260 replies to this topic

[Krigl]

This is some really exciting new stuff you're working on!! I love my GE Pro for FS9... hope this will make a similar difference to the sim. Looks amazing from above to be sure, and I think longer views will look better once you start including hills and mountains in your pics...

Really curious about how autogen is going to look on that though. And in cities with skyscrapers the 'pointing in different directions' problem is going to be really noticeable. Looking forward to seeing how you deal with these issues....

Will there be a demo....?

Cheers

Krigl

[Peter Wilding]

Yes, you are right. The city areas are more of a challange. We have to fix the real obvious skyscrapers just like ACES do for such areas.

Autogen will look much better than defualt but it's going to take a lot more work ot place objects.

There is a lot more work to produce textures at this level of detail than at 1024.

[anipilot]

hey Peter, Ive been following your work since FS2002. Also much enjoyed your 'water' package for FS2004 and now this ! WOW just stumbled upon it. Im a sure fire customer for it but I have some questions before that...(actually lots but won't be a bother now)

- Your package looks like a head on competition to the UK VFR package which claims its 'UK' but is only England and that too souther and south eastern more like    with none of the more beautiful Scotland and Ireland.  Since you're doing all of Europe surely you won't ignore the highlands and cairngorms I presume

- How do these textures look at dusk & dawn, I mean does the lighting blend in with the ground textures ? (maybe a stupid question but nevertheless)

- Are you going to do Asia (i read somebody asking about the Middle East, but thats just 70 to 80 % desert anyway, whereas the Indian subcontinent and Far east are much more tropical foliage and rice paddies. Will you be looking to do some areas atleast?

- out of the way question? Have got a work around for inland water and lakes in FSX that appear too wavy?

keep up the good work and let us know when the commercial release is ready
cheers

[Striker_jm]

Yeah inland water textures need to be fixed...lol, it would be cool if you had a work around for that. But I must say the texture you have shown are simply amazing.

Can't wait to see what the auto gen looks like because although the texture look very good, I just kind wrap my head around flat trees and building in the distance (if you know what I mean).

Again great work

[mikep]

Too bad you're focusing on such a boring area as aussie land

You should have concentrated on the US

[Noble.]

mikep, on Apr 4 2008, 08:37 PM, said:

Too bad you're focusing on such a boring area as aussie land

You should have concentrated on the US

Wow, how naive.

[Vlad]

mikep, on Apr 4 2008, 03:37 PM, said:

Too bad you're focusing on such a boring area as aussie land

You should have concentrated on the US

There are plenty of sceneries for the US... They will be doing the US and all the world later on.

Btw since you have such a smart-alec attitude I'm sure you'll manage to create a scenery for the US yourself... But I'm guessing you can't so just be quiet.

[FSRobert]

I think last on his list will be OZ.

I think he is doing Europe first as shots in this thread represent.

[J van E]

anipilot, on Apr 4 2008, 08:03 PM, said:

- Your package looks like a head on competition to the UK VFR package which claims its 'UK' but is only England and that too souther and south eastern more like    with none of the more beautiful Scotland and Ireland.  Since you're doing all of Europe surely you won't ignore the highlands and cairngorms I presume

It won't be a photorealistic addon like Horizon's VFR: the textures look photorealistic but will be generic. So don't expect to see your house there! A photorealistic package like Horizon's package, containing the whole of Europe, at this high res, would take a few Terrabyte, I think.

Edited by J van E, 04 April 2008 - 04:00 PM.

[bigflyersmallbyer]

I've been following your work on FSX so far. This Photo real scenery. I undertand you'll still going to add autogen am i right? At the mo it looks Great, but too flat for me. I think when you've added autogen, trees, etc it will look alot better.

[J van E]

bigflyersmallbyer, on Apr 5 2008, 01:09 PM, said:

I think when you've added autogen, trees, etc it will look alot better.

Well, I'm not sure about that... The higher res the textures, the more exact the autogen has to be lined out, otherwise it's going to look messy. I think that the higher the res, the harder it will be to place autogen in a convincing way! Not only lining out might be a problem, but also the detail on the autogen: it is bound to look worse than the ground textures. Imagine autogen trees upon a hi-res picture of a tree: you will see multiple trees and the ones in the texture may look better...! With lower res textures the embedded tree may look like some kind of shadow, but when it is hi-res it might begin to look weird. And when houses don't line up exactly with the textures, you will see very detailed parts of houses sticking out underneath the autogen: again, with low res textures this isn't a huge problem, but with hi-res it might be. Specially when the houses in the texture look better and more detailed than the autogen...

[Peter Wilding]

bigflyersmallbyer, on Apr 5 2008, 12:09 PM, said:

I've been following your work on FSX so far. This Photo real scenery. I undertand you'll still going to add autogen am i right? At the mo it looks Great, but too flat for me. I think when you've added autogen, trees, etc it will look alot better.

thanks for the comments. We've stated here in this thread many, many times now we will be doing autogen. you can chouse the density you want.

A full feature list will be made available later when we know what's in the final package.

J van E, on Apr 5 2008, 12:57 PM, said:

bigflyersmallbyer, on Apr 5 2008, 01:09 PM, said:

I think when you've added autogen, trees, etc it will look alot better.

Well, I'm not sure about that... The higher res the textures, the more exact the autogen has to be lined out, otherwise it's going to look messy. I think that the higher the res, the harder it will be to place autogen in a convincing way! Not only lining out might be a problem, but also the detail on the autogen: it is bound to look worse than the ground textures. Imagine autogen trees upon a hi-res picture of a tree: you will see multiple trees and the ones in the texture may look better...! With lower res textures the embedded tree may look like some kind of shadow, but when it is hi-res it might begin to look weird. And when houses don't line up exactly with the textures, you will see very detailed parts of houses sticking out underneath the autogen: again, with low res textures this isn't a huge problem, but with hi-res it might be. Specially when the houses in the texture look better and more detailed than the autogen...

All very good points. It's not going ot be a problem though because you can always set the 4096 textures to 2048 or 1024 if you want to dumb them down to blurr the detail to look better with autogen. This all assumes that it won't look better with autogen? We don't know that yet and autogen is a very subjective thing. The key here is choice.

Yes you are right alignment is more critical with higher resolutions but this may make things look better and not worst.

In the end though you can set the level of detail to how you want. We will probably make some more detailed autogen to match the higher resolutions also including trees and buildings etc.

Don't worry, we have thought about all these things and will show some examples just as soon as we get the opportunity.

[usnchris]

Noble., on Apr 4 2008, 02:50 PM, said:

mikep, on Apr 4 2008, 08:37 PM, said:

Too bad you're focusing on such a boring area as aussie land

You should have concentrated on the US

Wow, how naive.

Wow, how sarcastic. don't FEED THE TROLLS!

[Noble.]

cfschris, on Apr 5 2008, 07:21 PM, said:

Noble., on Apr 4 2008, 02:50 PM, said:

mikep, on Apr 4 2008, 08:37 PM, said:

Too bad you're focusing on such a boring area as aussie land

You should have concentrated on the US

Wow, how naive.

Wow, how sarcastic. don't FEED THE TROLLS!

What? mikep was being sarcastic? Some kind of understanding one has about sarcasm.

[usnchris]

Noble., on Apr 5 2008, 01:23 PM, said:

cfschris, on Apr 5 2008, 07:21 PM, said:

Noble., on Apr 4 2008, 02:50 PM, said:

mikep, on Apr 4 2008, 08:37 PM, said:

Too bad you're focusing on such a boring area as aussie land

You should have concentrated on the US

Wow, how naive.

Wow, how sarcastic. don't FEED THE TROLLS!

What? mikep was being sarcastic? Some kind of understanding one has about sarcasm.

No, not mikep, you. It just seemed you had that sarcastic tone in your post.......as you do in alot of your posts! Although yes, I know, sarcasm would not fit in this situation. Maybe I meant "rude".

[Noble.]

No, I wasn't being sarcastic. Some idiot wants someone to make scenery just for the USA, especially when it's catered for first, and I think if he took the time to even do some research, he'll find that the USA is amazingly covered for both FS9 and FSX; secondly apply some rather basic logic to the situation, how is it good for a developer to design for an area already covered once over, it isn't.

So I was calling him naive on a number of fronts.

Finally, to a few people on this forum, who shall we say lack intellect, need to be informed through the use of sarcasm, it's a much more direct and readable technique.

Edited by Noble., 05 April 2008 - 01:46 PM.

[usnchris]

Nah, I just didn't like the fact of treating him rudely, despite his own rudeness.

[Noble.]

cfschris, on Apr 5 2008, 07:48 PM, said:

Nah, I just didn't like the fact of treating him rudely, despite his own rudeness.

Ah, don't worry he'll live; as will you.

[J van E]

Peter Wilding, on Apr 5 2008, 08:19 PM, said:

All very good points. It's not going ot be a problem though because you can always set the 4096 textures to 2048 or 1024 if you want to dumb them down to blurr the detail to look better with autogen. This all assumes that it won't look better with autogen? We don't know that yet and autogen is a very subjective thing. The key here is choice.

The key is choice indeed. I wouldn't get this package and then turn it down to 1024 though. I'd rather fly it without autogen, I think, because for this kind of scenery that looks best. But...:

Quote

Don't worry, we have thought about all these things and will show some examples just as soon as we get the opportunity.

...I already expected you thought about all these things. So I am really curious with what you come up with!

[usnchris]

Say, does anyone know if REX provides new ground scenery textures? I know it does water, sky, airports, and clouds...but ground environment?

Because if it doesn't include ground scenery, I'm getting this for it!