Board index FlightGear Media

A Grand Canyon gallery

Screenshots, videos, sound recording etc. taken in/with FlightGear.

A Grand Canyon gallery

Postby Thorsten » Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:58 pm

Whoever thinks it needs photo-texturing to get good scenery - consider that. Grand Canyon in a couple of different weather, season and lighting conditions (something photo-scenery generally sucks at...)

The classic - a labyrinth of rock:

Image

The Grand View - the canyon from high above:

Image

The Colorado river:

Image

Cloud shadows falling onto the rim:

Image

More diffuse lighting, note how the colors come out differently:

Image

Sheer Canyon walls:

Image

Snow in Grand Canyon:

Image

Foggy day with wet rocks and brodding clouds:

Image

Sunrise from the rim:

Image
Thorsten
 
Posts: 12490
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:33 am

Re: A Grand Canyon gallery

Postby SurferTim » Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:34 pm

NICE!! Is this the "standard" Terrasyc?
I'll have to try the "Grand Canyon Tour" that I used to approve while working sector D8 at Los Angeles Center.
Fly low. Fly slow. Land on a dime. Twin Otter. https://github.com/SurferTim/dhc6p
My other aircraft is a Citation-X https://github.com/SurferTim/CitationX
PirateAir videos at https://www.youtube.com/user/SurferTim850
User avatar
SurferTim
 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:49 pm
Location: Miramar Beach, FL
Callsign: Pirate
Version: 2020.4.0
OS: Ubuntu 18.04

Re: A Grand Canyon gallery

Postby V12 » Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:29 pm

Thorsten :
Very nice, but where is that redish color shift ?
Fly high, fly fast - fly Concorde !
V12
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:27 pm
Location: LZIB
Callsign: BAWV12

Re: A Grand Canyon gallery

Postby Thorsten » Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:43 am

@V12:

Short recap - you think it looks like this in reality and call this 'very nice visuals'

Image

I can see a pretty clear difference in color hue.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 12490
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:33 am

Re: A Grand Canyon gallery

Postby V12 » Tue Oct 15, 2019 8:43 am

For me, YES, much more details than in standard FG terrasync scenery. Procedural texturing is nice, but overall image is boring and too uniform, without natural look. Sorry, 90m (or probably even more meters) details terrain in standard FG terrasync scenery in Grand Canyon looks like snowdrifts, or Sahara's sand dunes, not rough rock and stone cliffs. But if You show me high resolution GC scenery, it is possible that I change my opinion.
In FSX, I'm using FreeMeshX 2.0 with 38m details. Colorado River looks like river, not only some line, cliffs are cliffs with rough structure, no pylons in the water, no water flowing over cliffs, Hoover dam is dam, Glen CDam is dam, etc, etc.
Show me please screenshots from FSweekend high resolution GC scenery for compare, because this viewtopic.php?p=346896#p346896 is only attempt to good looking scenery. I did not laboured with manual weather selection for better colouds cover, used live weather, time around noon and it is reason, why there are not shadows. Today, I want repeat this trip, but in reversed direction from KPGA to KLAS.

Again, simple photoscenery without postprocessing is not solution for modern flight sim, because (as You correct wrote about color balance) can't modify colors and simulate seasons or snow cover.
Fly high, fly fast - fly Concorde !
V12
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:27 pm
Location: LZIB
Callsign: BAWV12

Re: A Grand Canyon gallery

Postby Thorsten » Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:29 am

But if You show me high resolution GC scenery, it is possible that I change my opinion.


I'm not interested in changing your opinion [1], I'm interested in making several points for others.

First, a photograph or a screenshot aren't just 'happening', there's an intention behind it and a selection involved. In photography, you select when you push the button, you select what part of a scene is in the picture and what is outside its borders, you select things like exposure and aperture - all based on your intention.

Do you want to make the scene look good? Bad? interesting?

It's easy to make e.g. iconic landmarks like delicate arch or balanced rock quite odd - walk around them, take the picture from the other side.

All that also holds for screenshots where it costs you just a few clicks to try different weather or light. Every photographer will tell you that if you have a landscape relief, you take pictures when the sun is low - because then the lighting brings out a relief. Most Grand Canyon photographs you can admire somewhere are taken when the sun is low.

So - when you compare the impression of reality people have from photographs, or two screenshots taken with good relief shading with one screenshot taken under noon light when the relief is flat - what conclusion will people inevitably make? They will conclude that the noon screenshot looks worse.

Given the quality of submissions for Screenshot of the Month, I have severe trouble to imagine that you're not aware of such a simple thing as the effect of good relief lighting. So there's not many reasons I can imagine for not doing the one mouse click that will give you much better visuals.

***

The second point would be that light and weather matters - quite a lot. The same scenery should look compelling under very varied conditions - colors come out differently in direct and indirect light, there's the warm glow of dawn illumination, the hazy diffuse light of an high overcast day, the effect of frost and water on exposed rock.

Yet - whenever we get to see photo-scenery, the weather is always bright and dry. Why is that? Because we've tested it and Richard has posted results from OSGEarth - it doesn't look plausible at all in rainy weather.

***

Given these observations, it i quite easy to make FG 'lose' in a screenshot comparison - careful selection will do that for you. But it's equally easy to make FG 'win' a comparison.

Which is - if you really want to *learn* anything rather than feel good because your million dollar commercial product really outperformed the volunteer effort in one situation - you need to sit down and think what a fair comparison actually is and what you might want to learn from it.

[1] You've received the tools to work on FG scenery, you've been given the instructions on the wiki page - you can use that to create something that's better than what is there by default, you can choose to submit that to the repository so that others can enjoy it as well - that would be a positive contribution.

Or you can continue to post FSX and doctored FG screenshots and pat yourself on the shoulder how much better FSX works for you - that would not be a positive contribution.

Your choice.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 12490
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:33 am

Re: A Grand Canyon gallery

Postby V12 » Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:54 am

Doctored images - again Your standard accusation without proof. I gave you publicly available evidence that exists videos with very similar images, but You rejected to check that videos. Do You accuse authors from doctoring that videos too ?

The METAR repair took three quarters of a year. 3 years back exists technology how to blend landclasses textures, but still not in actual release. 2 years known problem with wrong cloud rotation, reported many times on many places. Again, not solved. Still not integraly solved sudden jumps in weather parameters.

Sorry, I'm not interested in investing time into project without visible progress.
Bye.
Fly high, fly fast - fly Concorde !
V12
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:27 pm
Location: LZIB
Callsign: BAWV12

Re: A Grand Canyon gallery

Postby Thorsten » Tue Oct 15, 2019 11:05 am

Doctored images - again Your standard accusation without proof.


See above - please read what I wrote - it's spelled out what you did (and you admitted doing it).

Do You accuse authors from doctoring that videos too ?


As I said - I haven't seen the videos, but I feel pretty safe in assuming they're made with an intention as well - a selection of time and weather conditions etc.

The METAR repair took three quarters of a year. 3 years back exists technology how to blend landclasses textures, but still not in actual release. 2 years known problem with wrong cloud rotation, reported many times on many places. Again, not solved. Still not integraly solved sudden jumps in weather parameters.


I'm sad to hear you haven't solved the jump thing yet - I've told you what files to look in, I've explained to you how the routines work, I've presented a math example... We know that you're able to code Nasal - so... what kept you from working on it?

What prevented you from delving into cloud rotations? The code is open... sit down for a week, create a fix, submit it for review, see it committed. It's what the rest of us do...

Just complaining is not a positive contribution to anything. You've received a lot of pointers on how to start with a fix - what have you done with the help? Nothing.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 12490
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:33 am

Re: A Grand Canyon gallery

Postby V12 » Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:05 pm

Thorsten wrote in Tue Oct 15, 2019 11:05 am:...As I said - I haven't seen the videos, but I feel pretty safe in assuming they're made with an intention as well - a selection of time and weather conditions etc.

Accusation without evidence, Videos was recorded by FGUK crew too :wink:
Fly high, fly fast - fly Concorde !
V12
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:27 pm
Location: LZIB
Callsign: BAWV12

Re: A Grand Canyon gallery

Postby Thorsten » Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:26 pm

So what?

Do you believe FGUK managed the trick of recording videos without any sort of intention? They don't make any choices on field of view, weather, route, time of day...? Video recording for them 'just happens'?

Do you realize how absurd your claim is?
Thorsten
 
Posts: 12490
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:33 am

Re: A Grand Canyon gallery

Postby StuartC » Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:05 pm

All our Saturday flights are accidental. Currently we do pick weather as not everyone in the flight is running a FG version that's able to receive metar. Also a Flight leader will specify the time of day he would prefer the flight to be run, usually to provide the best visual experience or to achieve certain light conditions as a challenge.
StuartC
 
Posts: 3175
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: Arse end of the Universe
Callsign: WF01
Version: 2019.1
OS: W10 64 bit

Re: A Grand Canyon gallery

Postby StuartC » Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:15 pm

P.S. if im doing a comparison, I try to use settings on each sim that are as close to each other as I can + stock standard scenery, no addons.
StuartC
 
Posts: 3175
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: Arse end of the Universe
Callsign: WF01
Version: 2019.1
OS: W10 64 bit

Re: A Grand Canyon gallery

Postby Thorsten » Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:22 pm

@StuartC:

I'm not objecting to your comparisons - the basic idea of what is being compared is rather clear to be. I'm objecting to V12's comparisons which usually do not compare the same conditions - such that 'by chance' FG always gets the disadvantage.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 12490
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:33 am

Re: A Grand Canyon gallery

Postby StuartC » Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:25 pm

@Thorsten
I know. I was just putting forward the conditions we use to fly in, and what I do to compare things.
StuartC
 
Posts: 3175
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: Arse end of the Universe
Callsign: WF01
Version: 2019.1
OS: W10 64 bit

Re: A Grand Canyon gallery

Postby vnts » Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:23 pm

Image

Coords from video[1] in other thread, approx: lat,lon=[36.15555556,-113.19166667]

Google streetview maps the river (image in August): link

Image

FG:

Image

FG cloud shadows:

FG looks far closer. Notice FG's approach is aware of green/vegetation on the gently sloping edges of the river. FG could add more detail or plants if desired.

FG framework is very capable of the type of detail in the photo. Current regional definitions doesn't use overlays. Overlays can show 3d detail in pebbles/silt deposited on banks of rivers or bars) - in various areas with that landtype defined or derived - but requires a base texture (content).

If Thorsten (or whoever worked on the area last) had access to more varied or detailed base textures, on top of procedural effects, it would likely be even better. Similarly with more examples of vegetation.

FG's engine & framework is capable. It's the level of art & configuration data that makes undeveloped areas look less developed.. and whether engine features are used. If regional definitions from Hawaii or Norway was copied to a less developed area, it would suddenly have huge detail.

Another approach is to ask could FG look like the screenshot from the other sim if it wanted to? What would be the whitish stuff? Snow? Dust/sand? Mud? Dark igneous (volcanic) rock?

From screens I uploaded previously:

Snow/varying thickness/transition/darker rock (no overlays):

Image

Mud like:
Image

FG can do rocky/bare terrain well:

Image

Rocky (Norway):

Image

Desert sand and rough rock from a thread about a WiP terrain in FG shows the engine can create pretty much any arid scenery:
Image

Image

Some screens I uploaded years ago. Grand canyon. Standard terrasync scenery (2017-2018 - some things like clouds are outdated, apologies. I also likely knew less about FG settings back then. Just a short trip, didn't configure dust etc.):
Image

Sunset:
Image

Detail close to ground:
Image

Kind regards
vnts
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:29 am

Next

Return to Media

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests