Northern California Status

.

Jack, it's a nice edit... but this may only look great with a blue sky. With Eric's "less contrast picture", I think it's also possible to fly during a rainy day. It's a more versatile texture. Or would X-Plane lower the contrast with bad weather ?

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3449179/Untitled-1.jpg

On a properly calibrated monitor, the above image is borderline "terrible." Just to be sure I've cross verified this on my Mac's as well.

What you have to remember, Jack, is that X-Plane brings in textures much darker than they are when exported from any program used to edit or save them. The result of the above image from within sim would be far from ideal.

Additionally, because of the wide range of gamma out there, as well as how X-Plane portrays things, screenshots will often times come out BRIGHTER than they appear in sim. X-Plane does NOT export gamma settings to screenshots. As someone who develops an aircraft, I'm surprised you don't see this, Jack. Perhaps when you get into aircraft that have solid colors (red, blue, etc), you'll begin to see this some.

Lastly, the image you edited (that Eric originally provided) is NOT what is our final output seen in sim. It's what we showed you PRE-PROCESSED, to compare with other pre-processed vendors.

Again, we want Norcal to be the best it can be. We've been around the block on color corrections so many times that we're sure of our decision for what has been made final. It is leaps and bounds above any other package we've other released, and we stand by that comment. For those that choose to purchase, we're confident you'll feel the same.

Thanks, all!

Jack and MdMax - Thanks for your comments. Let me try and address these as best I can...

In the NorCal gallery, (link posted above), the daytime images were typically taken in mid-morning or mid-afternoon since X-Plane tends to make photo-based textures look over-exposed, or burned out, at mid-day. Even though  much of the sky wasn't visible in most of the images, there were high cirrus clouds present when most of the images were captured, so you may notice some subtle cloud shadows. Also, to maximize the clarity of the scenery, I had the visibility set to the max of 25 miles. In reality, I don't fly X-Plane with max visibility, partly because of the hit to frame rate, the other because oftentimes 25 miles visibility isn't realistic for the area in which I'm flying. However, this setting does make for very clear images of the scenery. If I had the setting down to 10 or 15 miles, you would definitely get a better feel for what is "in the distance" and what is nearby. However, this is X-Plane's rendering and I don't have any control over how the textures look at different visibilities.

Also, the image provided in the above post was an example of my starting point, not the finished product. You can absolutely make this image look much better though various contrast, saturation, and sharpening techniques, and that is definitely where a lot of the time is spent. That sample image was not meant to be an example of the finished product that is used in X-Plane, as I tried to indicate.  

MdMax - Thanks for your comments - I was hoping it might be of interest to a few people, or as a sleeping aid to others.  ;D

The process of going from source imagery to X-Plane is a multi-step process. Basically, the process involves using GIS software for the initial image capture, lots of custom Photoshop actions and Python scripts to process the images. That's for the daytime textures. The nighttime textures use proprietary software which I had developed for me, in cooperation with X-Aviation, and involves an entirely different workflow, with multiple images and data sources being used to generate each final nighttime image. The final step is the conversion to the final DDS format used by X-Plane - which brings up another point - DDS files.

DDS files are the preferred scenery texture image format in X-Plane because, like many other video-game graphics, they offer very high performance. You can think of a DDS file as an image that also contains a bunch of other lower-resolution images all within the same file. These are also known as image pyramids. The result is that images up close will use a full resolution, while images in the distance will use the lower-res images. Since you can't render all of the pixels for distant images and have them visible, why place a full-res image out there which just takes up more video RAM? Instead, the distant images are the lower res images. The benefit is much greater frame rates than if you used full-res images everywhere. The trade-off is that the images in the distance, will often not be as clear as if you were flying in the real world. However, I think this is a trade-off that is well worth it. Since the visible clarity is not quite what you would see in reality, this could alter your perception of what is near and what is far in the sim. I think in X-Plane, the volumetric fog is mostly what adds to our perception of what is near and far. Also, I think you'll find the "real" textures also add greatly to your depth perception as you see agricultural fields in the distance and real cities and towns up close, fading into the distance.

As for flying during the rain, the precipitation-induced fog makes the atmosphere and scenery textures more white/gray which probably makes us see the textures as having less contrast, just as when we really fly on a rainy day.

I think it looks great for photo scenery. You'll always get some uneven quality with large-scale photographic scenery. Seasonal variations and the amount of rain in the weeks leading up to the time when the photos were taken will also make a difference, not just atmospheric conditions. The advantage with scenery made up of generic, repeating landclass tiles is that you can pick the very best texture for each type of terrain. With photo scenery you need consistent, great quality for the entire coverage area.

I though the WA scenery looked slightly washed out. Not so much that it bothered me, but I preferred Arizona with its deep and lively colors. This scenery seems to be somewhere in between.

Only three days left of April...will you make it?

Hey JimmiG,

Your comments regarding the seasonality of the imagery are right-on, which creates vastly different coloration due to vegetation differences and also sun angle. I think you'll find this release greatly enhanced over our existing releases in so many ways, not the least of which is image quality. The images look great in-sim from the people that have tested it out so far. They are also much higher resolution, allowing you to fly much closer to the ground with good image clarity.

As for your question about the end of April, well, no, it won't make it for sale by the end of this month. However, the product is finished, so I did at least hit that one, although I've started over from scratch three times over the past year! ;D Really the only thing left is building the sales infrastructure within X-Aviation, which is being done now. Stay tuned!

Northern California is done from my end of things. However, the distribution system is being built now at X-Aviation. This product is much larger than any of the existing RealScenery packages due to the higher image resolution. Also, this package will be sold a bit differently than the existing packages. All of the Web site and database coding is now being done to support this release. We'll post here and at X-Aviation when it is available. I am just as anxious as all of you and I appreciate your patience while all of this behind-the-scenes work gets done! It will definitly be worth the wait...

Can you work to include the Reno area?  Certainly don't let that delay the initial release.  Following your current approach I would expect to see SoCal well before Nevada and that makes sense, but to me Reno is really are part of Norcal.  The visual approaches into KRNO would be truly fantastic to fly!

This looks really really exciting.  Can you comment on how it will work to have custom airport sceneries for SFO, OAK, SJC, SMF, etc.  Those will still work fine on top of this photo scenery?  I think this photo scenery is going to make flying in ZOA (Norcal) airspace on vatsim really really rewarding!  I am pumped.

Thanks for your suggestion. Yes, I plan to work on Reno soon, and I agree that this is really an extension of NorCal. Look for this later on this year.   Airport buildings and other 3D objects are fully supported on top of the scenery if you have them.

Eric

Hi,

Any news for the release?

Best regards,

David

It's all in the hands of X-Aviation now. I know that this is a very high priority for them and they are still working on a new high-speed downloader as well as the product pages. We'll post an announcement here as soon as it is ready. Believe me, I'm as excited as everyone else, and am looking forward to having all of you finally be able to download and fly with this scenery!

Eric

Yeah Eric, just waiting downunder. Stuff the high speed download, I'd buy it in a 600 floppy disk pack to get it NOW :-)

What effect will this have on my computer? I have a little trouble with choppiness, so I changed the rendering options a bit. Should this make much of a difference?

To all of You who have created the Northern California package, my humble thanks.

Kudos innumeram!!!

I still love to fly the old X-Plane Freeware package out of Mojave in HD (so to speak)

with Scaled Composites and all the other hangers; its still great, ... I can even find Burt Rutans House!!! (although I'm sure he doesn't want that to be a big public thing) Every one will have a section (no pun intended) they wish had been included.  lets see ... for the old SOCAL scenery, flying fm Mojave up the Tahachapi (L94) valley, it would have been nice for that package to go all the way to Bakersfield (so where does one stop?) and of course, once at Balersfield, who wouldnt want to call One Six Right at Van Nuys (VNY).

When it comes to the New Washington State package, just 40 some miles from Spokane is Coeur D'Alene ID (S76), one of the most beautiful places I know of ... that I like. And there is the rub; we should be thankful these packages cover as large an area as a state.  California's borders, having been determined by the posibility of GOLD in "them thar hills", explains why the Owen's valley is in California at all, and why there is that funny crook in the Eastern border.

Where am I going with all this?

It is my beleif that the designer has to make a lot of descisions in creating an area (and how it will fit in his un spoken design criteria (SP?)).  Personally, the concept of "sections" based on the long - lat lines makes perfect sence. ... and is far more expandable when considering a/our complete country than just adding this little pet location, here and there. 

And Yet, from the kindness of their heart(s) that is excatly what has been done as well. Asotin, Portland, Hood River, Goldendale, Mcnary Dam, all included in the Washington state package fall beyond the state border but are included because, in my mind at least, the designer(s) said "wouldn't it be great if went just a little father (pick a direction) and included (fill in the blank)"!

Why would I include Coeur D'Alene ID, in Washington (as well as Jean NV in Las Vegas), its because I know some one there and know what a hot bed of homebuilding that airport is ... and having been there, and know how beautiful it is.

When we set the weather to remind us of "its a beautiful day", none of us would set San Diago to "June Gloom" ... the overcast month no one likes ...

Why does the EAA exist at all?  Because, inside each heart, there beats the love of flying, and all that entails in the man who says "I love it! Thats why I do it"!

I'm thankful these guys love the same thing I do, dreamed the dream, and knew how to implement in a software package for the rest of us.

OK, I have rattled on (like a can of rocks) to long for anyones first post, so I must go.

So to all of you

All The Best

Gene

cozydvr (thats Cozy Driver ... not diver) ;-) : Geno

PS: I couldnt find a Spell Checker ... its one of my short commings, sorry: Geno

I am just elatted  NORCAL comes as far south as it does!!! ... nuff said.

Thanks, Gene,

Yes, a lot of thought certainly goes into what will be included in a specific package. While political boundaries, like states, are convenient, they don't work very well in X-Plane, which is really oriented toward geographic blocks of lon/lat. One of the earlier posts mentioned Reno, Nevada as an extension of NorCal. This is certainly true and the Reno/Tahoe area will be done (it's on our list) ;D. At some point you have to draw the line and say "OK, this is what will be included in this package. It could go on forever, but we need to cut it off here."

The NorCal package is really somewhat misnamed... It really should be the Northern AND Central California scenery as it extends about 50 miles (80 kilometers) south of Monterey, well south of San Francisco. It really covers about 2/3rds of this huge state. I think this will be an incredible value for anyone that likes to fly with image-based scenery - especially with night textures and every airport aligned with the imagery.

Thanks for the nice comments! They are always appreciated.  

Eric

You really shouldn't notice a huge difference, especially with the later X-Plane releases (9.2 and later). X-Plane has become quite efficient at handling large imagery-based scenery packages. As usual, your video card memory will really benefit you here.

Version 9.5 of X-Plane is the version that I'd recommend since it will increase your load times substantially. X-Plane will process scenery in the 6 scenery files (DSF files) surrounding your aircraft. You can think of a scenery file as a 1 degree block of longitude by 1 degree of latitude. In earlier releases, ALL of the imagery was loaded, and for high-res packages, you often ran out of system memory (those were the good old days  :-\ ) That really dictated how scenery packages were put together - based on what the sim could handle (as well as hardware.)

With 9.5, when you start up X-Plane in an area that is covered by RealScenery, only the images within about 35 miles (56 kilometers) are loaded. As you fly, more imagery is loaded in the background, which really makes for a much nicer experience. With the NorCal release, images are structured a bit differently than previous packages. Load times with 9.5 are only about 3 minutes with ALL of the NorCal scenery files installed - and that is on a very modest system. Disk I/O is really what chews up the time when loading large scenery packages when starting up X-Plane. You can often hear your disk thrashing heavily when loading a scenery package when the sim starts up. (Might have to get one of those 15,000 rpm drives!) With 9.5, even if you have all of NorCal installed, only the scenery that is near you is loaded. No more waiting for X-Plane to process images that you'll never see because they are too far away. WooHoo!

To answer your question, it probably won't slow down X-Plane, but it will take a bit longer to load than with the default scenery. Also, depending on your video card and memory, you may have to adjust some of your rendering options. I have updated the user guide with NorCal to include some suggestions on maximizing your sim performance with the scenery. If you can fly the sim with high framerates now with higher-res rendering options, you should have no problem with RealScenery.

Hope this helps!

Eric

While political boundaries, like states, are convenient, they don't work very well in X-Plane, which is really oriented toward geographic blocks of lon/lat. One of the earlier posts mentioned Reno, Nevada as an extension of NorCal. This is certainly true and the Reno/Tahoe area will be done (it's on our list) ;D. At some point you have to draw the line and say "OK, this is what will be included in this package. It could go on forever, but we need to cut it off here."

As the guy that mentioned Reno, let me just say I am very excited as well that it includes what it does. It also sounds like this scenery is special in that it includes some new technological firsts.  Which is great.

As far as boundaries go, part of why I mentioned Reno is that I have gotten very big on flying on VATSIM.  For people who like real atc, they are also likely to like real scenery.  One thing you might consider in how you envision your boundaries is how the geography of the various air traffic airspaces are laid out.  (Which is why I see Reno as falling best into Norcal.)   Each airspace may be too big to be a single package, but cutting across great routes to fly online is something to consider.   When you have ZOA and ZLA airspaces covered it will be nirvana.  I am just glad ZOA is getting such great coverage now! woohoo.

Thanks, RealScenery!!! Helps a lot!!!

Check out some of the new screenshots by X-Aviation and a full description of the product and how it will be released!

http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?topic=917.msg7618#msg7618

http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php?topic=748.msg7616#msg7616