Old good FSX

[Thorsten]

I knew I'd find it - here's how the Himalaya looked back when WS 2 came out (there's been lots of progress since, but it serves to make the point):



I guess google-ish photo-scenery can just pack up.

[wlbragg]

I'm confused why were discussing "Good old FSX" in good old FG forums at all, unless it is to point out something we can use to make FG better. Everything in the OP's last post can't help us at all. It appears to be at best slightly illegal. For sure not compatible with FG and really dangerous to imply it belongs in our discussions at all. I don't understand the point here.
I think you'd get a better bang for your buck posting this kind of stuff to "Good old FSX" forums.

[icecode]

This is a very permissive forum. In any other internet forum the thread would be instantly closed for being offtopic and the user might even receive a warning for it. Good luck posting an "Good old FlightGear" thread in the FSX forums.

[Bjoern]

You can discuss other simulators in MSFS-related forums, as long as you declare the thread "OT" or do it in a non-simulator specific subforum. The latter is also the case here.

Is there already an X-Plane related screenshot thread?
(Just kidding.)

[GinGin]

- here's how the Himalaya looked back when WS 2 came out (there's been lots of progress since, but it serves to make the point):

What is WS 2?
Screen looks realistic

[xDraconian]

WS2 = World Scenery 2.0

[V12]

I guess google-ish photo-scenery can just pack up.

Are You sure with Your arogant statement ?

FG Mount Everest



G-photoscenery :



Makalu in FG :



... and G-photoscenery :



This strange thing in FG is K2 :



And IRL K2 :



Another example - Daulaghiri in FG :



Photoreal Daulaghiri in P3D :



Synthetic scenery in FG, FSX, P3D and X-P are far behind any photoscenery, And for Your information, there are payware photosceneries, I don't believe that it is not legal. For example Megascenery Earth, or ORBX True Earth. It is shame, that in FG is not implemented better landclass blending, as You demonstrated here viewtopic.php?p=287205#p287205 This technique will significantly improve FG visuals.

[Thorsten]

Are You sure with Your arogant statement ?

Yes -- even after looking at your (doctored, as usual) imagery, it looks better than the illegal content you've been stealing from Google Earth.

(FYI - photoscenery isn't illegal as such, payware version usually pay the required fees to use the imagery - just what you are doing is not legal, because we know Google Earth doesn't permit even to derive landclass textures or object positions from the content, much less whole photosceneries).

[V12]

Aaaa - standard stupid argument about doctored imaginery. I must laugh. You never show any evidence about doctoring my images. If You check that FG video (ooo, I forgot, You not watching videos), You will see all shaders in action, except Cloud shader. I dislike it, I don't use it.
For Asia region I'm using custom material definitions, that supress this insanity :



and after some effort I obtained :



(more info at viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35717)

About GE/VE scenery - it is only tech demo. I don't plan share illegal sim content, I know that is illegal, I'm not stupid.. And it cost too much gigabytes of storage

Problem of FG is GPL licence. For serious data and texture sources, You need use payware materias for better quality, but it is in direct conflict with GPL rules.

[erik]

It is not about what FlightGear currently has, it's about what can be done. Which is what Thorsten showed with the Himalayas.

Just like FSX, where you don't show the default scenery but something you constructed yourself. And which, if I'm not mistaken, can be done the same with FlightGear. Photo scenery has been used by some for FlightGear in the past.

But I agree with Thorsten, photo-scenery might look nice but if you achieve the same quality with shaders you're much better of in the end. Photo-scenery (like using sampled instruments for synthesizers) is a lazy-mans approach to a difficult problem. Once you've done the work properly you can do much more with shaders than with static photo-scenery. The shader approach just takes more work and hence takes longer to achieve.

Erik

[V12]

With shaders You never achieve realistic looking scenery, because shaders only modify some basic textures. You can apply some noise types, other texture patches, but result is still synthetic and doesn't show reality. For example - city park, where doesn't exists vectors for all trails. How do You want make real otput with shaders that correctly depict that trails ?
Another example - famous OSM buildings over textures assigned to urban type landclasses. For high level flying invisible, for low level VFR very annoying. You can see OSM buildings over roads depicted in the texture. How do You want fix it with shaders ?

Shaders can produce perfectly looking synthetics scenery, but not real scenery.

Photoreal scenery in FG is possible, but with many problems.

[erik]

It's not just shaders but a lot of manual work too.

That's why it takes longer to achieve the same result. And that's why almost everybody shies away from it: the lazy-mans approach.

Erik

[V12]

You can play with shaders as long as You can, but never achieve results like ORBX True Earth series products.

[Thorsten]

You never show any evidence about doctoring my images.

No, I don't need to, you're kind enough to do that yourself - when you want to win the SOTM you show nice images, when you want to promote FSX they magically look completely different (and also definitely not like mine).

So go figure...

Problem of FG is GPL licence. For serious data and texture sources, You need use payware materias for better quality, but it is in direct conflict with GPL rules.

No, the strength of FG is the GPL license. As you can see, I get better Himalaya imagery than you do even by illegally ripping Google Earth content.

Anyway - photo-scenery has quite a few generic problems. For starters, it has been recorded at a particular time of day and in a particular season and only looks good when you view it under the same conditions - it doesn't work at all credibly when the cloud cover is different, when the sun position is different or the season.

People who promote photo-scenery just never show these failings - though Richard has kindly done some demos in FG a while ago where you see all the junk that magically appears

For example - city park, where doesn't exists vectors for all trails. How do You want make real otput with shaders that correctly depict that trails ?

Yeah, and the bike in my yard - how does it appear in photo-scenery when I had it in my garage while the picture was taken? Isn't it a problem that it is missing?

Joke aside - all the flat airplane images on the various runways and taxiways are kind of a problem in photo-scenery... Because, aerial photography does not only depict static scenery elements, it depicts all the moving stuff as well - except it doesn't depict it as moving...

Just because it's a photo it's not reality (and, well, I don't actually want reality, I can go outside for that - I want a credible impression).

[V12]

Show me please undoctored best possible FG images of K2, Mt. Evetest or Makalu. Or show coordinates of Your scenery, because I can't see any realistic rock texture in Your image.