Jump to content

Tony Wroblewski

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

548 Excellent


About Tony Wroblewski

  • Rank
    TrueEarth Dev
  • Birthday 03/27/1980

Profile Information

  • Gender:

Recent Profile Visitors

2,755 profile views
  1. My two cents here Most of the time I have used ZL16 aerial imagery for my own use. ZL17 or 18 is overkill for for me unless it's around the immediate area of an airport. 95% of the flight is at higher altitudes and not skimming around the ground at 300ft, so it's never really bothered me too much. Having lower resolution imagery allows me to have more areas installed and for those areas to run faster. If I was an Orbx customer and not a developer, I'd personally want the ZL16 option, but we currently make the higher resolution imagery because so far we believed this is what the majority want. A ZL17 tile takes up 4 times the size of a ZL16 area. The nature of each increasing zoom level means each subsequent bump is 4 times the size of the previous. The imagery we've used has a maximum resolution of 1,2m/px which just about fits into a ZL17 with some upscaling. Anyone who is generating tiles at ZL18 or higher using the same imagery is getting nothing but imagery 4 times the size with no visual improvement :-). One thing that will be evident however is the texture setting in X-Plane, this does have an effect on less than high settings on the imagery. Essentially each decrease in the setting is halving the resolution. So if you have ZL17 imagery, running on medium settings is like running ZL16 on high settings, etc.. We aren't discussing about reducing the texture size to save us money, but rather to accomodate a wider spectrum of users than just those who stick to one area in the sim. We're not just going to drop Washington's size down in an update, but we're discussing future regions, e.g. If you already have Washington installed on an SSD which is taking up 200GB of disk space, then how likely are you to get Oregon and use another 200GB. An SD version of a region would mean you could install 4 regions in the space of a single one at present, and to top it off you'll get better performance as well on slower hardware. Some other points: It's not necessary to install regions to an SSD. Although it will help with loading times, it does not actually decrease the FPS. Mechanical drive storage is cheap, so for folk who really want the highest resolution of everything but don't want to invest in expensive SSD drives, there is really nothing wrong with sticking to the older mechanical drive option For those users who are using Ortho4XP and saying it doesn't produce jpeg artifacts are being misleading. In fact, many of the providers serve the imagery as jpegs to save bandwidth (technically many users are taking this imagery without permission or thoughts on bandwidth costs from the providers). The jpegs that are coming down from these WMS servers are compressed and have some artefacts already. The imagery we've used for the US does not come from a WMS server and is in the raw original format. Sharpening an image can have the effect of sharpening jpeg artefacts, so it should be used sparingly and my final point is that the aerial imagery is actually only a small part of a TE region, the vast majority of the work and costs go into developing the 3d layers on top (trees, buildings, landmarks, masts). These overlays are not something you can easily make for free with some tool, but require lots of processing. For the US, we had to create all the tree/vegetation data ourselves as well as the heighted/grouped buildings as there is no free/commercial data available that offered what we needed. Whilst we of course spend time and effort cleaning up the orthos, colour matching etc, the key point of these products is not actually the imagery, but the overlays on top of them. There are also a huge amount of landmark/POIs dotted around the scenery
  2. If the file sizes are smaller then it becomes less relevant to have the conversion stage, this is why we are reviewing the process and what people would like
  3. There is a sharpening filter applied to the ZL16, and not to the ZL17. In effect, it's made the ZL16 look sharper than the ZL17 until you zoom right in.
  4. Fantastic shots and it shows the scenery really nicely. At some point we'll have all these classic airports ported over. Thanks for sharing
  5. Superb shots, thanks for sharing
  6. If you're referring to the X-Plane version, it was generated using an accurate 10M mesh which we had to license for quite a significant cost, so I can assure you it's being used The mesh is optimised so that over flatter areas the triangle density is reduced with the highest concentration being around the coastline and mountains/hill areas. There is a fundamental limitation in X-Plane (in comparison to P3D) in that it does not increase/decrease the mesh density as you fly and what you get is what you see. If we didn't optimise the mesh in this way, then nobody would be able to use the scenery at all (and believe me I tried).
  7. IMO it's silly to stop purchases of any games or even hardware based on the fact that you know something new is coming out... I didn't stop buying a new apple laptop because I knew in a few months Apple would have a new one, or I didn't bale out of buying Elite Dangerous because I think the game or progress will be obsolete in a year, this just isn't how it works. For Flight Simulation, not only will it be some time before we see addons for the new simulator, us consumers also know very little about it and what aircraft or scenery it will support out of the box. One thing is for certain is that eventually things move on, P3D, AF2 and X-Plane will progress as well, and we should just enjoy it (it's a far cry from the sad situation we had a few years ago when FSX died and we had no choice). Why sit around and wait for something that may never be what you expect :-)
  8. I keep meaning to do this flight myself just to watch the landscape change... I've skipped around in parts whilst developing it, but not actually done the complete flight yet... you beat me to it
  9. Thanks a lot Michael for your first impressions. Very positive and I'm glad you're enjoying it
  10. Seattle City X is is direct conflict with our Seattle City so you can't use both together at the same time. If you decide to use DD's Seattle City then the entire tile around Seattle will be effected. We'd recommend you disable this, as our Seattle City is designed to work with our overlay and mesh correctly.
  11. Thanks for posting, I hope you enjoy it
  12. Yes, but in the Oregon region. There will be a cityscape similar to Seattle
  13. I have Washington, Oregon (WIP) and all of the UK, as well as many airports and my development data on an external 1TB SSD and I have space left, so no problems
  14. I remember flying in these old sims and looking back I think we must have had some really good imagination for our brains to fill it in. I remember thinking FS2000 was stunning and it really was "as real as it gets" :-)
  • Create New...