sight of soup ;)