Jump to content
John Venema

announcement TrueEarth Washington - Reduction in size by 75% using a ZL16/17 combo

Recommended Posts

I am used to using X-Plane and have amassed almost 6TB of ortho images so purchasing TE GB and Washington were never going to be a problem however I have experienced a shortage of disk space in the past and together with at that time very slow wi-fi, I can fully understand Orbx taking this measure. 

I can also vouch for the difference between zl16 and zl17 being so small that very few people will notice.

Well d0ne once more Qrbx for listening to your customers with particular regards to lack of disk space and download times.

 

Kind regards

 

Ian S

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news John. I have said many times that I won't be buying any more TE because of the size. You just changed everything! Now I'll buy everything you make. Thank you, thank you, thank you.........Doug

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Works for me , these old tired eyes can't see any difference in the comparison shots . :):(:D

 

Cheers

 

John

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicely done John. Cannot see any difference but to my eyes the Z16 look a lot sharper. So yes! although I have enough SSD space for quite a while yet, this is good news because I will have even more space. :P:D

Cheers

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the approach.  I don't fly X-plane, so, I don't at present have much TE software.  I do look forward to release of TE Washington and Oregon, etc., for P3D.

 

Danny

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ZL16 diffinitely is a sharper & better image.

Why not use that resolution for everything & save even more space ?

Kim

Edited by Sibbritt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sibbritt said:

Why not use that resolution for everything & save even more space ?

 

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.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Win/Win as far as I am concerned - I will buy more XP TE product for the freed up space, thereby increasing the range & nature of the flights I can take,  & Orbx gets to sell more product.

TTM

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking great and yes anything to save space and the downloading. Works for me. Plus because of the rethink does that mean we might be getting area’s a bit quicker. :lol:. Derek.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it makes a lot of commercial sense as it is proving via some of the above posts to have potentially increased the sales. I would only add, that there has been comment regarding the current ZL17 imagery as looking less defined than it should due to the "compression" and in contrast to ZL17 in Ortho4XP imagery.

 I, for one, have 90% of western Europe in Orth4xp at ZL16 and it looks fine to me, so TE in ZL16 +ZL17 in some areas is of no concern regarding quality. As JV states most of the urban, cities and towns will be covered in autogen/objects, so the definition of the ground imagery is really superfluous.

If the ZL16 imagery has the sharpening filter applied throughout, then the image quality will look superior to ortho4xp (without sharpening filter)

Are the pics provided above, one's that have been compressed and then decompressed, i.e. a version of what we the customer would see?

I am all for the new idea and look forward to trying them out.

Will the customers of the existing version(s) be paying for the alternative version or would it be classified as an optional update/SP?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three things:

  1. It would be nice to have the screenshots expand to the same size to compare. 
    Currently, when enlarging the pictures, ZL17 zooms in further than the ZL16 images, so it's very difficult to make a valid comparison of fidelity.
     
  2. At what altitude were these shots taken?
    VFR is usually from 1,500 feet, with most flying at around 2 - 3,000. These shots seem higher.
     
  3. The size reduction will be very welcome for most people.
    Other than cities, popular landmark items such as specific mountains (e.g. Mt Hood or Mt Rainier), glaciers, cliff faces, mines, or bays and estuaries, should receive the higher ZL detail.

My three cents.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would this same kind of reduction apply to the P3d releases as well, when they eventually come along?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Dadtom65 said:

Looking great and yes anything to save space and the downloading. Works for me. Plus because of the rethink does that mean we might be getting area’s a bit quicker. :lol:. Derek.

Dam that was quick just got the nod three more airports available for download . :D. Derek.

Edited by Dadtom65

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.... but like Breeze I would like to see some low level shots with the autogen in play. I love the rural areas and flying low over them is more convincing than flying over urban areas at low level because of the resolution. Even at ZL 17 the resolution doesn't look so good when you are down low. What about applying the sharpening filter to the ZL 17 images...what would that look like? To me resolution is much more important than file size...up to a limit of course. Could Orbx offer a solution that could be either large file size (ZL 17 with sharpening?) or a smaller ZL16/17. Really, the only thing missing in TE is low level resolution of the orthos, but fortunately the accurate and dense overlays make up for it, mostly. I believe that looking forward...the highest possible resolution, not necessarily file size, is what simmers will be looking for. Cheers!

  • Like 5
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I can't tell just from the pictures above. Definitely need to check it out in my simulator. Maybe you can do a test run for one GB region and Washington?

 

BUT indeed, the 210 Gigabytes of TrueEarth Washington really have stopped me from purchasing this one...

Edited by Helifan123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, John Venema said:

LOL. You cannot have high resolution imagery and keep the file sizes down :)

But that is exactly my point! ZL 16 will keep the file sizes down of course but that is why I would love to see how it looks at 1000 ft out of the cockpit. Personally, if it was offered as an option, I would pay more for higher resolution areas. The TE regions are a real value as is, so why not expand on that? I seem to remember it being mentioned months ago that for example a hi res version of Seattle might happen, etc. Is that out the window? Cheers.

Edited by BobT
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

 

That has always been my biggest knock against the TE series.  They are beautiful but have a huge footprint.  I had purchased TE Netherlands and liked it but it was a relatively small TE region.  When Washington came out, I used that as an opportunity to get XP11 though with the size of Washington being 200GB I had pretty much committed to limiting my XP and TE footprint to Washington only.  With this new approach I will likely pick up the other TE regions if they follow the same approach.  Two quick questions:

 

1) What altitude are these samples taken at?

 

2) If successful do you intend to apply the same approach to the GB regions?

 

Thanks,

 

Brett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fly helicopters, therefore, I am low and slow.  I have no problem with scenery size if the resolution/detail is high.  I understand that my type of simming is not in the majority.  Scenery that looks good at 2000 ft or less is what I am interested in and willing to accept whatever size that may come in.  Storage prices are inexpensive at this point.

 

Danny

 

 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will gladly pay extra for higher resolution ortho.  Any chance for a split release, one high definition one not?  Like the HD Washington enhancement pack only include HD ortho.

 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as it looks good in VFR - that's what I care about. Heck, that's why I love the TE series. 

 

Thanks for the hard work. I appreciate it. My wallet and wife, maybe not so much. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Breeze said:

I will gladly pay extra for higher resolution ortho.  Any chance for a split release, one high definition one not?  Like the HD Washington enhancement pack only include HD ortho.

 

 

Me too! 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I can agree with the reasoning of this decision, I fear this will make approaching airports in those ZL16 areas a bit of an eye-soar. I often do IFR ops with props - mainly the King Air - around the regions. To me ZL17 is just good enough for the ground to still look fine when approaching and landing at an airport. When I previously had some ZL16 orthos, I thought it was ok at 2000ft, but below it was too blurry and an eye-soar which took away the realism photoreal scenery is supposed to bring. If you're doing IFR ops with tubeliners it will be perfectly fine of course due to your high cruise altitude and higher speed approach. But IFRing in a single/dual prop on approach at <100kts, it's not a great look from my experience. As others have said, it would be good to see some screenshots from an altitude of about 1500ft AGL. Also, would this quality and size reduction equate to a small reduction in the price tag?

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has ORBX tried this LZ16 with no or very low USM?

I find the sharpened images too jaggy and restless compared to the original. I also see this in TE GBS in P3D.

That's why I like TE NL where the hard lines seem to be smoother.

I don't know how to explain this in good English but I hope I'm clear. :)

Edited by bvdboomen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tony Wroblewski

Regarding the proposed new ZL levels, and the subsequent smaller download size and HDD imprint of the installed addon, I want to know if the Orbx method of "compression" ( to reduce the download size) can be reviewed. I am no techy but read a lot about loss of resolution/definition/fidelity ( unsure of the correct terminology!) resulting from compressed Jpegs which are then uncompressed and then converted to dds format. Considering that I believe most people don't have too much of a problem on the downloading side of things, but may well have a problem with the final HDD imprint (which is what this new method is all about) then would it be possible to forgo the compression aspect if it does indeed result in less fidelity at the point of final image?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jjaycee1 said:

I want to know if the Orbx method of "compression" ( to reduce the download size) can be reviewed

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting approach. I am in favour of this decrease of size, specially if it allows to get seasonal textures in Prepar3D.

 

I can't imagine Washington area without seasons :(

 

Gérard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

That's true, Washington is very heavy on hard drive, but it gives an incredible VFR experience, same as TE GB, I wonder if it would be possible to let the choice to the customer between two version : the z16 and z17? (Asking that, I suppose this is commercially complicated because I guess you would have to pay twice for the Orthos?)

At least, will that be possible to keep that choice open for TE Washington wich was released with zoom 17 imagery?
I'm getting used to it, and I fly almost only VFR, that would be kind of disappointing to see the quality decreasing in a next update without having the choice...

If you are flying a liner, it wouldn't make a big difference, but between 1500 to 2000 ft...

Best

M
 

  • Like 7
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like others said, I'd like a comparison shot from in the simulator. I've built plenty of Ortho tiles outside of TE regions and from my experience, ZL17 does make a huge difference in visual quality as opposed to ZL16 when flying (VFR) at lower altitudes (that + the POI's is why I chose for TE Washington). Yes, the size of the region is big, but it's (in my opinion) worth the space.

Also, the comparison in the OP is unfair, as the forum resizes the images to 750x750... For a good comparison, open the images in a new tab and zoom in.

 

Edit: if the aim is to make TE future proof (like you guys did by adding an optional HD pack) then I'd for sure stay at ZL17.

Edited by Daan
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also vote for the two-resolution options model if it's viable.  Personally, I'm with Paul and others, and would rather stay with present resolution which I find is a good compromise. If I'll need a larger drive I'll buy one. In addition I have an uncapped speedy DSL connection. I'm a pure VFR pilot and for me it's quality first. 

 

However, I've read from quite a number of users on this and others forums who don't buy TE sceneries just because of the sheer (download and installation) size and I can understand them, too. So this would give them an option, if this sharpen process really works.

 

Kind regards, Michael

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...