ACTIVE mesh

[capt sl]

Hi

 

having read various posts around the place has me totally confused.

 

seeking clarification pls .

 

is a mesh program required for vector to function correctly or not?

[gsumner]

No its not required. Mesh is the lumps and bumps of the earths surface which FSX/ORBX etc lays its colours and objects onto. If youre looking for the best visuals then mesh products are a good purchase. You do however require FTX Global.

 

Im sure someone can step in and correct me if I missed something but this is my understanding.

 

I use fsgenesis mesh just now but plan to upgrade at some point to FSGLOBAL 2010.

 

Hope this helps

 

Graham

[Astarot]

From the PILOT's site:

 

"INFORMATION ABOUT THE COMING RELEASE
Version 1.0 is available now through The FlightSimStore for download. If you do not yet own a worldwide custom mesh (which is mandatory in some areas of the world), get FS Global 2010 FTX edition now to create the ideal base for FS Global Vector!"

 

That doesn't really sound like "not required". I had my finger already hovering above the purchase button for FTX Vector, when i saw that thing about FS Global 2010 for FTX. And so i decided to pull back.

 

First i want some REAL calrification about that whole story. Even if i'm willing to buy a mesh, i wouldn't even know WHAT product to buy. Since they write, that FS Global 2010 would be the best choice for FTX Vector. But why should i chose that, when there's supposedly already a superior product on the market from the same company (FS Global Ultimate)? Was Vector only tested with 2010? Will i be required to shell out money again in six months, because it was adapted to Ultimate afterwards? i even read something about a coming FS Global 2014, somewhere. Sorry. But i won't spend a dime on that whole thing, before those things aren't clear to me. Even in my garden, the money isn't growing on trees.

[norfolk mike]

Its been confusing the hell out of me too. The user guide states that 'Pilot Mesh' is NOT a requirement for FTX Global and Vectors. But that COULD mean that at least A third party mesh is required, if not the Pilot mesh? I'd hope that Vectors was perfectly useable with the FSX default mesh, but some of the issues arising demonstrate that may not be the case?

 

I understand that the devs have placed all default airports at the correct elevation, meaning that those who HAVE invested in a better quality mesh will have those airports at the correct height, and the surrounding mesh will be complimenting that. I also understand that simply removing the folder in which those corrected elevations lie should restore the default airport elevations to the default FSX mesh values.

 

However, my own concern lies in the fact I've just invested in a few Aerosoft X airports, and I'm not sure how things will work out with those. I've got to the point where any further attempts at rational thinking seems to yield only a cerebral void! For example. Aerosoft Mallorca X. The whole island has been given the photo real treatment, which effectively trumps everything else, yes? The airport sits snugly upon the Aerosoft mesh, so I guess that will not be affected by vectors in any way, shape or form.

 

But what about Aerosoft Nice cote de azure, which sits on the mainland? What [if any] special measures would I need to take for that? [We've seen some pretty grim screenshots regarding Madeira], Or should I just stick with UTX for now? My concern is that any issues arising from using FTX Vectors without a third party mesh won't be supported or addressed, and I don't want to be steamrollered into buying something I don't really want at this point in time .UTX works well, its wonderfully controllable and exhibits none of the numerous issues arising with the fledgling FTX Vectors, but it doesn't work in P3D V1:4, which creates a bit of a dilemma, because that's just where I need it most!

 

Actually, I might just save some money by revalidating my PPL lol.

[High Iron]

From what I understand reading the manual for FTX Vector, the elevation changes to the airports, lakes, etc. etc. has been done to place them at their accurate heights. If this is the case, the more accurate the terrain mesh, the more likely they will blend seamlessly. Since the corrected elevations are accurate, most current mesh products should merge with relatively few issues. If a mesh product in the future is better, the problems will be even fewer still. Airport and lake elevations do not change, at least not in our lifetime, so these values will remain constant. FSX and Prepar3D still use old stock DEM data that outside of North America is very poor in resolution. It was great 10 years ago, but now more accurate products are available. If FTX Vector did not change these elevation issues, you would witness many problems that would increase in number as more accurate elevation meshes become available. The fact that FTX Vector has fixed this is very good news if one anticipates wanting more accurate elevation meshes in the future. The current default airports and lakes have many elevation errors that are present. Adding an accurate mesh would only further accentuate these errors. FTX Vector has eliminated this future conflict.

[Astarot]

Yes, that could be right. But what we understand and what is fact, could also be quite different. We're not talking about 5$ software, here. And i won't buy a new mesh for the whole world every six months. If a better mesh will have even fewer issues, why am i advised in the FlightSimStore that FS Global 2010 is the ideal base for Vector and not FS Global Ultimate?

[Rhett]

Hi ORBX support team,

 

Please could you point us to where you provide some guidance regarding the "GLOBAL" mesh. I see in many of the screenshots for FTX GLOBAL VECTOR you indicate that "FS GLOBAL MESH" is used. Is this the mesh that you are officially supporting? I try to read most of your support notices, but cannot recall anything definitive on the mesh issue.

 

Fortunately, I haven't purchased any mesh products (other than those supplied with all the FTX regions) and have only downloaded the freeware mesh for Southern Africa from Aeroworx.

 

Some of the questions / points raised above are relevant (correction to default airport elevations, etc.) and I would like this confirmed before purchasing FTX GLOBAL VECTOR.

 

Kind regards,

[norfolk mike]

Thanks High Iron.

 

So, from what you've said, we can assume that a good quality third party mesh WILL be necessary with FTX Vectors, because even if the airport elevation issue can be worked around, the lakes will still be a problem. Only an updated mesh will resolve all of those issues, and it should be assumed that most serious flight simmers will upgrade to a decent quality mesh at some point anyway.

 

I do understand your point, and you explained it very well. Hopefully I can get UTX working in P3D then lol.

[High Iron]

Your point is for the most part correct norfolk mike. In North America the DEM data even in default FSX/Prepar3D is fairly good, so fewer issues will be encountered. Other areas of the globe had very poor resolution when the data was collected, back when FS9 was being developed. Any mesh will work, it doesn't matter who it's from. The better the resolution, the less problems one will encounter with FTX Vector. One can sort of gauge the quality of the data based on the price. Very good accurate data is not cheap. The lower the resolution the cheaper the data. I believe FTX Vector was designed to be rather future proof as more accurate affordable data will be available in the future for large regions that currently lack good data. Putting good DEM data into the simulator quickly begins to show how bad some of the stock elevation data is on lakes, airports, rivers etc. etc., especially in regions such as Asia, South America, and Africa. If one uses very accurate DEM data in these regions many faults will very quickly appear, like lakes sitting atop 100' pillars, and airports sitting in large rectangular holes 50' deep. Since these landclasses are hard coded into the simulator, DEM data can not correct these issues. It would take a lot of work and time to manually correct the thousands of errors that would reveal themselves. The vector data that is collected by Pilot's seems to have been applied in such a manner as to automate this process, eliminating manual editing. For us, this is really a good thing. If you want to use stock mesh with FTX Vector, than just remove the elevation correction file that Orbx has included. Personally I like the world in my simulator looking as close as possible to reality, so I don't mind forking out for a high quality mesh product. The difference it makes is amazing, and it is why a lot of Orbx screen captures include it.

[norfolk mike]

Thanks for that further, evidently well informed clarification.

 

Yes, I do appreciate the benefits that a detailed terrain mesh will bring to the flightsim platform. The problem for me is, I also saw the benefits that SAK, Pacific Fjords, Northern Rockies, PNW, Central Rockies, NZ South, NZ North, All of Australia, Melbourne, Cairns, Aerosoft Majorca, Corfu, Nice, Gibraltar, FTX Damyn's Hall, Goodwood, Shoreham, Compton Abbas, Jackson Hole, Milford sound, Avalon, Juneau, Skagit, Walter Sutton's, the Alabeo Waco and Agtruck and UK2000s Leeds, Luton, Gatwick and Stansted would bring to my sim! And that's, this month lol.

 

I'd left enough spare for Vectors. But not Pilots mesh AND vectors, but I see some hope in what you've said.

 

If I've read your sentence correctly, you might be saying that the Vectors elevation correction folder will not only address the airports, but also the lake elevations too? That would be a good middle ground until such a time I could afford a decent quality mesh.

[High Iron]

If I've read your sentence correctly, you might be saying that the Vectors elevation correction folder will not only address the airports, but also the lake elevations too? That would be a good middle ground until such a time I could afford a decent quality mesh.

From what I understood from reading the manual, yes this would be correct. Shorelines or water edges define water bodies elevations. These elevations are locked into the layer, regardless of DEM data, much like an airport is. It is why you see airports sitting up on plateaus above the ground elevation. I'm not sure why so many folks are making such a fuss about this. These errors are even found in the default data all over the place. Fly over Searchlight, Nevada airport. It sits up on a large rectangular block because either the DEM data is of poor quality in that area, the airport elevation is incorrect, or possibly both. It looks nothing like it does in the real world. FTX VECTOR + a good mesh will do well to help fix such a case.

 

Cheers,

Thad

[capt sl]

how does one know which mesh will fix what?

 

does it also address bridges issue or is that something else

 

sorry i dont understand all this and how it works etc so asking

[High Iron]

DEM mesh doesn't really fix anything per se. All it does is create the elevation details of the terrain. All a good mesh will do is allow more accurate rendering of various elevations and a higher definition of elevation fidelity. If an airport stands above or below the terrain and is at the proper elevation, a good mesh can fix this by bringing the elevation of the surrounding terrain either up or down to match that of the airport. If on the other hand an airport has incorrect elevation to match incorrect terrain elevation to make it look good, adding a proper, accurate mesh may make a mess of how the airport looks. This is not the fault of the mesh, but rather the fault of an incorrect airport elevation being used to compensate for the default mesh errors.

 

I'm not sure meshes will fix structures such as bridges. If the bridge object has been set to zero elevation, it should adjust automatically to the terrain. If however a height above ground has been used to align the bridge than it will maintain that same additional height even if the mesh is correct which again means some problems may arise from using an accurate mesh. It depends if the bridge is autogen or was manually created and placed and what the developer set in the object properties in regards to height offsets, if any were use. In the end I would recommend getting the best DEM material available that you can spend on. Insane accuracy would cost you thousands of dollars, but it would look fantastic and be very accurate. From my research on the material, I would recommend the FS Global Ultimate. The resolutions vary from region to region, but they are very good for the price point. You may be able to find other products that provide higher levels of fidelity, but they start getting expensive and out of reach of average users. If Pilot's produces another version in the future, it will likely incorporate higher quality data in areas where it was not obtainable in the past. Likely they would charge an upgrade price to level up. The FS Global FSX mesh I believe, does not have quite as high a level of detail for certain areas, while other regions will have the same quality as Ultimate. The differences are not huge in these areas, so they likely believe it may be the better choice for a all up product that costs less than the more expensive Ultimate version. Flat is flat, whether its 1 meter resolution or 10 meter resolution, but some like myself, just have to have it...

 

Cheers,

Thad

[spirit_66]

how does one know which mesh will fix what?

 

does it also address bridges issue or is that something else

 

sorry i dont understand all this and how it works etc so asking

I'm pretty sure that no mesh will fix weird looking bridges, double roads, square lakes, missing landmarks etc. This is a problem of data which come from OSM (Open Street Map) and other resources. One should read the Global Vector user guide page2.

Spirit

[Rhett]

Hi all,

 

I found some useful information in the downloadable FTX GLOBAL VECTOR User Guide that answers some of the questions - under the heading "Third Party Mesh Terrain".

 

PILOT'S FSGlobal2010 mesh was the mesh product used by the GLOBAL VECTOR beta testers. It seems therefore that this would be the recommended mesh terrain as it covers the entire globe. It does seem though that one would really need to purchase / download a third party mesh terrain product that has mesh data better than the FSX default mesh for FTX GLOBAL VECTOR to work optimally. As per "High Iron's" response above, the better the mesh, the better the overall compatibility with the new GLOBAL VECTOR and of course the corrected airport elevations etc. Buying FSGlobal2010 would appear to be the optimal third party mesh option from a cost and ORBX "support" point of view if you want to cover the entire globe in one product. However, from what I gathered looking at PILOT's product description of their various mesh product's in the FlightSim Store, their FS Global Ultimate Mesh products have better resolutions (and of course much larger associated download file sizes). An advantage is that you can purchase only the continent groups you want/prefer, but if you were to purchase the entire globe, the cost (and download size) is way higher for the FS Global Ultimate Mesh product than FS Global 2010. It's ultimately a compromise between data size, cost and level of mesh detail.

 

Personally, I think I will probably opt for the FS Global Ultimate product (as I think that a good mesh is important for representing the terrain correctly) and go for Europe and Africa (as this is the area I fly the most in when not flying in the FTX NA regions).

 

There is of course the freeware mesh data from http://simviation.com//fsx_terrainmesh.htm. I have previously downloaded Europe and Africa. These may be a good alternative to the payware versions where budgets are limited.

 

I would however, like ORBX to indeed confirm that using FS Global Ultimate (as opposed to FSGlobal2010) will be supported and / or recommended. Any concerns / problem's envisaged ?

 

Kind regards,

 

 

[capt sl]

thx for the  info everyone