Posts by frui

    Hi Sycosys: Can you explain how to download the .3m imagery? I can only download up to 1m. Thank you!

    I see what you are getting at with the source xmls. I'm using .3m imagery. I see the lat longs on the extents.

    Another question, are you importing multiple files for an area or do you mosaic them into a single large image and import that? if you had all the required files could you import a ~10gb imagery chunk (like something dozens of miles or more on a side)?

    I don't quite understand the concept of "level" in .TMC files.

    The tutorial says "You can manually add levels up to level 14, normally beginning at level 9. This is your resolution at different flight levels seen in the sim."

    I am confused because this is not the same as the resolution of the image made from FSET.

    For example, if I made an image from FSET with resolution of 50cm per pixel, it seems that I can assign it different levels from 9 to 14 in the .TMC file. Does this mean level 9 will look lower resolution and level 14 will look higher resolution despite the original resolution of 50cm? Or does it mean the priority of each level to be shown during the flight? For example, if there are 2 levels of different areas, only the high level of the overlapping areas will be shown?

    Thank you Taranakian! I am indeed thinking not just from the perspective of flight simulation alone, but from change of aesthetics because of technological development. We are entering into an age of "Simulacrum" as described by French philosopher Baudrillard. People are more and more obsessed with "the real" of multi dimensions.
    I forgot to mention VR, which is the same embodiment of this tendency, and Aerofly FS2 is also ahead of time in this regard.
    Next generation graphics + smooth framerate + photoreal scenery + Orbx + VR = Future.

    Frui.

    I want to congratulate you on a well thought out, deep and really well written article. As far as I'm concerned you have clearly thought this through, about the future of Flight Simming.

    Well done.

    Taranakian.

    I spent an hour in FSW, and now I get a much stronger sense that IPACS is doing things right,and I am loving Aerofly more. I have been playing MS flight simulator since version 4, but there is no going back.

    There has been a long dispute in the simulation world: Quantity or quality.

    FSX/P3D/XP have the whole world, but generic scenery out of the box. Aerofly has only a few region, but very high detailed.

    Which is better? Which one to choose? All are right. FSX/P3D/XP are right to give a backbone for the 3rd party developer to fill in the blanks. IPACS is right to give a few seclected high quality region to start with, and then expand them gradually, which is especially a good strategy for a small team with limited resources and recognition.

    There has also been a dispute over generic or photoreal scenery. I think the answer is now more clear: photoreal wins, especially with 3d photo real buildings as seen in the Aerosoft NY DLC.

    Generic scenery is the natural product of the old age when computing power is weak and harddisk capacity is small. When computing power grows and HD storage increases many folds, the taste has changed.

    Especially as Google Earth is rolling out more and more high detailed world in stunning 3D, people are more and more accustomed to photoreal scenery, and can't go back to the monotonous generic world of the past.

    I have stronger sense of this change as I was playing FSW last night. It just looks so...FSX, the land, the buildings, the moutains...they all look so artificial. I am spoiled by Aerofly, and I simply can't go back.

    I think the ultimate future of flight simulation is to fly in the world of Google Earth 3D VR, but that will take time even though the data and infrastructure are already there. Before we reach that goal, we can have something between, and that is the road Aerofly FS 2 is going.

    Of course photoreal scenery is not enough. We need more autogens and better trees on top of that, but that is not unrealistic to achieve. And the cooperation with ORBX combines the best of both.

    Despite different voices, I really think you are on the right road. Keep up the good work, and many thanks!

    I am so happy about this improvement of trees, which are just so important for flight simulation. I do think trees used to be the weakest link of Aerofly FS2. They were even worse than that of FSX. Fortunately IPACS is fixing this. Just wish it better and better.