To orthophoto or to not orthophoto???

[czoog]

So what are people thoughts generally about whether to place othrophotos in airport scenery?  Personally I find them distracting when they are low res, and even athigh res they sometimes don't look great on the ground. But when they are done right, they look amazing.

 

I do have access to .15m resolution orthophoto's for my KPVD project, and am currently using them for overlay images in WED to update and expand on the default layout.  They are pretty high res, but man were they a pain to work with.  The were originally, JPG2 files from the USGS at 10000X10000 pixels in UTM zone 19N.  I had to re-project them to LL-WSG-84, then "chop" them up into 16 sections because WED chokes on huge images, then convert them to geo-tiff.  Thankfully I have tools at work that allow be to script and batch the process all at once, but still.

 

Anyway I am considering using them in my project, but I am not sure i want to go to the effort of actually getting them into x-plane (well until WED 1.3 is release, which may be a different story).  Is this something people really want?

 

Sorry for the late night open ended question...

[Peter T.]

Orthrophotos looks amazing when they're done right, if one would simply apply a single gritty detail texture to it, it will look bad, but if you have an eye for detail and you would texture the cracks, the edges of taxiways. THEN it looks fantastic

[ilias.tselios]

.15 m/pixel is a great resolution for orthophotos. In our scenery, Mykonos, we used .5m/pixel. Adding the right decals, should make them look even better. The negative is that at the limit of orthophotos with the default scenery, the difference is very obvious. In our scenery we had the advantage that Mykonos is an island and the limits are well defined by the sea.

[czoog]

Thanks for the responses guys.  Let me follow that up with another question. Are there any issues with releasing an additional package of orthophoto scenery that would sit under the my current KPVD? That way users could elect to have the photoreal or not depending on preference and computer quality.

 

 I've run some tests and it seems to work ok...but I don't see this happen much and I am wondering if I am missing something.

 

I think they will actually look pretty good (don't mind the black line...alpha problem due to re-projection and conversion..will be fixed.) and i think they will blend into the default scenary fairly will (not the airport grsss, which will be gone)

 

 

Thanks,

Chris

[ilias.tselios]

You should check at USGS site if you can do so. You can download them free, but I do not remember about the usage. 

[czoog]

Thanks Airfigther, I did check on that.

" Map services and data downloaded from The National Map are free and in the public domain. There are no restrictions; however, we request that the following acknowledgment statement of the originating agency be included in products and data derived from our map services when citing, copying, or reprinting: "Map services and data available from U.S. Geological Survey, National Geospatial Program." Please go to http://www.usgs.gov/visual-id/credit_usgs.html for further information and details regarding the USGS Visual Identity System."

Should be ok!

Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk

[glasscockpits]

but if you have an eye for detail and you would texture the cracks, the edges of taxiways. THEN it looks fantastic

 

Hi Peter,

 

How are the runways, apron and taxiways done? Do you just texture over the orthophoto? How do we achieve the higher resolution needed for it to look good?

 

thanks

[Peter T.]

My method is layering, so you simply make textures for each layer and each layer could be a .pol or a .lin file.

Example of a layering system ABSim uses-

-Dirt and grime on pavement

-Marking

-pavement edges

-pavement

-grass and vegetation