Old good FSX

[V12]

Thorsten :
Thank You for nice polygon mess near EDDF :

[Thorsten]

Yawn...

* then you make a flight with FG preferably in non-Corine terrain with no regional landclass definitions, looking for landclass seams/scenery glitches, do not use the environment settings and take a screenshot
-> FG scenery gets depicted under the worst possible angle, distance and lighting conditions
-> what this hides is
- the low number of places in which landclass seams are really problematic (in hires CORINE scene, that's in my experience close to zero)
- the ability of environment settings to bring the scene to life
- the ability of the shaders to make it look good from both large and small distance
- and our ability to readily customize and improve regions

Screenshot without trees, with default random buildings rather than OSM2City coverage, with default regional landclass definitions - you never learn, do you?

Or yes, in fact you know all of that - you're just playing dumb here. As we've seen, if you want to win a competition, FG looks great for you, only if you want to bad-mouth it you 'forget' about all the options you have at your fingertips...

The point is that there's polygons in reality, not that scenery on your harddisk gets magically changed to beautiful against your intentions to make it look bad.

[V12]

If You or other core developers will apply this technique :


Source : viewtopic.php?p=287205#p287205

scenery will look 100x better than now :



This thing is almost 4 year old. Even better is this OSG feature :

Why this rendering method is not applied to FG ?

[Thorsten]

Again you're playing dumb - use the forum search function to find discussions on OSGEarth, there's plenty of explanations (basically the people who believe this method is better are unwilling to do any work to implement it whereas the people who do the work don't think it is better).

Btw, again I think my mountains look much better than this 'OSG feature'.

scenery will look 100x better than now :

Actually not - blending can solve a particular class of problems of natural landclasses - but mostly better resolution on the landclasses and regional texture definitions will improve a region.

You seem to believe there's a magic button you press, but in reality it's hard work - lots of different techniques need to be applied, and in most areas of the world it's not that blending is missing (this would have to be defined just like regional texturing) - it's that data resolution is missing or that there has been no attention by anyone.

FG looks great where people invest work - where they expect the defaults to do the job, it does not. FSX looks great where you paid for people to invest work in your payware - where you expect the defaults to work it does not.

[V12]

Btw, again I think my mountains look much better than this 'OSG feature'.

It is Your opinion.

[Thorsten]

Yes, and since I am investing my work and you are not, it's my opinion that matters for what gets done and yours does not.

[V12]

OK, sit down on ancient technology because in Your opinion it is best of the world and cry over Navigraph survey result why FG has small number users. Bye.

[Thorsten]

Sorry, why would I care (or cry about) whether FG has many users? For what I do with FG, it looks great, I invest my work to make sure. It's how OpenSource works. You could do the same, or not - that's up to you. I don't care either way.

Bye.

Well, hope springs eternally, but you've said your goodbyes so many times I fear we'll see many more 'If I doctor it, FSX is so much greater than FG' from you.

[V12]

FSX is dead horse, MSFS2020 is comming...

[GinGin]

FSX is dead horse, MSFS2020 is comming...

And then you gonna compare Ms 2020 with dozens of millions of dollars of investement to fg and say again : " why dev don't develop those technologies?" and tell them what to do on their spare time ?
If some devs don't want to develop a technology because they don't think it is useful, how can you force them and talk to them like if you actually bought a product ?

Just find a team of people that believe in that tech, and work on it, no ??
Instead of telling to those who don't want to develop it to do it.

[wlbragg]

If You or other core developers will apply this technique :
scenery will look 100x better than now

I don't recall ever seeing an urban edge fade into oblivion in a real life image.
The technique might be useful in some instances, but in reality "edge" areas between urban and a natural area are normally never blended at all, they are almost entirely hard edge. Maybe a natural edge, like a forest bordering a field, might have some blending of vegetation.

A better technique that can be done right now would be as Thorsten said to use the tools that are already available...
Better material definitions and textures and OSM buildings and lined roads.
That would be more realistic than a blending of two different landclasses that are never blended in that manner in real life.

[Hooray]

If You or other core developers will apply this technique :
http://www.science-and-fiction.org/FG/p ... errain.jpg
Source : viewtopic.php?p=287205#p287205

For the record, you are preaching to the choir by posting images and digging out topics that Thorsten himself created in the first place, and then telling him to look at that work - he's more than just aware of these ideas - heck, even those images are hosted on his server ...

[Richard]

FSX is dead horse, MSFS2020 is comming...

Yes I've been following it closely and there is no doubt at all that the new Microsoft Flight Simulator will have fantastic terrain and a superb rendering engine. It appears that they are probably using bing maps data (satellite, terrain, etc) to build their world and posted screenshots and videos look fantastic.

[1]

There is still room for improvement on the image above - as it is showing some of the usual problems with satellite imagery - but this is early alpha and may well improve. It will be interesting to see the released version (probably sometime this year).

All of the screenshots that have been posted from what they are calling 'early alpha' are very promising and as an example of the state of the art it is very impressive and a massive step forwards from FSX but still not our competition.


-----
[1] Images posted here https://www.flightsimulator.com

[Bjoern]

I think a good, varied landclass and vector based system is much better for rendering terrain on a global basis than photoscenery. At least as long as the source data is sufficiently accurate and detailed.

For what it's worth, X-Plane 11 does a pretty good job in terms of procedural terrain rendering. With the exception of bodies of water.

[V12]

Richard :
I think, MS made some agreement with Google, not Bing. 3D buildings are too realistic to be some type of the autogen.

Sorry, I don't understand "but still not our competition" Did You mean :
1) that pictures are not as good as in FG,
2) MSFS2020 is not competitor for FG, because is payware feeded with multimilions budget ?

I hope, 2) is correct...

Bjoern :
You can play with procedural shading or landclasses as long as You like, but in many cases You never correctly depict reality. Nice examples are cities with OSM buildings and roads, when OSM buildings are positioned on roads depicted in texture and OSM roads crossing buildings in the texture.
I made small test - I demonstrated Everest FG picture and P3D photoreal picture to 30 peoples. All 30 peoples marked photoreal picture as better than FG. 2 of that peoples are professional DTP operators and graphic designer...
Strange, no one complained about wrong shadows.