Posts by nickhod

    Has anyone experience with this? Is "Here WeGo" (which is the former Nokia Maps as I understand it) better w.r.t. clouds (or rather lack of) and color consistency than Bing or Google?

    What do we know about licensing/redistribution terms?

    It seems to use similar image sources to Bing, but not always identical.

    Licensing is proprietary as far as I know.

    I find your reply surprising; I had expected that, once someone had paid UKP 400 for a VR headset they would abandon all their hardware and concentrate on flying "virtually".

    Don't overlook the simple fact that holding out your hands in front of you, in "yoke holding position", with nothing to rest them on and take the weight is really, really uncomfortable even for 15 minutes.

    It's not just me is it?

    No, it does look awful in VR at certain altitudes.

    You can sometimes improve things by changing the height of the cloud layers.

    I might be wrong, but it seems to me that the cloud height doesn't adjust depending on altitude of your starting point.

    If you have the clouds on "middle" height its super noticeable at high altitude airports, and barely noticeable at near sea level airports.

    That'd be very useful. I know I've harped on about this before, but it still surprises me that Aerofly have provided all of this beautiful scenery to fly around and the only way of finding the good stuff is by luck. Much easier to explore third party scenery as the devs generally quantify what it is you're getting.

    Based on a sample of 1 my idea is validated!

    The app could have a user contributed sightseeing POI list in it also.

    Let's see what I can whip up in the next couple of weeks. Should be a lot easier than AeroScenery.

    In Aerofly I find it hard to know what scenery I have installed and where the boundaries of that scenery are.

    When you zoom in to the Aerofly map you see the airports, but I have a hard time knowing where to zoom in. e.g. "Where exactly is Eagle County airport on a US map"? I often end up taking my VR headset off and using Google Maps on my phone to find a place.

    I've been considering writing an "Aerofly Flight Planner" app that parses scenery files and airports and draws the boundaries of that scenery on a Google map and puts maps markers on an airport. Even from a zoomed out view you'd see outlines of scenery areas.

    I agree that the pad itself is a bit thin and doesn't spread the pressure well. Improving on that will be a good next step. The cheap velcro thing I bought was pretty rubbish, so maybe a good-enough fitting VR cover is the answer.

    I might take a punt and order the VR Cover Samsung Odyssey one. The guy on Reddit said that he used it without the original Reverb mask, but I think the nose pressure issue might persist then.

    I tracked down the part numbers for original Reverb face masks and I've emailed HP for a price.

    (Will let you know the outcome of either!)

    Use the velcro sandwich as a spacer by taking the reverb facepad off and placing this between the facepad and the velcro mount on the headset - chop the spacer into sections so that the pegs on the facepad are still useful for positioning the facepad

    My issue though is I'm finding the Reverb facepad itself uncomfortable. The fake leather isn't soft enough and seems to trap in heat leaving big red marks on my face.

    At the weekend I took my Oculus Go 3rd party "VR Cover" foam face thing…10/P1010574-Edit-Edit.jpg

    turned it over, so the plush microfibre side was on my face, and then temporarily taped it (with electricians tape) on top of the Reverb face mask.

    The difference was huge; so much more comfortable.

    Nose pressure was almost gone. I think it's doing the same thing as your fix and pushing the headset away from your face a bit.

    Only two problems:

    • The Oculus Go face mask doesn't fit the Reverb very well
    • I don't want to leave it taped to the original Reverb face mask as I think it'll ruin it (and ruin my chances of selling it, when the time comes).

    Seems like my ideal would be to get a replacement Reverb face mask from HP to "hack around" with. Then get a well fitting VR Cover face mask, and velcro the two together.

    (Someone replied to me on Reddit that the VR Cover Samsung Odyssey (not plus) face mask fits the Reverb well).

    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.

    The theoretical visible distance in an airliner at cruise altitude is about 240 miles. Obviously some level 8 and 7 scenery has to some into play if Aerofly really simulates that kind of draw distance.

    My point, specifically, is that only showing *one* level 9 tile underneath you is a bad choice. They could be showing a grid of 9 or 16 and it would probably please 99% of users. It would be a smarter default.

    A level 9 tile is a 2 - 3mb file for an area about the size of London. It's already low res, I don't buy the argument that it would be too high res to show at distance.

    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.

    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).

    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.

    Well, I already tried a couple of times telling you Aeroscenery shouldn't set Level 9 as the lowest limit since it won't load in the far distance. Compiling Level 7 helps in some cases.

    I don't mind changing AeroScenery but I'm still not convinced on the issue.

    A level 7 sized square is huge; about the size of the Netherlands or Switzerland. In KJKsimmer 's screenshot, it looks like only one level 9 square is being shown even though adjacent ones are available. Showing the 8 adjacent level 9 tiles would take you to the horizon and solve the problem.

    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.

    I get the feeling that what is happening is Aerofly is showing a level 9 square directly below you and using level 7 adjacent squares.

    The level 9 is custom and the level 7 is stock Aerofly ground textures.

    When I wrote AeroScenery I looked at the lowest level used in the all the high detailed scenery (parts of USA, Switzerland, Florida etc) and noticed it was level 9. That then became the lowest level in the app.

    What I can't figure out is why it doesn't happen with IPACS scenery. In your example it looks like detailed textures as far as the eye can see. Why isn't it using level 7? If you look at the IPACS "CH" (Switzerland) folder the lowest level is level 9, exactly the same as custom scenery.

    Anyway .. paging Jet-Pack (IPACS)  drhotwing1 (IPACS) admin . As this is an annoying problem.

    Is there any way to make Aerofly use level 9 custom scenery as the lowest level, or do we need to figure out some way of replacing level 7 scenery?