-Everything you know about upcoming Flight Sim from Microsoft-

Heretic

Resource contributor
Experimented with phototapestry in X-Plane recently. Even at 4.6 m resolution (ZL15), the file size per 1x1° tile (~111x11 km) was prohibitive (700 MB) and vector (buildings, roads, rails, vegetation) data wasn't up to the task to provide a consistent look.
And I doubt that MS can provide something much better.

Give me good landclass and autogen any day.
 
IIUC, the preceding post refers to "phototapestry" in X-Plane, which I thus far only found in a Google search here:

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.ph...still-has-features-xp-cant-figure-out/&page=2

[EDITED]

FYI: FSX default land class resolution for mapped texture materials is 1.2 Meters/pixel.

[END_EDIT]


BTW: FSX handles more than 1.2 Meters/pixel (aka "Zoom Level" 15) with no FPS hit on a modern computer CPU / GPU

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/flattens.425495/post-633002


NOTE: FS SDK LOD (QMID=LOD+2); this is equivalent to Zoom level (-) 1 on 'most' Hi-Res online imagery tile servers.


GaryGB
 
Last edited:
IIUC, the preceding post refers to "phototapestry" in X-Plane, which I thus far only found in a Google search here:

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.ph...still-has-features-xp-cant-figure-out/&page=2



FYI: FSX default land class resolution is 1.2 Meters/pixel.


BTW: FSX renders Hi-Res imagery > 1.2 Meters/pixel (aka "Zoom Level" 15) at 0 FPS hit on a modern computer CPU / GPU

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/flattens.425495/post-633002


NOTE: FS SDK LOD (QMID=LOD+2) ...is equivalent to Zoom level (-) 1 on 'most Hi-Res online imagery tile servers.


GaryGB
 
I'm very worried about that... Internet speed in Argentina is terrible and if this Sim is based on streaming data... oh my, trouble ahead.
But... on the other hand, probably I'm going to be unable to run this on my actual rig and because the Argentine Peso just crashed and the prices of hardware are now at forbidden leves, I'm just going to sit in a corner and watch videos while crying.
They could perhaps make available huge scenery sections for people that cannot 'internet stream'. That might be a good business for them on the side.
 

Deano1973

Resource contributor
Popcorn time!! My money is on the fact that the sim will (mostly ) be landclass and autogen, with an option for streamed satellite imagery should one desire to use it. M$ would be nuts to solely rely on streaming because 3D satellite imagery covers only cities in some countries, not everywhere by any stretch, so would be invalid for much of the globe for the forseeable future. They're saying that there is no subscription requirement to own the game, which I'm hoping will mean that there are no other "tie-ins" that would render all users reliant on M$ servers, streaming or anything else.
 
I'm very worried about that... Internet speed in Argentina is terrible and if this Sim is based on streaming data... oh my, trouble ahead.
But... on the other hand, probably I'm going to be unable to run this on my actual rig and because the Argentine Peso just crashed and the prices of hardware are now at forbidden leves, I'm just going to sit in a corner and watch videos while crying.
Gerli

is to early to make conclusion
as Microsoft is a business company i think they found a way to sell his product to maximul number of people in the world so they will propose alternatives...

or FS2020 will be finish Microsoft Flight...

i live in France i got fiber internet connection but i not think "stream scenery cells" will be an option for me.

Hay que ser optimistas:)!

if not we still have FSX P3D xplane and FS91

Envoyé de mon SNE-LX1 en utilisant Tapatalk
 
I sense that Dos Equis may become a 'sim killer'.

If this thing is too good. If it really delivers. What is the point of P3D, X-plane, or Aerofly? Especially in danger is P3D and it's large base of 'not for entertainment' violators.

As developers making content for these sims, it might be wise to make sure you save source materials so you can rotate back to Microsoft development as the SDK becomes available.
I sensearaly doubt it will be a P3D Killer.
FS2020 big selling points are X Plane's advantages over P3D. Graphics.
P3D people realize no simulator is anything like a real aircraft. P3d people usually fly procedurely by the book.
Study level aircraft are impossible if you don't have a completely open system. Despite what x plane people say.
Probably why A2A aircraft are not available for X-plane.
Aerofly and X-Plane are the ones in danger, more so the fact that they don't have a parent company to absorb big losses.

One thing evrone forgets, is the current sims are not frozen in time now, and who knows what they will be like when FS2020 releases 2 years from now.
 

Heretic

Resource contributor
IIUC, the preceding post refers to "phototapestry" in X-Plane, which I thus far only found in a Google search here:

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.ph...still-has-features-xp-cant-figure-out/&page=2
A favourite term of mine and a sloppy translation of the colloquial "Fototapete" used in the german flight simming community for photoreal (satellite) ground textures.


FYI: FSX default land class resolution is 1.2 Meters/pixel.
Texture resolution, not landclass. If you had a landclass data point every 1.2 meters, you'd choke your PC.

BTW: FSX renders Hi-Res imagery > 1.2 Meters/pixel (aka "Zoom Level" 15) at 0 FPS hit on a modern computer CPU / GPU

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/flattens.425495/post-633002
IIRC, FSX' texture resolution slider went as high as 7 cm/px at the cost of having to handle lots of huge files with a very limited amount of VAS.
 

rhumbaflappy

Moderator
Staff member
Resource contributor
Texture resolution, not landclass. If you had a landclass data point every 1.2 meters, you'd choke your PC.
I'd bet they keep the landclass texture resolution at 1.2 meters. I hope they consider tightening the landclass data points to say 0.5 kilometers from the current 1 kilometer. I lobbied for this in FSX but there wasn't any hope for it. The Olson land classification data was 1 kilometer. At 0.5 km we'd have 4 data points for every one we have now. This could make a big difference in towns and forests as to representing their actual size in the sim.
 
https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/t...-flight-sim-from-microsoft.445504/post-828139

A favourite term of mine and a sloppy translation of the colloquial "Fototapete" used in the german flight simming community for photoreal (satellite) ground textures.
Thanks for that clarification. :)


https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/t...-flight-sim-from-microsoft.445504/post-828093

[EDITED]

FYI: FSX default land class resolution for mapped texture materials is 1.2 Meters/pixel.

[END_EDIT]

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/t...-flight-sim-from-microsoft.445504/post-828139

Texture resolution, not landclass. If you had a landclass data point every 1.2 meters, you'd choke your PC.
Please note the edit I made to my post above. :pushpin:

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/t...-upcoming-flight-sim-from-microsoft.445504/po

IIRC, FSX' texture resolution slider went as high as 7 cm/px at the cost of having to handle lots of huge files with a very limited amount of VAS.
Indeed; and if 7 cm texture resolution is set, FS internally sets Terrain Mesh resolution at 10 Meters to allow Terrain Grid vertex mapping. ;)

GaryGB
 

Heretic

Resource contributor
I'd bet they keep the landclass texture resolution at 1.2 meters. I hope they consider tightening the landclass data points to say 0.5 kilometers from the current 1 kilometer. I lobbied for this in FSX but there wasn't any hope for it. The Olson land classification data was 1 kilometer. At 0.5 km we'd have 4 data points for every one we have now. This could make a big difference in towns and forests as to representing their actual size in the sim.
Was this a hard coded limitation in FSX?

Please note the edit I made to my post above. :pushpin:
Okay, now I need some clarification: The geoTIFF (or whatever else FSX uses as a basis for ground texture assignments) is limited to a resolution of 1.2 m per pixel?
Doesn't this contradict Dick's post above?

Indeed; and if 7 cm texture resolution is set, FS internally sets Terrain Mesh resolution at 10 Meters to allow Terrain Grid vertex mapping. ;)
I did not know that because the 7 cm/10 m combo was outside of my VAS budget.
 
https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/t...-flight-sim-from-microsoft.445504/post-828093

FYI: FSX default land class resolution for mapped texture materials is 1.2 Meters/pixel.
https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/t...-flight-sim-from-microsoft.445504/post-828227

Okay, now I need some clarification:

The geoTIFF (or whatever else FSX uses as a basis for ground texture assignments) is limited to a resolution of 1.2 m per pixel?

Doesn't this contradict Dick's post above?

AFAIK, textures mapped as a Material onto the default land class tiles was limited to a resolution of 1.2 m per pixel.

IIUC, ACES decided this on a basis of practicality, but not due to a limitation of FS' scenery rendering sub-system.

So when I used the word "limited", I did not mean "internally coded with cap on resolution of mapped texture Material"


FYI: one is actually making a special form of land class tiles when making a custom photo-real imagery (land class) BGL, via SDK Resample; this method actually allows resolutions far higher than that of the default land class (to the extent that 3.5 Meters on the ground is mapped by 1 pixel).

But, the higher the resolution, the smaller the display radius at which higher texture MIPMAPs can be seen due to LOD switching in FS.


Dick (and Holger) would likely know more about whether custom CVX vector line (not polygon) objects that use repeating tiled texture maps can be created as custom land class object types that are mapped with texture Material at a higher resolution than FS default objects.

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/t...-flight-sim-from-microsoft.445504/post-828227

I did not know that because the 7 cm/10 m combo was outside of my VAS budget.

I'm not certain any modern computer with a reasonably capable CPU / GPU and >2GB RAM would have a problem either tolerating or resolving a FS GUI texture resolution slider setting of 7 CM, as it merely ALLOWS 7 CM to be displayed if used on a particular vector object.

The Terrain Mesh slider resolution setting of 10 Meters is internally forced by FS itself when 7 CM is set on the FS GUI texture resolution slider; IIUC, this is imposed as a minimum to provide terrain grid vertices at the interval / size required for 7 CM textures to be mapped / displayed.

After a Terrain Mesh slider resolution setting of 10 Meters is set by FS, one can still manually use even higher settings to display ex: very high resolution custom terrain mesh at closer elevation data point intervals (I've made and then displayed 0.5 Meter resolution Terrain Mesh in FSX with no significant FPS hit.) ;)


BTW: Dick wrote about the option to display 3.5 CM imagery / textures mapped as Materials in FS ...here: :teacher:

https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/3-5cm-per-pixel.21121/

GaryGB
 
Last edited:

rhumbaflappy

Moderator
Staff member
Resource contributor
Each landclass tile is approximately 1km squared (QMID 15 or LOD 13).

The texture resolution of landclass is 1.2m per pixel in FSX or P3D. The resolution of CF2 -> FS2004 is 4.5m per pixel.

Hard-coded.

Photoreal can be of any size and up to 7cm per pixel. There is a trick to get even further resolution of textures to 3.5cm, as Gary notes above.
 

HolgerSandmann

Resource contributor
Hi guys,

The texture resolution of landclass is 1.2m per pixel in FSX or P3D. The resolution of CF2 -> FS2004 is 4.5m per pixel.
Hard-coded.
I don't want to drag this side-discussion on but Dick's statement is incorrect, at least for FSX/P3D. It's entirely possible to create ground texture tiles with higher resolution; I've attached an image comparing a standard 1024px with a 2048px using the same source. While the lossy conversion from BMP to DXT1 blurs a lot of the original detail it's obvious that the 2048px version does display in higher resolution.

I recall at least two projects working on 60-cm (2048px) landclass texture sets several years ago but I don't think they ever got released, presumably due to the performance/vRAM issues and marginal visual gain; after all the LOD system inherent to all ground textures means that the 60-cm LOD will auto-drop to 120-cm within a relatively short distance of the user aircraft.

Speaking of: it'll be interesting to see what kind of LOD stepping/pattern the new MSFS employs.

Cheers, Holger
 

Attachments

Top