Jump to content

Germany Photoreal?


John Venema

Recommended Posts

If it would feature flawless (for instance bridges removed from the texture when there is a 3D bridge model, steep mountain faces textured with Frank Daineses technolgy), crisp, seamless, well color-balanced imagery with 5 seasons, plausible autogen coverage and sufficient POIs then I would eventually buy it some day, even for a quite high price. Maybe shipped on a 16 TB SSDs that would be achievable then, I assume.

For now I'm exploring GEN and GES and am quite happy with what you achieved. Admittedly, in my direct home area I sometimes think "this factory looks not quite right" or "that church is missing", but in regions I don't know so well it is plausible and fine.

An important aspect of flight simming for me is exploring the unknown world - and that is wayy too large to do in PR at present. So I'm eagerly waiting for the next OLC regions and improvements to Global Vecor to do some flying in Africa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 246
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I am quite a bit puzzled here.

 

I have been a member of several fora for years, including several German ones. If someone had proposed to make a photoreal Germany including autogen, say, 3 years ago, a large number of people would have jumped up into the thin air with tears in the eyes, after the AS VFR Germany series, which was not at all bad at its time, was abandoned. People were asking and pleading over and over for it - to no avail.

 

Now, here comes a proposal for such a scenery, not just with dense autogen but with enhanced airports and POIs, and not just from some obscure make but from a - if not the - leading maker of region sceneries - and the response is rather meh.

 

In no way do I want to negate critical voices, and some of the contra points are as well based as some of the pro statements. It's just that I am puzzled. Perhaps it's based on three facts: (i) A portion of German users are only rarely or not at all frequenting these fora, some, maybe, for language reasons, (ii) ORBX is known as the "landclass company". None of the dedicated photoscenery lovers came here for a long time, but collected in the O4XP, AFS2 etc. fora. (iii) Quite a number of users may feel GES/GEN are sufficient to them (although there were opinions who had preferred a photo-based version after the release of GEN).

 

Still puzzled anyway, Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

 

In my case it has nothing to do with Germany as a location as it does with the overall approach and footprint.  Mechanical disk space is cheap but more and more users are going the SSD route which though cheaper than it has been in the past is still moderatly expensive.  My personal opinion, is orbx has already hit the sweet spot with the combination usage of PR and LC in their regions and airport packages.  Using the PR where it really makes an impact (beaches, known landmarks, mountains, etc) and not needlessly taking up storage.  The more recent regions are perfect examples of this being put to practice.  GEN/GES/SCA are all gorgeous and have a relatively small footprint.  I had similar thoughts with regards to the relatively small area of the Netherlands.  I have no doubt the product will be outstanding and perhaps it is even easier to produce assuming ORBX has developed tools to automate a lot of the autogen placement based on the PR itself.  If I was only interested in that one area then I would likely be excited about the product, at this point I would likely be a bit shy to pick this product up at this footprint, especially considering the already high quality of GES/GEN.  

 

Kind Regards,

 

Brett 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BrettT said:

Michael,

 

In my case it has nothing to do with Germany as a location as it does with the overall approach and footprint.  Mechanical disk space is cheap but more and more users are going the SSD route which though cheaper than it has been in the past is still moderatly expensive.  My personal opinion, is orbx has already hit the sweet spot with the combination usage of PR and LC in their regions and airport packages. 

I would agree concerning agricultural areas and the like. However I find there's still room for improvement of cities, despite they have been substantially enhanced over OpenLC EU. Berlin and Munich are great indeed. However Hamburg leaves quite some room for improvement already (which gap some addon developers try to fill now). Erfurt, which I happen to know quite well as it's  close to where I live, could benefit from a photoreal treatment as well.

 

To give you an idea what I have in mind, here's an example I made for a guest contribubtion for the FSX Times Blog. This is part of my home town Jena, a smaller town (100.000 inhabitants) in the midst of Germany: 

 

jena_xp11s1.jpg

This is X-plane (no promotion at all, I'll just touch upon the photo + OSM aspect). I made this shot using Ortho4XP based ground imagery + World2XP based buildings/trees.

 

Compare this to the real thing:jena_google_earth.jpg

 

Aside the XP coloring (which I personally dislike) and marginal performance, I would call it as real as it gets. I would invite you to take off from my home base EDBJ (a nice FTX airport by Thomas Zipfel) embedded into FTX GES and fly a couple of miles into the West along highway A4 to compare. It's not bad either but doesn't come close to this. And to remind you: I made the shot above using freely available tools/scenery alone.

 

To remind you, we've already seen similar images in a NL thread in this forum. Certainly neither photo nor OSM data are as good as these in any place but that's the quality I would be really happy with for GA flying.

 

Kind regards, Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why on Earth would you NOT be interested in high resolution photoscenery if you are a low and slow VFR flyer?? With all due respect to the scenery packages that ORBx have released in the past, generic landclass really does not cut it if you want true VFR flying. You need to be able to look out of the window and see objects and geographical features that actually exist in the real world. That being the case, any super detailed photoreal scenery regions that ORBx are prepared to create get a big thumbs up from me. Lack of a full set of seasonal textures is a minor problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John asked for opinions and I gave mine.  I've tried a few photoreal products over the years and all have disappointed immensely when close to the ground.  I also tried ASF2 and although it might be a godsend for VR users I thought the visual quality quite unappealing and binned it.

 

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

Why on Earth would you NOT be interested in high resolution photoscenery if you are a low and slow VFR flyer?? With all due respect to the scenery packages that ORBx have released in the past, generic landclass really does not cut it if you want true VFR flying. You need to be able to look out of the window and see objects and geographical features that actually exist in the real world. That being the case, any super detailed photoreal scenery regions that ORBx are prepared to create get a big thumbs up from me. Lack of a full set of seasonal textures is a minor problem.

 

I completely agree with you. Generic landclass does not make true VFR flying. It's repetitive. It gives you a sense of falseness, and it bores you quickly. Boredom comes from repetition. 

Photoreal scenery can have many flaws, but it has one advantage that can make up for all: true variety. There is never a single frame that's the same as the other, and you know that's for real. The beauty of nature comes from its variety and uniqueness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not go any further down this path.

Each of us has their own preference and if one does not like a particular thing and says so, this is not

a justification for someone who does like it to launch a challenge.

Nor is it justified to condemn a thing, stating one's preference is enough, no subsequent critique is necessary.

There is nothing that will please everyone and the replies to this topic are truly evidence of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

Why on Earth would you NOT be interested in high resolution photoscenery if you are a low and slow VFR flyer?? 

 

Currently available photosceneries are okay for above 3000 - 4000 feet AGL VFR but definitely not for low and slow VFR, because res is simply too low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

Let's not go any further down this path.

Each of us has their own preference and if one does not like a particular thing and says so, this is not

a justification for someone who does like it to launch a challenge.

Nor is it justified to condemn a thing, stating one's preference is enough, no subsequent critique is necessary.

There is nothing that will please everyone and the replies to this topic are truly evidence of that.

 

 

 

The question is this:

 

 

Quote

How many of you would be interested in a photoreal version of the whole country of Germany?

 

It is not a debate about what you like or don't like or why.

As above, nothing can please everyone and there is no need to attempt to persuade others to adopt your own view.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nick Cooper said:

 

 

The question is this:

How many of you would be interested in a photoreal version of the whole country of Germany?

 

 

It is not a debate about what you like or don't like or why.

As above, nothing can please everyone and there is no need to attempt to persuade others to adopt your own view.

Thanks.

Not looking to cause any trouble, but I have to respectfully disagree at least in part. I agree with you that there's no need to try to persuade another poster and that these discussions within a thread make it harder for Orbx to filter out the information relevant to Orbx. But every marketeer is not only interested if you would/wouldn't buy a certain product, but also the reason why you would/wouldn't. If what Orbx wanted was a pure "yes/no" answer, then maybe a poll where we could only choose one of those answers and not comment any further on the thread would IMHO be more appropriate.

 

And doesn't the header of this forum say "Please use this forum to discuss any topic related to Orbx's products or plans (...)"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree.

 

However, "I don't like photo scenery because" and " I don't like landclass scenery because"

and "you should like photo scenery because" and "you should like landclass scenery because"

do not in any way contribute to the topic.

 

"I would buy this because" or "I would not buy this because" posts are welcome and this topic

is full of such posts.

 

What I wish to discourage is where the topic was heading, a pointless attempt by the

proponent of each method to explain why their preference is the best alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I became an Orbx customer just a few years ago, and I'm very happy with my assortment of regions and airports in P3D.  To head into a new direction with large PR areas that would require me adding a large SSD wouldn't appeal to me.  I'll add that I once had PR scenery for the state of Illinois.  Your NA landclass product was far more immersive and enjoyable because it "felt" real to me, while the PR product and it's blurriness at low altitudes didn't feel real at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like that much photoreal scenery and prefer the way ORBX is making its region currently.

So not that much interested by Germany photoreal or any other photoreal scenery.

 

I might buy an ORBX photoreal region that I don't already own but considering I have already Germany North and South it's unlikely I will bought this product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never been much of a fan of photoscenery, but the previews of the Netherlands changed my mind, especially with the integration of autogen. Not that I don't love the Orbx landclass system, this is just an alternative. But file size is certainly a consideration, especially with all seasons, which is something I can't do without. So I guess I too am on the fence a little. I will more than likely purchase Netherlands and see how it goes. You might want to ask this question again after it comes out. ;) But I really love Germany in it's current state. I'm wondering if something tropical like the Hawaiian Islands might not be more feasible for photoreal? I think I would also be more inclined to repurchase a revamped England. Thanks for asking! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted for Brexit so am not interested in Germany :)  (yes, tongue firmly stuck in cheek, see how it bulges)!

 

As for Ortho4XP and W2XP etc the firm that produces SimTiles will give you seasonal scenery. But that's off topic. As for ORBX I love those hilly regions, most of all the Norway or New Zealand areas do it for me. Germany and the Netherlands don't quite "cut it" for me personally. I have visited both and didn't really enjoy the experience but, hey, each to their own!

 I'd much prefer to see England and the rest of the UK done properly first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for another post, but I had another thought, which actually came to mind when I saw the Netherlands previews. How will this affect performance? Will it put those of us in P3Dv3 land into OOM land? ;) (No, I don't want to go to v4 right now). And will it be somewhat of a stutter fest loading all that photo scenery? I would love some feedback from the team at some point on this before I dive in when the time comes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/01/2018 at 11:12 AM, digeeboy said:

John asked for opinions and I gave mine.  I've tried a few photoreal products over the years and all have disappointed immensely when close to the ground.  I also tried ASF2 and although it might be a godsend for VR users I thought the visual quality quite unappealing and binned it.

 

Alan

 

Try their new Colorado DLC, you should be more then happy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, tdavart said:

And will it be somewhat of a stutter fest loading all that photo scenery?

 

Interesting question. Did JV said it would be only for P3DV4? Not sure sorry, since there is a thread on the IPACS forum it must also be for AF2. In V4 I think that photo-real is not the main kind of scenery, even coming from ORBX. 

In Aerofly FS2 it is. Is FPS good in AF2, you bet. I'm not sure photo-real would be an FPS killer even in V4. Yes files are big but... FPS killer I don't think so.

 

Of course a lot of us are waiting for the Netherland to see that new technology and how will our rig handle it. 

 

Again, since JV mention that it will come out first for FSX/P3D (I think) and after for AF2... now we will be able to compare how our rig handle this new tech.

 

But here is a fact, Innsbruck is 5 time (if not more) more smooth and stutters free with Aerofly FS2 then P3D V4.

 

I want to state that If I may, the new Colorado state in Aerofly FS2 is simply superb and even at 1000 feet, I don't know how they where able to achieve that but I think that is where ORBX is trying to go. I mix of photo-real and something else. I'm sold on that new tech.

 

Cheers friends

Ben

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 31/12/2017 at 7:10 PM, Sniper31 said:

Well JV, I am on the fence with this photoreal tech. One of the very best things I have always loved about Orbx scenery is the different seasons and weather looks. I don't want to lose those with Orbx products. I LOVE flying in other seasons besides summer. So for me, that is a HUGE factor on whether or not I will purchase a scenery product. I feel I might be in the minority on this as there seems to be no end to the amount of head over heels love for photoreal tech. Now, if I am misunderstanding the tech, and seasons ARE possible, then when/if a photoreal season is out with all the seasons, than I would be interested. Which brings up a side question...is the upcoming photoreal Netherlands package only going to depict one season, or all seasons represented?

 

Thanks for pinging us customers on this topic JV.

I'm an actual weather/time flyer; so I join Sniper's question. No season change, no photoreal. More; I usually like to fly at max 10,000 ft or less - without mountains -. So I remember some awful photoreal scenery. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

this is an intermediate result for me:

All Aerofly FS 2 users think positive about the question by JV. Because Aerofly FS 2 is based on photoreal images and they don't care about FPS and they are used to big file sizes. And they love to recognize the 'real look' from the sky to the ground.

 

Users of other flightsims have the main negative aspect due to probably missing seasons and landclass.

They may already have other OrbX products in Germany, so there is no absolute need for another one.

Whereas Aerofly users would greatly benefit from the complete coverage Switzerland, Germany, Netherlands.

 

I noticed only few German flight simmers here in this forum, but I assume the flight sim market in Germany is not a small one?

Perhaps this scenery will need some promotion in German forums, flight and flight sim magazines, even in German language.

 

And of course I can understand the intention of users, "I'd rather prefer my own country". I think that's normal for all of us.

And of course there are even more spectacular areas on this earth like Norway, New Zealand, Hawaii and so on.

 

So Orbx go on, I will take them all!  ;):D

 

Regards

Rodeo

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, tdavart said:

Sorry for another post, but I had another thought, which actually came to mind when I saw the Netherlands previews. How will this affect performance? Will it put those of us in P3Dv3 land into OOM land? ;) (No, I don't want to go to v4 right now). And will it be somewhat of a stutter fest loading all that photo scenery? I would love some feedback from the team at some point on this before I dive in when the time comes.

 

I have an extensive collection of photo scenery, much of it including autogen.

While it is important to take care not to load more photo scenery than is necessary for a given flight,

otherwise, performance is as good as or sometimes slightly better than with generated scenery.

 

If you subscribe to the proposition that all active photo scenery is loaded at the start, once flying there

is no scenery loading going on, unless there is autogen.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Germany Photoreal?
 
Yes!! I dream about it ...
 
I would certainly buy it for AeroflyFS2 and Prepar3d4. Although I have North + South Germany for P3DV4...
I love photoreal scenery, they are perfect for VFR flights.  I also fly (in RL) over A, CH, GER and want to recognize the landscape in the simulator as well.
I have seen the pictures for NL and have already fallen in love with this project. I do not have to be convinced anymore!
 
As some says the aerial images will be the perfect ground to add airports and other things in any later stages.
And Germany Photoreal will be great with Orbx Netherlands, Innsbruck and the IPACS switzerland.
 
-I have no proplem with one season!
-I have no proplem with 130+ GB!
So I have no proplems with photoreal sceneries!
 
Kind regards, Jakob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

If only photoscenery of the UK and Ireland was affordable. We could do with a replacement for the PlayHorizon VFR Photographic Scenery that has more consistent texture resolution and colour saturation...

 

Am I correct in thinking that EarthSimulations was in the process of developing the entire UK (in photoreal), with autogen? If it had been on par with their Islands then it would have been something to behold! I too have the playsims version, and as you know (and remarked upon), its fantastic in most areas, but a little inconsistent in others, so an updated version would be very welcome!

 

 

 

What excites me the most about the proposed Germany (and Netherlands) offering is the "new tech", which gives buildings their correct shape and proportions, rather than having a motley collection of standardized houses strewn over a photographic landscape without regard for size and scale. I'm not generally an autogen fan with regards to photoscenery. I keep my head in the cockpit until above 2000 ft agl, after which everything starts to look wonderfully three dimensional anyway, but the preview shots from the Netherlands project, as well as the Aerofly FS2 videos show that done well, the results are  mind-blowingly cohesive! I cant wait until I'm rich enough to fly in VR over autogened photoreal!:(.

 

I wonder if a lot of 'doubters' realise they are overflying photoreal areas probably on a daily basis within their OrbX lands already? Fly into Jackson Hole and there is miles of it! When OpenLC Europe was being previewed, we saw a couple of screenshots from Europe, and dozens from Mount Vesuvius :D. Guess which bit was photoreal? When the Samoan experience was released, there were a couple of complaints on the forum. Some of the islands were photorealistic, others made with landclass and vector data. Were the complaints due to not all of the islands being 'Landclass and Vectors"? Nope, it was the other way around of course :D.

 

OrbX'ers love photoreal, even if some of them don't know it yet :P. Build it and they will come!

 

The timing of Germany is perhaps a little unfortunate, but if the developers can do justice to highly populated and industrialised countries such as Germany and Holland, just think what they'll be able to achieve with the more scenic and mountainous regions! Methinks this new tech is here to stay, and will define the future of flightsimming, but of course, that's just a personal opinion from a longstanding photoreal fanatic :).

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, norfolk mike said:

 

I wonder if a lot of 'doubters' realise they are overflying photoreal areas probably on a daily basis within their OrbX lands already?

 

Mike, I think we understand that. That's not really the concern here. Besides I don't think much of the landclass system isn't produced from imagery....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, norfolk mike said:

 

Am I correct in thinking that EarthSimulations was in the process of developing the entire UK (in photoreal), with autogen?

 

Correct. The initial shots looked nothing but amazing. Unfortunately it didn't turn out to be economically viable, initial sales were way behand expectations, imagery was expensive and placing the autogen as accuretely as they did was labor intense. That's a least how I recall it.

 

If memory serves me right, the estimated price for the whole of GB was something around 1500 € (in the higher resolution variant), not included the media for holding the massive data. There may have been a very few users willing to pay this, but not enough to make the project profitable.

 

I was actually tempted at that time, but in view of the price and I already own all FTX GB I rejected it as well. I might have decided differently as an inhabitant of GB, though. 

 

Kind regards, Michael

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, tdavart said:

 

Mike, I think we understand that. That's not really the concern here. Besides I don't think much of the landclass system isn't produced from imagery....

 

I'm sure you (collectively) do understand, and in truth, the remark was meant to be rather superficial anyway :). It is after all a selling point of many regional and LC products as well as being a feature of most OrbX airfields. The point I was trying to make was really this: The concerns generally raised by people not accustomed to 'high quality' photoreal are (a) "It won't blend with OrbX 'generated' scenery", and (b) "It won't look good low down". Of course, there are many other perceived negatives, but those two feature quite frequently.

 

The fact is, many people will be aware that a region has a photorealistic mountain, volcano or bay (for example), but they won't really notice them, simply because they DO blend into the surrounding landscape so well, they don't visually grate on you. The point about photoreal not looking fantastic at low level is a bit of a non starter too. Most of the OrbX airfields and airports have photorealistic surroundings, simply because it looks so much better when approaching, doing circuits or climbing out of an airport, all of which are performed at low level. JV did make the point of saying the Germany PhotoReal was "pristine", so most of the comparisons with badly coloured and washed out low resolution imagery are unfounded. For a proper comparison, we should take Earth Simulation's Channel Islands (etc) as an example!

 

I think you are right about the landclass tiles being produced from imagery. I hadn't really thought about it much, until about three weeks ago. I think I was in the Turbine Duke by RealAir, flying out of Houston. I remember turning East and looking down at fields and a complex of farm buildings, thinking how sharp it all appeared. Within ten minutes, I saw the same farm nestled in the same fields, and somewhere further along the line, I saw the exact same thing again, at which point I abandoned the flight because I thought I'd been going around in circles:D. Okay, that sounds harsh, and it really isn't meant to be a criticism of the hard work, dedication and craftsmanship of the OrbX developers. Its just one of the things I find jarring about 'generated' scenery, regardless of whether its hand crafted, or originally compiled from photographic imagery. The worst aspect for me personally is the vector roads, and again, that's not a fault of FTX, because in that regard, UTX is really no better. Its merely the nature of the beast. For me at least, Photoreal wins hands down on that one, with no performance penalty for having every highway, layby, road, lane, track, footpath, street and dogging site visible in sim.

 

The Open Landclass project has alleviated the repetitiveness to a degree, I'll give you that, but logistically, it can never be eliminated entirely. Photoscenery on the other hand is never repetitive, and the sensation of actual travel is therefore much greater, even over relatively short distances.

 

That doesn't mean I don't have concerns regarding the Photoreal region of the Netherlands (and possibly Germany). Well, "concerns" isn't really the right word. Lets say, reservations. I still wonder if these photo realistic countries will sit well with neighbouring countries compiled the 'traditional' way? Its not the blending, and it isn't the 'low and slow', as I'm sure that will all be fine and dandy. Its more the fact that in comparison, the vector roads of lets say, Belgium, overlying fields and cutting through towns, and the small villages and hamlets looking strangely angular might make the transition from photoreal to landclass a little disappointing? OrbX regions and Open LC with its photoreal inserts, imagery based landclass and photoreal airport surrounds is always going to look great when bordered by the same. Photoreal always looks better when surrounded by photoreal, even though some of the commercial offerings out there suffer from serious state border inconsistencies with regards to tonality!

 

How this new tech will be recieved in something like P3D/FSX-SE will be interesting to see. I (like many others have already said) wonder if the spiritual home for this stuff is really Aerofly FS2, but its new territory, so I guess only time will tell :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, pmb said:

Correct. The initial shots looked nothing but amazing. Unfortunately it didn't turn out to be economically viable, initial sales were way behand expectations, imagery was expensive and placing the autogen as accuretely as they did was labor intense. That's a least how I recall it.

 

If memory serves me right, the estimated price for the whole of GB was something around 1500 € (in the higher resolution variant), not included the media for holding the massive data. There may have been a very few users willing to pay this, but not enough to make the project profitable.

 

I was actually tempted at that time, but in view of the price and I already own all FTX GB I rejected it as well. I might have decided differently as an inhabitant of GB, though. 

 

Kind regards, Michael

 

 

I had no idea the project was that far advanced! I imagined it was something still in its infancy and didn't realise it was already being offered for sale. 1500 Euros? Christ, you'd have to think long and hard about that one! :D. In my mind, I thought I'd read that the imagery was actually going to be the same as the older Horizon/Playsim's stuff, only with some serious post processing, but I guess I'm wrong on that point, given your mention of the imagery being unrealistically expensive.

 

Oh well, I'm sure as the tech improves and automation becomes a bigger factor, a photorealistic UK with quality autogen will happen. One of my old 'away landing fields' in the mid 1980s was Nacton near the town of Ipswich. Its been a housing development for donkey's years, but in the Horizon/Playsims version, the active aerodrome is still quite visible! So as nostalgic as it is, it could do with bringing up to date! :D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...