tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727408.post7286874479760054299..comments2016-07-20T09:43:51.417-04:00Comments on X-Plane Scenery Blog: 100 Mile VisibilityBenjamin Supnikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04886313844644521178noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727408.post-68473697224532231952011-01-10T13:47:15.412-05:002011-01-10T13:47:15.412-05:00Yep - that's one of the things I was thinking:...Yep - that's one of the things I was thinking: since DSFs are layered we could pull in the mesh immediately for "outer" DSFs and the 3-d overlays later as they scroll in.Benjamin Supnikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04886313844644521178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727408.post-35072219629919114532011-01-10T13:43:23.694-05:002011-01-10T13:43:23.694-05:00Hi there! Just thought I had, what if you combined...Hi there! Just thought I had, what if you combined the normal 6 Dsf files with an algorithm that reads more dsf files for just basic mesh data and then combines with the "need to add elevation displacement planet render" idea. It could utilize the blend of the Planet render to the dsf pretty well, perhaps with a LOD system. Could that happen?Willzahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727408.post-29994350406693393152011-01-08T20:22:55.459-05:002011-01-08T20:22:55.459-05:00So ... I will be reproduce being able to sit on ru...So ... I will be reproduce being able to sit on runway 13R at KBFI(Boeing Field, Seattle) and see Mount Rainier (about 60 miles away)? Great!<br /><br />- RobinRobin Peelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07666189366955558057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727408.post-71961223462246338122011-01-07T07:56:49.779-05:002011-01-07T07:56:49.779-05:00Hi Ben,
1. Could you consider loading:
-between t...Hi Ben,<br /><br />1. Could you consider loading:<br />-between the equator and 30Lat: 6DSF's (as at present)<br />-between 30 and 45Lat: 8 DSF's<br />-between 45 and 60Lat: 10 DSF's<br />-between 60 and 75Lat: 12 DSF's<br />-between 75Lat and the poles --if any-- 14 DSF's<br />This way we would always have a "playground" of 120NM X (about) 180NM.<br /><br />2. Right now DSF's get loaded anytime you fly between sealevel and 100,000ft; from 100,000ft to infinity earth-1 and -2 get loaded. Would it make sense to have something inbetween? For example:<br />-from sealevel to 60,000ft: DSF's<br />-from 60,000ft to 150,000ft: some intermediate textures, less resolution than the DSF's but better than earth-1<br />-from 150,000ft and up: earth-1.<br /><br />Better even, would be if in <br />"Rendering Options" we could select the lower edge of the intermediate textures between 10,000ft AGL to 80,000ft MSL.<br /><br />Don't know if any of this makes sense. Just some ideas that have been stewing around in my head. Some people take their sightseeing very serious; others want to be able to do VFR cross-countries; and some could not care less about eyecandy.<br /><br />Best regards,<br /><br />GuyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727408.post-61116744199797573002011-01-06T01:25:20.104-05:002011-01-06T01:25:20.104-05:00Wow great news Ben! Any news on getting a more acc...Wow great news Ben! Any news on getting a more accurate night sky with accurate levels of light pollution? "Hint: google light pollution and light pollution maps."alloycowboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14429465662167808264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727408.post-10414425579893595182011-01-05T11:44:28.747-05:002011-01-05T11:44:28.747-05:00What exactly do you mean by a '3-d cloud'?...What exactly do you mean by a '3-d cloud'? NOTHING in computer graphics is ever truly 3-d. Everything starts as 3-d data and becomes 2-d as it goes through the graphics pipeline. By rasterization time it's 2-d polygons with a depth attribute attached. So I'm not sure I agree with your labels of 3d and 2.5d.<br /><br />The new system is:<br />- A 3-d weather physics simulation.<br />- 3-d visualization using billboarded particles.Benjamin Supnikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04886313844644521178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727408.post-40992369957848843712011-01-05T11:41:12.204-05:002011-01-05T11:41:12.204-05:00So, effectively, XP10 doesn't have 3d clouds (...So, effectively, XP10 doesn't have 3d clouds (volumetric), just better 2.5d (billboarded), right? Of course that's fine as long as they look better -- I just wanted to get confirmation on that.<br /><br />Regards, PatrickSam 36https://www.blogger.com/profile/07961130592176138023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727408.post-26031738461683819612011-01-05T11:10:29.321-05:002011-01-05T11:10:29.321-05:00Anon: updaters aren't out yet - some time late...Anon: updaters aren't out yet - some time later this week I hope.<br /><br />Steve: the rotation artifacts will be DIFFERENT in the new code...we've modified the billboarding scheme for one that I hope will be less annoying. <br /><br />But all billboarding schemes require the billboards to move at some point in some way, so it's always a question of minimizing weirdness.Benjamin Supnikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04886313844644521178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727408.post-25864238360645626422011-01-05T11:06:32.303-05:002011-01-05T11:06:32.303-05:00Madine, there is one thing to consider in having m...Madine, there is one thing to consider in having more DSFs: the 3-d is only built for a region around the plane. So creating more DSFs would require more DSF storage in RAM, but the actual 3-d scenery areas are not built for the extra far away DSFs. Thus a large part of the rendering load and memory load would not increase at all.<br /><br />(DSF files can be read in part, so some day we could further optimize and not load the OBJs _at all_ until one of the DSFs becomes one of the "middle six".)Benjamin Supnikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04886313844644521178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727408.post-63385336124802929502011-01-05T07:02:20.441-05:002011-01-05T07:02:20.441-05:00I am probably one of the biggest commentators on t...I am probably one of the biggest commentators on this altitude issue, and thanks Ben for putting to print the issues, and i do understand that it is a very hard issue to fix, and really hope and like i have mentioned would even wait longer for Xplane 10 if it can be better in this area (moans and groans), It is a world class product, however flying along at 35,000ft some scenery is like a postage stamp, "oh that is so and so", but you can't see it, its just a jaggy, i even don't mind if it becomes just a haze in the distance, but not a jaggy, why because it is the only major issue in the sim from making it really worldclass, and i want Xplane to the very best sim on the market, Ben and this Blog is god to me, and i don't understand a lot of it, but it is very clever stuff, and thank Ben immensely for trying to fix the issues, I hope he can succeed, I wish him well in doing so....and thanks also for your time & comments on the .org<br />Flightime56flightime56https://www.blogger.com/profile/13933467346911927669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727408.post-74033214600261061042011-01-05T06:25:40.797-05:002011-01-05T06:25:40.797-05:00wohhh increasing loaded DSF to 12 would maybe be a...wohhh increasing loaded DSF to 12 would maybe be a good idea but with the DSF becoming larger and larger, and so harder to load for XP, I don't know if it would be really great.<br />As you know, there have already been some test that crash XP with just 6 DSf with orthosceneries and lots of objects and facades (and those 3D "things" are really important to have the best feeling while flying)<br />I hope that the load system and memory system will be also improved largely .... ;o)<br /><br />Madine (sébastien)Madinenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727408.post-90726371121226717712011-01-04T23:38:47.943-05:002011-01-04T23:38:47.943-05:00are the updaters already available?
and will you g...are the updaters already available?<br />and will you get mad if i suggest to have raibows in the sim? imagine how nice is to see a rainbow in a rainy day in xplane :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727408.post-9069053536217848992011-01-04T23:04:35.897-05:002011-01-04T23:04:35.897-05:00Thanks for taking time off from the code'n'...Thanks for taking time off from the code'n'coffee to share, Ben. The morsels of XP10 that we get these days are somewhat few and infrequent, but they are most tasty indeed!<br /><br />After reading his post over on the .Org today, one question rises out of Austin's discussion of the new weather rendering system, and that involves a foible of XP9.<br /><br />Just to recap, if I understand correctly: since the current weather textures are essentially single polygon billboards, they have to be rotated in various ways to always present their normals parallel to the line of sight. This has resulted in a curious perception of cloud texture rotation *around* the line of sight axis when one's viewpoint is tilted quite far above the horizon, and is then turned left of right around the vertical. It's akin to instantaneously being assaulted by a horde of mad, fluffy pinwheels.<br /><br />Austin describes a similar texture presentation for the new weather rendering system, and frankly I can't think of any other way to represent clouds. <br /><br />I'm just wondering if this particular annoyance of XP9 that I described will be erradicated by the weather code rewrite for XP10?<br /><br />Thanks again -<br /><br />SteveSteve in Tucsonnoreply@blogger.com