NZFF

I was checking some AFCADs and looked over this screenshot when it dawned on me that this was close to photoreal - in FS9.
It's Balclutha, sitting on 20m mesh + RBE topo, with Christian's landclass, plus GE PRO textures. Real-world weather, of course.



Thought I'd share the view, isn't that field left foreground amazing?

Looks pretty Damn convincing Charl. Only thing missing is some lovely old Retro-AI aircraft overflying the area,(maybe a nice old NAC F-27........)

Lawrie.

Charl,

Those GE Pro textures with the Topo and Mesh are superb, have been using ourselves since GE Pro came out. Why would you need FSX?

Rob

You have to remember that 'Photo-realisitc' doesnt equate to 'photo-real'. By that i mean you can have the nicest looking, crisp photo realistic textures that dont relate at all to the real terrain you are flying over (i.e. If you flew over a local area it would look nice but you wouldnt have a clue where you were and wouldnt be able to navigate VFR particularly well- Features would be repeated every 10kms or so as the texture is repeated) In effect, the textures arent providing any information at all- they just look pretty (its the vector and terrain data that gives you the required info: hills, rivers, coastline, roads etc)

On the flipside, a photo-real texture (i.e. an aerial photo put into flightsim) can be of lowish quality but still give you the necessary information to navigate VFR. Landmarks such as lines of trees, orchards, rock outcrops etc are visible and in their correct place....if you fly over a certain feature twice you know you navigation leaves a lot to be desired

Why do we need FSX? Try flying in FS9 at anything under 500ft= blurry mess

Timmo wrote: You have to remember that 'Photo-realisitc' doesnt equate to 'photo-real'. By that i mean you can have the nicest looking, crisp photo realistic textures that dont relate at all to the real terrain you are flying over (i.e. If you flew over a local area it would look nice but you wouldnt have a clue where you were and wouldnt be able to navigate VFR particularly well- Features would be repeated every 10kms or so as the texture is repeated) In effect, the textures arent providing any information at all- they just look pretty (its the vector and terrain data that gives you the required info: hills, rivers, coastline, roads etc)

On the flipside, a photo-real texture (i.e. an aerial photo put into flightsim) can be of lowish quality but still give you the necessary information to navigate VFR. Landmarks such as lines of trees, orchards, rock outcrops etc are visible and in their correct place....if you fly over a certain feature twice you know you navigation leaves a lot to be desired

Why do we need FSX? Try flying in FS9 at anything under 500ft= blurry mess

I used the term carefully. You have forgotten the amazing RBE mesh/topo/landclass which with the right textures, can virtually match photoreal in some respects, and knock the spots off it in others.
By way of comparison, here's the line between Real NZ Auckland, and the "default" (but as modified per above, plus GE PRO). Same scenery but at different weather and time settings:



Christian has put real roads, rivers, telephone lines, and powerlines in especially for those wanting VFR navigation.
You can see the accuracy of this in the pictures, roads etc match pretty well across the join. (I'm not sure if this is laudable for Christian or for Robin's PR Auckland. Whatever, they're both pretty good)
With the right texture set and a good landclass, you do not get that "crop circle" repitition of the stock FS. That's what caught my eye in the original screenshot.
So what's the advantage of PR? Well, it's the only way you're gonna see your house!
Other than that, it has severe limitations, in that it is a "snapshot" and so not dynamic. Even if you do 4 seasonal renderings (which I believe is a great deal of work) there are cloudy days, clear days, rainy days, dawns, dusks, all of which demand different ground "looks" and these are infinitely variable with different texture sets, not available to the PR.
As to blurries - well PR actually only has a narrow band in which it looks good, a product of the original resolution. My own experience is the reverse of what you describe - at 500ft my PR scenery is all but useless, and the autogen features of GE PRO come alive!

I was not going to reply to this thread as I don't have GE pro, but today, after installing VOZ 1.3, I have also been as impressed as Charl.

Here are some screenies of the new 1.3 "North Region" Queensland textures:









P.S.
I really wish the REAL NZ coverage extended up to Orewa, Waiwera and included the whole Whangaparoa peninsula, I was looking forward to seeing Manley beach and Shakespeare park in fs2004... but was sad not to see it.

Andrew
You reinforce the point very nicely.
It is the difference between "realistic" and "authentic"

I've only been to N Queensland a few times, but that looks to me as authentic as the real thing.
But I bet a local would be able to fault the scenery for not being realistic because you can't see the barby out in his backyard.

In the FS world, I reckon realistic beats authentic every time.
If nothing else it gets a great many excellent screenshots.
Well done!

Re-reading all of the above:
It might give the impression that I'm knocking photoreal scenery.
Not the intent, it's meant to illustrate how good FS9 has become, due to all the amazing addons available.
A case in point: I would never trade RealNZ Auckland for anything, it is just such a kick to be able to find authentic features around the place.

But FSX is going to be really something once the computing power is available to unleash its potential with landclass/texture addons...

dammit...i had written a long and complex reply listing the relative strengths and weaknesses of Aerial photos vs Landclass/Texture sets........and then i lost it all when i tried to post it!

Haha I did the same, in this very thread, must be the nature of the debate!
It's much easier 2nd time round, and you waffle far less!

Occurs to me that the entire GNZLAP project is in the same league as photoreal scenery: it only really has context if you are familiar with it.
I imagine an Eskimo wouldn't really be all that interested in the reggo's of NZ GA - so too seeing the actual position of Eden Park ...mmm let me rephrase that