Questions about NORCAL

[Wetted Area]

Hello RealScenery,

 

Just took a look at http://www.realscenery.com/movies/enhanced/scenery.html'>this video of your C-172 flying over a part of Northern California.  I noticed that in all of the video over the top of the Pacific Ocean, that none of the waves were actually moving.  Is that a feature of RealScenery per se, or is it an anomaly that you will work out in the final release so that the wave tops do indeed move more naturally, or was the lack of wave movement a limitation of X-Plane?

 

Also, what will RealScenery look like when the aircraft is flown, oh say, at about 50ft agl, just coming in over the fence.  Will the RealScenery at the lower altitudes look as detailed as the RealScenery in the higher elevations, where it looks really good I must say.

 

Thanks.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Wetted Area

[Cameron]

I noticed that in all of the video over the top of the Pacific Ocean, that none of the waves were actually moving.  Is that a feature of RealScenery per se, or is it an anomaly that you will work out in the final release so that the wave tops do indeed move more naturally, or was the lack of wave movement a limitation of X-Plane?

It was a decision made by us for what we felt looked better when flying over the scenery. We extend this out relatively far to the west for consistency. Depending on the area, we made cuts in the scenery for X-Plane's water to show where we felt it should (be it bay, lakes, or rivers). If it looked better as imagery it remained. If it looked better as a cut with X-Plane's water it was changed for that. There is no intention to change this for final release.

 

 

Also, what will RealScenery look like when the aircraft is flown, oh say, at about 50ft agl, just coming in over the fence.  Will the RealScenery at the lower altitudes look as detailed as the RealScenery in the higher elevations, where it looks really good I must say.

As one would expect, imagery degrades at lower levels. 50ft is too low to appreciate the scenery. Pattern altitudes, however, are quite good. It's like going into Google Earth as far as you can and then some. Eventually you'll get pixelation if you zoom in too far (though not as ugly in X-Plane by any degree).

[Wetted Area]

It was a decision made by us for what we felt looked better when flying over the scenery. We extend this out relatively far to the west for consistency. Depending on the area, we made cuts in the scenery for X-Plane's water to show where we felt it should (be it bay, lakes, or rivers). If it looked better as imagery it remained. If it looked better as a cut with X-Plane's water it was changed for that. There is no intention to change this for final release.

 

As one would expect, imagery degrades at lower levels. 50ft is too low to appreciate the scenery. Pattern altitudes, however, are quite good. It's like going into Google Earth as far as you can and then some. Eventually you'll get pixelation if you zoom in too far (though not as ugly in X-Plane by any degree).

 

I'm a bit confused - who is "us?"

 

Is RealScenery, JRollon and X-Aviation, one and the same entity?  When I look at domain registration, I see Administrative Contacts and Technical Contacts for Arizona, California and Illinois (for RealScenery and X-Aviation).

 

When you use RealScenery, do you lose X-Plane surface level topology autogen, to the point of not being able to get the same automobile animation - for example?  Or, does that still happen.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Wetted Area

[Cameron]

I'm a bit confused - who is "us?"

 

Is RealScenery, JRollon and X-Aviation, one and the same entity?  When I look at domain registration, I see Administrative Contacts and Technical Contacts for Arizona, California and Illinois (for RealScenery and X-Aviation).

 

When you use RealScenery, do you lose X-Plane surface level topology autogen, to the point of not being able to get the same automobile animation - for example?  Or, does that still happen.

 

My hand is dipped in many of the projects distributed on X-Aviation (which I own). That is "us." In this instance, it's RealScenery and I. There's a reason both of our logos are on the intro of the video you questioned.

 

Automobile animation is present.

[Wetted Area]

That explains it.  That's pretty much what I needed to know.  Thanks.

[RealScenery]

Eric,

What system do you have that produces the detail/quality level of the NorCal product on these screenshots? Would a 27" iMac be good enough to closely approximate what you show? Specs: 2.9GHz Intel quad-core i5, 8GB memory, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M with 512MB (would GeForce GTX 675MX 1GB be significantly better?). What upgrade will boost performance best?

Thanks for your feedback!

Manny

 

Hi Manny,

My system is very similar to yours. Keep in mind that RealScenery is often more efficient that the default X-Plane scenery, which results in faster framerates. Back in X-Plane version 9, I worked with Laminar to develop load specs for image-based scenery. When you load an area in which RealScenery is installed, only those scenery images within about 20 miles of the aircraft are loaded (I don't recall the exact value we came up with). My understanding is that X-Plane also has some additional processing that determines whether an image is in front of you or behind you in order to make the loading of images more VRAM efficient. The bottom line is that there is a lot of behind-the-scenes processing going on to determine which images to display, and load them into the sim quickly.

Another efficiency is that only the images closest to you are loaded at full resolution. Those images many miles away are loaded at a reduced resolution. You may notice this when looking at some of the screenshots. Fortunately, X-Plane doesn't have to do this resampling of the images on the fly. These multiple resolutions are actully built into the image files that RealScenery produces. X-Plane just needs to determine how far away the image is from your location, and which resolution of the image to display. The images far away in the distance have very few pixels compared to those close to you, so many images can be rendered in the sim with very little additional VRAM resources.

My system where the NorCal screenshots are taken has the following specs:

Intel i5 @ 2.67 GHz

4 GB RAM

ATI Radeon HD 5800 series / 1 GB VRAM

Windows 7 64 bit

Keep in mind, I do not fly the sim with any 3D objects turned on. No forests, roads, buildings, etc. Turning these on, and loading additional custom scenery will certainly impact your framerates, although you will typically still experience better framerates than running these objects with default X-Plane scenery. For best image quality, I fly with X-Plane's  Extreme Res setting.

 

Hope this helps!

Edited March 30, 2013 by RealScenery

[msawit]

Thank you Eric, this helps a lot!

Best,

Manny