TrueEarth US Oregon V1.01 Patch - Ortho color fixes

[John Venema]

Hello all,

 

Following customer feedback about sub-par quality ortho in some urban areas of Oregon, we have confirmed that blue and purple tones do exist in some areas and are in the process of creating new ortho imagery from various sources to rectify these anomolies.

 

The issue mainly stems from the 2015 NAIP source imagery for Oregon being very washed out (photographed in bright sunlight) and with too much blue/red tones in the colour. Whilst our workflow corrected the coloring for most of the state, some urban areas did not respond well to our filters.

 

 

You can see from the image above the color quality it a lot better in the new data source.

 

Here are some WIP progress shots of the updated urban areas in the HD version of TE Oregon. We will also apply the same updates to the SD version and release the patch for both editions at the same time.

 

 

 

You will also notice that the USGS data and other NAIP data sources are much clearer and sharper in areas, particulary around Portland, Hillsboro and Eugene.

 

We hope to have this patch out by the weekend or early next week.

 

Yours in updates.

[olderndirt]

An excellent response.

[Traveller]

1 hour ago, John Venema said:

Hello all,

 

Following customer feedback about sub-par quality ortho in some urban areas of Oregon, we have confirmed that blue and purple tones do exist in some areas and are in the process of creating new ortho imagery from various sources to rectify these anomolies.

 

The issue mainly stems from the 2015 NAIP source imagery for Oregon being very washed out (photographed in bright sunlight) and with too much blue/red tones in the colour. Whilst our workflow corrected the coloring for most of the state, some urban areas did not respond well to our filters.

 

 

You can see from the image above the color quality it a lot better in the new data source.

 

 

{...}

You will also notice that the USGS data and other NAIP data sources are much clearer and sharper in areas, particulary around Portland, Hillsboro and Eugene.

 

We hope to have this patch out by the weekend or early next week.

 

Yours in updates.

 

Very nice job Sir

[Jack Sawyer]

Thanks JV, this type of customer service makes Orbx really stand out from the crowd.

[MrScott]

14 minutes ago, Jack Sawyer said:

Thanks JV, this type of customer service makes Orbx really stand out from the crowd.

Ditto Jack. Outstanding service and attention to details. Here one I found enroute to EUG from PDX. Please excuse me if this has been brought to the team's attention already. I've included the X-plane map to help the team locate the area.

[Tony Wroblewski]

Yikes.... this looks like a conversion error during the conversion stage, but i'll hunt it down and see if I can find the same tile

 

Edit: Found it.. it'll be fixed in the patch.

[renault]

Business schools should use your organization as a case study example to show what true customer service means

Thank you

Pete

[Jack Sawyer]

2 minutes ago, renault said:

Business schools should use your organization as a case study example to show what true customer service means

Thank you

Pete

+1000

[MrScott]

45 minutes ago, Tony Wroblewski said:

Yikes.... this looks like a conversion error during the conversion stage, but i'll hunt it down and see if I can find the same tile

 

Edit: Found it.. it'll be fixed in the patch.

Tony,

I, too, echo the comments from all about your support. As for the images. Happy to contribute.

 

[fltsimguy]

Frigging great response!

[ScubaSteveWA]

Fantastic update Orbx!  This was my only complaint with True Earth Oregon and I'm glad to see it's being fixed!  I'm hoping it's not just the urban areas that are being looked at, I know when approaching KPDX from the east the trees do not blend with the hilly scenery because of a blue tint that was not color corrected.

[oldboy43]

Thank you John.

cheers

Karoly

[Daan]

Glad to hear, thanks John & the team!

[FalconAF]

Great support.  Thanks in advance for the update.

[Tony Wroblewski]

36 minutes ago, ScubaSteveWA said:

I'm hoping it's not just the urban areas that are being looked at, I know when approaching KPDX from the east the trees do not blend with the hilly scenery because of a blue tint that was not color corrected.

 

No, it's quite a sizable chunk of the western part of Oregon, including Portland, Eugene and those blue-tinted hills.

[MrScott]

7 hours ago, Tony Wroblewski said:

Yikes.... this looks like a conversion error during the conversion stage, but i'll hunt it down and see if I can find the same tile

 

Edit: Found it.. it'll be fixed in the patch.

Tony,

 

Not sure if this is the correct place to post these but I have a couple more for you....This is either intentional or one heck of a Pot Farm.

[MrScott]

2W3

 

Not sure if this has anything to do with ORBX because when I rolled back the Replay it appeared to correct. Very strange.

 

[MrScott]

2 hours ago, Tony Wroblewski said:

 

No, it's quite a sizable chunk of the western part of Oregon, including Portland, Eugene and those blue-tinted hills.

I have more 2W3 images but reached my limit on uploads.

[Tony Wroblewski]

It's probably the default trees included with the default airport at 2W3. They are a very bright green and mix in with the Oregon trees.. There are a few in Washington like this as well

[fltsimguy]

2 hours ago, MrScott said:

Tony,

 

Not sure if this is the correct place to post these but I have a couple more for you....This is either intentional or one heck of a Pot Farm.

 

That's Ranger Creek NE or Mount Rainier, do you have the new freeware version installed?

[StevePHL]

Glad to hear this!  I have installed TE Oregon HD but removed the ortho folder due to surprisingly low res around airports.  Here is Gold Beach.  What I had vs ORBX.   Hopefully this will be addressed in the update.

AND

[StevePHL]

hoped there would be a higher ZL around OSM airports.

[Tony Wroblewski]

3 hours ago, StevePHL said:

Here is Gold Beach.  What I had vs ORBX.   Hopefully this will be addressed in the update.

 

and where is this imagery from? The issue is that most of the scenery we can legally use is only available at 1m/px, and there isn't much higher for Oregon before we would need to put the price up to pay for the imagery.

[StevePHL]

Hi Tony,  Yeah that is Bing ZL18, i believe.  I suspected it might be a NAIP image quality limitation you were facing.  I know NAIP is ZL18 in some areas only.  Just not sure about OR.  I can always use my own ortho/mesh with your terrific overlays, too.  Still worth it to me.    

[Traveller]

4 hours ago, StevePHL said:

hoped there would be a higher ZL around OSM airports.

 

 

Good job mate. That way I expected to find TrueEarth. However, with all the whining and noise that consumers have made about file size, I think of doing the same as you did.

[Rob Abernathy]

7 hours ago, StevePHL said:

hoped there would be a higher ZL around OSM airports.

 

Hi Steve,

 Loving some of the talk in this thread.

OT....What does the OSM refer to?   A search only turned up images of Mosul airport!     Is it Oregon State Municipal? (sticking neck out  )

[Steve Li]

OSM=Open Street Map

[StevePHL]

re: file size.  Forested areas etc. at ZL16 are no loss.  This allows a radius of ZL18 around all designated airports/airstrips while resulting in a smaller overall installation.

[olderndirt]

If nothing else, take at look at "Renault's" latest screenshot post.  He makes the scenery look the way it should - talk about making a silk purse from a sow's ear.  I'm familiar with his methods and you should be too.

[bvdboomen]

4 hours ago, olderndirt said:

If nothing else, take at look at "Renault's" latest screenshot post.  He makes the scenery look the way it should

Those caps are taken at a much higher altitude and the images seem to be resized. They always look sharper then.

Nevertheless, I guess that higher ZL is more expensive and ORBX needs to look for reducing filesizes and prices in order to sell the product.

[Tony Wroblewski]

Well there are mainly two reasons:

 

1) Most important, higher zoom levels cost money, (a lot in fact). So if we were to purchase areas around each airport it would cost a lot of money and make the product much more expensive and take much longer to develop as we'd have to blend in the imagery.  The source we use doesn't go higher than 1m/px in most cases (a few select areas do go higher)

 

2) We already have many users who complain about the disk space required and this really isn't going to help matters, increasing the disk requirements by several GB depending on the amount of airports, where probably it would only benefit the few who actually use that airport once or twice.

 

Additionally, most people who make airports (including us) will offer a nice hand corrected, high resolution PR imagery around the airport. Ours in particular will be blended into the region in question. Yes, it's saying "pay more for it", but in a lot of cases, flying in an out of the default airports is pretty painful once you've used payware or high-quality freeware stuff :-)

 

 

 

[StevePHL]

Yeah, I do understand all those constraints.  The only light might be that you can use the higher res images, where available, at no overall increase to the installation if lower res is used where it really doesn't matter (i.e. huge swaths of wilderness), to offset the diff.  My ortho for the state of OR was under 200GB while including .5m/pixel images around all airports.  

 

If such detail is simply unavailable for commercial distribution at this price point, at some or many airports, then that is just the reality.  No prob.  

[MrScott]

On 8/22/2019 at 7:55 PM, fltsimguy said:

 

That's Ranger Creek NE or Mount Rainier, do you have the new freeware version installed?

Bryan,

 

No I do not. I currently have only the default XP USA scenery installed, and (ORBX, TE WA & OR, KVUO, L52, ENOV, USMV and Orbx Libraries).

[StevePHL]

@MrScott I wonder if the default X-Plane airport is "3D" and includes some of its own trees.  That might create the forest anomaly.  It's a fantastic location.  I love that approach to 15.  You might try the freeware and see if it changes the issue (it will probably create its own tree issues, but maybe improved overall).

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/50823-21w-ranger-creek/

[Orbx Flyer]

4 hours ago, Tony Wroblewski said:

Well there are mainly two reasons:

 

1) Most important, higher zoom levels cost money, (a lot in fact). So if we were to purchase areas around each airport it would cost a lot of money and make the product much more expensive and take much longer to develop as we'd have to blend in the imagery.  The source we use doesn't go higher than 1m/px in most cases (a few select areas do go higher)

 

2) We already have many users who complain about the disk space required and this really isn't going to help matters, increasing the disk requirements by several GB depending on the amount of airports, where probably it would only benefit the few who actually use that airport once or twice.

 

Additionally, most people who make airports (including us) will offer a nice hand corrected, high resolution PR imagery around the airport. Ours in particular will be blended into the region in question. Yes, it's saying "pay more for it", but in a lot of cases, flying in an out of the default airports is pretty painful once you've used payware or high-quality freeware stuff :-)

 

 

 

Tony...as regards reason 2....I would hope that Orbx, would not hold all other users, hostage to those that will not ante up for what is today, very cheap My Books in the 4-6 TB range. That is what is holding all my self-made Ortho4XP files.   What the T.E. products should be...is always and foremost, 'as real as it gets'....and quite frankly, I want visually stunning scenery to fly over, for my $$$'s and of course, would factor in the storage needed for files of a given size that provides the visuals of T.E.   So, for those that complain of the size...get with the program...buy the storage you need, or pass on T.E....but not have those 'file size complaints' as the definitive feedback to Orbx sizing for their concerns.  Storage ante up...or leave the game table....

 

 

[Orbx Flyer]

"Just sayin',  everybody knows the old adage about ; The Squeaky Door, gets the oil....and I encourage every Orbx purchaser, if they are not pleased with their purchase, to state the reasons why...***not in an offensive, or sarcastic  format***...but to simply say, I as did...I was disappointed with the RTM Oregon HD, and for the reasons that I state in my post.  Give Orbx, the chance to read customer satisfaction, **or not**...and allow them to address it.

 

Silence, when a purchaser of their product line is maintained...does not allow John V. and Company, the opportunity of reading a customer's dissatisfaction with a product...their reasons for such...and possible, can John V. and Company address them, if they feel the concern, is legitimate.

 

This post and response by Orbx (John V.) is a beacon for stating your concerns, as well as when you simply are thrilled (right outta the gate!) with any RTM product et all.

 

I thank John V. and Company for addressing the visual aspect of the Oregon HD product,  and am looking very much forward to the patch.  I want to be as happy flying over Oregon, as I am presently with the GB-TE and Washington TE products....THEY, reflect the real world, more than anything else I have seen from even Orbx itself.  I want to feel that way about Oregon, once Orbx has taken a 'second pass' over its square miles...!!!" 

 

O.F.

[renault]

8 hours ago, bvdboomen said:

Those caps are taken at a much higher altitude and the images seem to be resized. They always look sharper then.

Nevertheless, I guess that higher ZL is more expensive and ORBX needs to look for reducing filesizes and prices in order to sell the product.

 Yes slightly higher altitude, but they are straight "V" key screenshots at 1080p. What you see is what I get - no alteration

R

[fltsimguy]

7 hours ago, MrScott said:

Bryan,

 

No I do not. I currently have only the default XP USA scenery installed, and (ORBX, TE WA & OR, KVUO, L52, ENOV, USMV and Orbx Libraries).

 

Yes I went there and go the same thing, looks odd for sure.

I am going to try the freeware Ranger Ck today.

[fltsimguy]

Agree with the comment above about data...I bought two 8 terabyte HDs on internal one external for my ortho alone, they are cheap now, even the 7200 rpm version.

Its all about data in today's world, so time to recognize this and move on in my view or you won't get to enjoy this higher end scenery.

[fltsimguy]

8 hours ago, StevePHL said:

Yeah, I do understand all those constraints.  The only light might be that you can use the higher res images, where available, at no overall increase to the installation if lower res is used where it really doesn't matter (i.e. huge swaths of wilderness), to offset the diff.  My ortho for the state of OR was under 200GB while including .5m/pixel images around all airports.  

 

If such detail is simply unavailable for commercial distribution at this price point, at some or many airports, then that is just the reality.  No prob.  

 

So I also had some Oregon ortho, which I immediately got rid of.

Are you saying that you have airports at a higher rez ZL? and can you not provide that to us as your gift to enhancing the TE OR Version? I don't actually know if that is possible but would be nice to experience your higher rez airports.