...2011 standards for realistic sceneries

[philip.ed]

So there ends the debate?

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

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?

[jg27_mc]

The CloD volcano map is far superior.





Or the Teletubbies wonderland.



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

[albx]

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

[jg27_mc]

Originally Posted by albx

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.

[pupaxx]

[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

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by pupaxx

Are you sure we need billion of 3d trees casting billion of shadows in a flight/Combat Fligh sim?

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.

[ChrisDNT]

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 !

Originally Posted by ChrisDNT

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.