Arguments for and against photo scenery

ATAG_Dutch · #1 06-14-2011, 11:59 PM

Whilst the forum is pretty quiet, a couple of weeks ago a guy posted a video clip to show how good photo scenery in x-planes was.

Here's a sample of VFR photo scenery in FSX.

I'll leave you to decide whether it's good or bad.

Sorry about the frame rate! Which reminds me, FSX with full settings is still capable of slowing my FPS down to 10-15, so maybe Cliffs of Dover isn't as bad as we're making out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3eAnhu_beo

and here's the original one I posted, shot at dawn to show some strange REX lighting effects. At the end, you'll also see how much it costs to have this kind of environment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQZeEkUus6s

VO101_Tom · #2 06-15-2011, 12:50 AM

I see nothing, too dark the sunset landscape... this deliberate?

Satelite (or aerial photo) images good for google maps, good for FS, but ugly if u fly low (and slow).

AndyJWest · #3 06-15-2011, 12:57 AM

How are you going to get hold of 1940 satellite photo's?

ATAG_Dutch · #4 06-15-2011, 01:00 AM

You aren't!

If you watch the clip, you'll gather that I'm not a fan myself.

Of either the looks or the cost.

Liz Lemon · #5 06-15-2011, 01:20 AM

Plus scenery from satellite photos will make implementing proper HDR very hard.

ATAG_Dutch · #6 06-15-2011, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liz Lemon

Plus scenery from satellite photos will make implementing proper HDR very hard.

Indeed. This photo scenery stuff is ok in its place, such as flying at 15,000ft from London to Edinburgh in a Learjet.

As far as I'm concerned it has no place in a combat flight sim.

Not yet at any rate.

Codex · #7 06-15-2011, 12:06 PM

I get what they're trying to do but using satellite images for the land scape "looks" fake anyway. The problem is not that it's a photo, the problem is that its a static image, i.e. the lighting and colour doesn't change when the camera changes position.

A somewhat better approach might be to use photos of objects and use those images as textures, but you'd need to run some pretty intensive pixel shaders to make even these look realistic as you'll always have the lighting of the object to content with when the image was taken.

To recreate photo realistic images is the holy grail of the games industry, and from what I've learned the only real solution is ray tracing but we're a long way off from that being a real time possibility.

#8 06-15-2011, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Codex

To recreate photo realistic images is the holy grail of the games industry, and from what I've learned the only real solution is ray tracing but we're a long way off from that being a real time possibility.

5 years ! thats what the head of nvidia stated not so long ago.

its funny all these topical debates. because in the end theres somthing we dont like about Clod scenery, but it beats all other sceneries out there for flightsims. its marvelous in its construction imo.

Rattlehead · #9 06-15-2011, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Codex

but using satellite images for the land scape "looks" fake anyway.

In my eyes it does too. Not a fan of it myself.

Redroach · #10 06-15-2011, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

You aren't!

If you watch the clip, you'll gather that I'm not a fan myself.

Of either the looks or the cost.

I'm confused. Why do you bring it up again then? People will jump on the bandwagon again

Btw: The first one to destroy a house with bombs or cannons in this photo scenery thingy gets a cookie!

Red,
born and raised on a lime green field!