alpilotx Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) I couldn't sit idle in the last days, and started some very extreme experiments pushing the scenery generator even further outside of its comfort zone. I massively increased the mesh resolution (almost 3x of HD Mesh Scenery v3) and added in some nice 30m DEM data (everything else - on the data side - is identical to HD Mesh Scenery v3). Well, the results have surprised even me ... the Alps or the Grand Canyon changed their look in a quite obvious (and positive) way, making them look even more realistic (and big - yes, the "feeling" of dimensions has improved very nicely!). At the moment I am tinkering with the results, and am also waiting for some DEM data improvements (the good guy behind Viewfinderpanoramas.org hinted to me, that he wanted to increase the 30m Alps data very soon - and of course, I will wait for that). But then, I am definitely considering to share a few, smaller UHD regions with you (don't even bother to start asking for "regions" ... I will do the ones, I find the best to do at the moment). Like the - entire - Alps, the Canyon Land in the USA, and Maybe Colorado and the Yosemite region ... BUT, there is one drawback. of course, this absolutely insane (consider it experimental) mesh resolution needs some beefy hardware to run (users who have FPS concerns with HD Mesh Sceney v3 should not even think about it). On my machine, it worked quite well (yes, definitely usable FPS) ... BUT it will definitely need a minimum of 16 GB RAM (24 or 32 might be much safer). Here are a bunch of comparison screenshots (labeled UHD and HD ... so you can browse trough them and see the differences):https://picasaweb.google.com/101666907909842492197/PREVIEWUHDMeshSceneryV1?authuser=0&feat=directlinkAnd some quick examples: PS: This is also showing you, what X-Plane could one day achieve with hardware tessellation (its on the roadmap of Laminar ... but without a due date) with less heavy DSFs. Edited February 1, 2015 by alpilotx 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin S Posted January 13, 2015 Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 The layers in the grand canyon are truly spectacular... it demonstrates that X-Plane isn't really lacking in its versatility, only in how hard people are willing to push it at this point. Would there be a way to determine what mesh was "important" and which was not (like in monument valley, where you have those spires and then hundreds of square miles of flat) so as not to push the older computer too far past the melting point? Amazing work, Andras. I can't say any other X-Plane work compares to what you are up to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabnz1 Posted January 13, 2015 Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 Wow - Truly amazing. I would love to install that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpilotx Posted January 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 The layers in the grand canyon are truly spectacular... it demonstrates that X-Plane isn't really lacking in its versatility, only in how hard people are willing to push it at this point. Would there be a way to determine what mesh was "important" and which was not (like in monument valley, where you have those spires and then hundreds of square miles of flat) so as not to push the older computer too far past the melting point?Yes, its partially possible and already happening .... but going to a level, where only the spires are "expensive" and the res "cheap" would be very hard 8and tedious) to achieve ... and there is much more in that region, which would again rise the mesh density. So, its not worth to try to optimize - for me - this extremely. So yes, I emphasize again: its "sad" but true, that this will only be for high end hardware. Maybe, see it as an "experimental" mesh ... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jettojig Posted January 13, 2015 Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 That's incredible! I can see this working as smaller area packages for locations of high natural beauty (and intricate detail) and low population (to reduce the objects needed to be drawn), as I think they'd benefit the most. Places like the Grand Canyon above, and perhaps Ayers Rock - though I think the Alps don't seem to have quite as drastic an improvement in quality apart from at the peaks of mountains.Only place I can think of that is densely populated that would be nice with UHD mesh is Rio, which I've just started flying around, or São Paulo' simply because of the unique way Congonhas airport sits on its own little plateau - if UHD mesh had that, I'd be desperate for it! sadly that's just a pipe dream since I know it's been asked for before but you can't find good enough data... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpilotx Posted January 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 That's incredible! I can see this working as smaller area packages for locations of high natural beauty (and intricate detail) and low population (to reduce the objects needed to be drawn), as I think they'd benefit the most. Places like the Grand Canyon above, and perhaps Ayers Rock - though I think the Alps don't seem to have quite as drastic an improvement in quality apart from at the peaks of mountains.Yes, the grand Canyon profits from this big time ... and its also - still - quite good on FPS (because there is almost nothing else to render, other than the high res mesh). And int he Alps ... well, the screenshots don't tell the whole story ... but when one flies trought the Alps with UHD, you can see a lot of fantastic detail, making the whole experience even more natural. What impressed me a lot is the fact, that by the myriads of tiny extra details in the forms of the mountains, you get a much better impression of their dimensions (its much more immersive). And even in the Alps, there are many areas where you see massive improvements (like in the Dolomites etc.) ... Only place I can think of that is densely populated that would be nice with UHD mesh is Rio, which I've just started flying around, or São Paulo' simply because of the unique way Congonhas airport sits on its own little plateau - if UHD mesh had that, I'd be desperate for it! sadly that's just a pipe dream since I know it's been asked for before but you can't find good enough data...Well, the "funny" thing is, that I first started my experiment by looking at Rio ... but I still do not have "easy to use" high res DEM there. For example the new, 30m SRTM data (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-321) ... well, it still has some holes (especially around Rio) so its not easily usable. I have one other data-set (its just awkwardly split in many piecese) which I might check out ... but still, this would not solve the problem with missing, high-res landclass data. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jettojig Posted January 13, 2015 Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 Yes, the grand Canyon profits from this big time ... and its also - still - quite good on FPS (because there is almost nothing else to render, other than the high res mesh). That's what I thought, and why I suggested lower populations.... If you aren't rendering a city then I imagine it gets a lot easier to render terrain! Thinking of where else could be nice... And in the Alps ... well, the screenshots don't tell the whole story ... but when one flies trought the Alps with UHD, you can see a lot of fantastic detail, making the whole experience even more natural. What impressed me a lot is the fact, that by the myriads of tiny extra details in the forms of the mountains, you get a much better impression of their dimensions (its much more immersive). And even in the Alps, there are many areas where you see massive improvements (like in the Dolomites etc.) ... I can imagine the Alps is very much a "see it to believe it" kind of experience... The peaks of mountains look vastly improved, but in the screenshots the lower slopes don't seem to show nearly as large an improvement (not to say that's a bad thing, there's just far less extreme terrain there which requires UHD to be seen properly). I know next to nothing about mesh editing, but would there be a way to make it so the lower slopes were more like HD V3, whereas the higher altitudes in the Alps were UHD? That could be a nice way to optimise but something tells me it isn't possible. Well, the "funny" thing is, that I first started my experiment by looking at Rio ... but I still do not have "easy to use" high res DEM there. For example the new, 30m SRTM data (http://www.jpl.nasa....elease=2014-321) ... well, it still has some holes (especially around Rio) so its not easily usable. I have one other data-set (its just awkwardly split in many pieces) which I might check out ... but still, this would not solve the problem with missing, high-res landclass data. A shame really, Rio has some of the most spectacular terrain in the world from what I've seen! Its a wonder why nobody's managed to get some good data on it... Personally, I'd be happy enough if we just got fixes for the area around Sugarloaf Mountain and Christ the Redeemer, both of which are noticeably wonky at the moment, especially when using a (converted) scenery like this one, where you find the famous statue embedded in a hillside and a mystical floating cable car station...Obviously it isn't your fault we can't have these things though! I have been looking at that Sketchup mesh editor on the .org but I have no idea how to begin, or to get it accurate... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpilotx Posted January 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 I can imagine the Alps is very much a "see it to believe it" kind of experience... The peaks of mountains look vastly improved, but in the screenshots the lower slopes don't seem to show nearly as large an improvement (not to say that's a bad thing, there's just far less extreme terrain there which requires UHD to be seen properly). I know next to nothing about mesh editing, but would there be a way to make it so the lower slopes were more like HD V3, whereas the higher altitudes in the Alps were UHD? That could be a nice way to optimise but something tells me it isn't possible.This is already happening as we speak ... the X-plane default mesh (or the HD Mesh) do all use an irregular mesh .... which does exactly this: making less triangles where landscape is less interesting, and adding more, where more happens. But also remember, that triangles are not only needed for elevation but also to represent (reflect9 the landclass (as texturing is decided on per-triangle basis). In this old(er) interview, you can see quite a few screenshots, showing the irregular mesh (and other details about the scenery generation):http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/content.php?13946-Interview-With-Andras-Fabian 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jettojig Posted January 13, 2015 Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 Ah I see! Would UHD mesh use this too then, to some extent? I'm not *too* worried myself since I do have 16Gb RAM but it would be nice to have some headroom! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpilotx Posted January 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 Ah I see! Would UHD mesh use this too then, to some extent? I'm not *too* worried myself since I do have 16Gb RAM but it would be nice to have some headroom! Yes, of course UHD does this too ... although, even the largest triangles are still much smaller (maybe i can tune it there a bit, but don't expect miracles - neither do I want really big triangles because of the landclass representation). And with 16 GB ... well, you are on the low end, and will definitely find places with UHD where it will not be enough (thats why i warned about this). But at least you should be able to start up in a few nice locations ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jettojig Posted January 13, 2015 Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 Indeed, well I think the only places I'd use it would be the less populated places like the Grand Canyon so it wouldn't affect me too much I hope! Everywhere else is good enough with HDv3 or Simheaven stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngeloM Posted January 13, 2015 Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 On my machine, it worked quite well (yes, definitely usable FPS) ... BUT it will definitely need a minimum of 16 GB RAM (24 or 32 might be much safer). Hello Andras,first of all this experiment is absolutely interesting so I'll follow it very closely, thank you for your work!For a comparison, what about your system configuration?Just to have an idea on what can give "definitely usable FPS" (could a system with 32Gb of ram, a 4770k at 4,3Ghz and a GTX780 OC with 6Gb of Vram be enough?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.