...2011 standards for realistic sceneries
 

let heat the debate!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liDPL8Zu99A

cool, very nice landscape.
Questions:
a) does it model realistic WWII combat?
b) which assortment of historically correct planes has it
c) what are the possibilities regarding ground targets?
d) does it allow online combat?
e) does it portray present landscape only, or can it show 1940s landscape?

To me, it looks flat and boring. The clouds look quite nice though.

Combat flight sims and photo sceneries don't go well together. Urban areas and objects such as airport buildings, hangars etc don't really go well with it either. And finally, we have no satellite photos of England and France circa 1939. So - apples and oranges really.... Though it does look nice in certain circumstances.

it is a photorealistic scenery addon for x-plane 10, it is a flight sim, not combat fS

So there ends the debate?

No debate to be had, in my view. I have an earlier version of the same company's 'UK Real Scenery' for FSX, and it's only ok.

As it's based on aerial photography, different sections have different colours according to the light conditions at the time the photo was taken. Just like Google Earth.
There are sharp, straight line divisions between the sections, again as in Google Earth.
There are no 3D trees, and very few 3D buildings. There are no dynamic shadows, so the shadows rarely match where the sun is according to the time of day.
I do enjoy the odd flight over Snowdonia, because for some reason Wales seems to have the best quality of photography. Some parts of the UK, and particularly Kent funnily enough philip, are absolutely awful.

Flying over the lakes in a Hawker Hunter during a Thunderstorm is also pretty cool. I'd post some screenshots, but I'm at work unfortunately!

I certainly wouldn't want this type of scenery in Cliffs of Dover, and I seem to remember Oleg saying that they wouldn't use photo scenery, possibly for the reasons above, although who's to say that '3rd party ' scenery might not become available at some future date for those that want it? :)

The CloD volcano map is far superior. :rolleyes:

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/a...ko1/ptero1.jpg

http://i930.photobucket.com/albums/a...a/grab0101.jpg

Or the Teletubbies wonderland.

http://i1217.photobucket.com/albums/...0/d9f4ef9c.jpg

I actually like this last pic (without the tubbies), only posted it because it's funny as hell...

well, i like the Teletubbies wonderland, can i bomb them pleeeeeeassssssseeeeee??

Leave the little bastards alone... Nuke the volcano map instead, wipe it off of the world. :-P

[QUOTE=Dutch_851;291812]As it's based on aerial photography, different sections have different colours according to the light conditions at the time the photo was taken. Just like Google Earth.
There are sharp, straight line divisions between the sections, again as in Google Earth.
There are no 3D trees, and very few 3D buildings. There are no dynamic shadows, so the shadows rarely match where the sun is according to the time of day.
QUOTE]

...some thougts:
1- I'm ok with google earth textures aren't the best solution on which to base the landscape engine design. But they should be a substantial guideline. The patterns can be tuned up according to historical needs, the colour palette idem, but I would start from here

2- Are you sure we need billion of 3d trees casting billion of shadows in a Flight/Combat Fligh sim? I'm sceptic on this. I'm not an informatic programmer but modestly I think this is the bottleneck in terms of resources requirements.
Ok, an external view focused on a parked plane near the hangar and the surrounding landscape spiced with dynamic shadows is simply amazing! But at what price? Are those problems solvable in terms of programming language? If not I'll prefere a more balanced solution (i.e. dynamic shadows limited to cockpits, self shadowing of planes in external views)
Cheers

There are a lot of them in Cliffs of Dover yes, but my point is that there are none in VFR scenery. At least, not in the version I have.

Don't get me wrong, VFR together with REX is an impressive environment once you've gained a bit of altitude, but the lack of 3D objects on the ground spoils the experience for me.

I deliberately landed a Spitfire in the middle of a town in VFR scenery only a few days ago. The whole town was simply a flat expanse of multicoloured pixels.

From 5000ft it looked fine!

Once I get home later I'll post a few screenshots. :)

im not just saying this and irregardless of any points of view, id still rather be flying over ClOD scenery. and to date ive not enjoyed flying over any scenery quite as much. The construct method in ClOD is rather advanced compared to all other scenery out there in flightsim form. but i honestly believe to this date. ive not seen better. granted the artistic impression might not suit but still its better than anything else ive flown over. there maybe one excepetion. arma 2/3.(only for content and shader implementation) but i dont believe i flew. I WASD'd it. And i cant say its better looking but the construct is bangin' ! If that construct method could be translated from around 20km's to around 200 km.s then it could be representative to this debate. but stiill ! in my eyes and artistic impression not with standing. ClOD is better before my eyes if you look past the artistry.

I you want to look the future, look at Outerra :

http://outerra.com/

The first sim which will use Outerra will bomb all the others to the ground !

on visual terms i quite agree. but this outerra is its own, i doubt it can manifest itself within a combat flightsim anytime soon. Also its a procedural generator more than a scenery device that ClOD could take advantage of. Ive seen all the tech demos for it but im still not convinced.

http://youtu.be/d-ghwgcYeVA
http://youtu.be/MrlVSAiu4Ag

*cough cough* Lock-On *cough cough*

I don't know for what reasons, either technical or editorial ones, an aviation sim with combat features must have by nature a crappy landscape in 2011.

its where the weight lies with the title, today we still have to sacrifice everything for our further advanced physics and object calculations. If that wasnt the case we might have scenery twice as good as....... lets say Ace combat or hawkz or whatever its called. Taking that into account seriously.... ClOD scenery is bloody good !

Now that's impressive. :grin:

A few of the clips on the the tube are gob-smacking.

Wonder what sort of pc you'd need?;)

its nice, but still has that luminous green grass colour... they need to revisit "Lukla" as well

All I want is a hard core sim that looks like this::-P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNlgl...eature=related

...today we still have to sacrifice everything for our further advanced physics and object calculations.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++


Yes, this may be true, but this may be also a cheap trick to excuse bad coding optimisations.

I still have an Athlon 3000 with 1 giga of ram and a Radeon pro 9700 - so basically now a third-world pc -and IL2 is still quite smooth and pretty on it.

I will have in a few months a Bulldozer octocore with 12 gigas of ram and a Nvidia 580 with 3 gigas (for rendering work) and I'm no more ready to believe that with a 2011 config (even with a less powerful one) it's still not possible to have, at the same time, enough ressource for physics calculations and graphic calculations, at least at a level noticably different than ten years ago.