NZFF

Nice robin its come up well with fsx ,are you finshed with 2004 now 4 good or will we see some compat stuff fs9&fsx for alittle longer ?

Wow, those coastlines look simply amazing!

You can see the spot in Tairua where we holiday in each summer, down in the second to last shot

creator2003 wrote:

QUOTE(creator2003 @ Sep 1 2007, 02:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nice robin its come up well with fsx ,are you finshed with 2004 now 4 good or will we see some compat stuff fs9&fsx for alittle longer ?

I don't have any plans to go FSX-only at the moment. Coromandel will be for both. However it won't quite look the same in FS2004
There are so many nice features in FSX, both visually and design-wise, that designing for FS2004 now seems cludgy, but I'm well aware that there's life in it yet.
This is an experiment to see if with a bit of planning I can put together both versions without having to do anything twice:)
By the way, the Coromandel scenery won't go all the way up -- there's only black and white imagery up north and I don't think I'll be colourising it any time soon. However in FSX I'm getting good results blending the edges -- it works best with Christian's landclass to blend to.

As long as I heard the words 'for fs2004', I'm a happy man.

By the way, the Coromandel scenery won't go all the way up -- there's only black and white imagery up north and I don't think I'll be colourising it any time soon. However in FSX I'm getting good results blending the edges -- it works best with Christian's landclass to blend to.

Yeah its just visable in those screenies above, and I remember from my original Godzone installation it stops just before Matarangi, although its hardley noticable which is neat. Is it just me, or is this new version a high resoultion photograph which you are working on?

LOOKIN SHARP! Super Matey

Trolly wrote:

QUOTE(Trolly @ Sep 1 2007, 11:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is it just me, or is this new version a high resoultion photograph which you are working on?

FSX is higher res, but FS2004 will be same old 4.8m/px.

Ian Warren wrote:

QUOTE(Ian Warren @ Sep 1 2007, 11:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOOKIN SHARP! Super Matey

Was hoping you'd like it, now I feel better about asking you to autogen it...

toprob wrote:

QUOTE(toprob @ Sep 6 2007, 12:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

FSX is higher res, but FS2004 will be same old 4.8m/px.
Was hoping you'd like it, now I feel better about asking you to autogen it...

Guess ya better send the file thru

Wow! That beach looks superb. Nice work.

Awesome to hear that Robin ,i was starting to worry abit ,i just cant do without your scenery installed in me fs9 install ,over the natural period i will move on to fsx ,but when it runs like any other fs realease ,wonder if we will have sp3 sp4 sp5 etc before they get it right

Verrrrry nice!

Nice - looking forward to it since I didn't have the old Godzone stuff

Beautiful work . Looking forward to release

Naki wrote:

QUOTE(Naki @ Sep 1 2007, 02:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nice - looking forward to it since I didn't have the old Godzone stuff

Haha especially nice because I do have the old Godzone stuff, knew what needed doing, and hoped it would arrive, some day.
Some day has arrived.
Thanks Robin

Amazing work as usual Robin

creator2003 wrote:

QUOTE(creator2003 @ Sep 6 2007, 01:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

when it runs like any other fs realease

err.. like when it runs like FS5 on a 486?

or like FS2004 on a 486?.....

You dont get something for nothing....better visuals = more 0's and 1's = faster processers and more RAM needed

I've been wondering for a while and can't seem to see if its been posted here but where is this scenery in N.Z.??
(excuse me if it has already been posted up here in this topic)

Kelburn wrote:

QUOTE(Kelburn @ Sep 4 2007, 05:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've been wondering for a while and can't seem to see if its been posted here but where is this scenery in N.Z.??
(excuse me if it has already been posted up here in this topic)

I purposefully didn't give the location in the original post, but it has been mentioned once here -- it's the Coromandel peninsula.

Timmo wrote:

QUOTE(Timmo @ Sep 3 2007, 09:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

err.. like when it runs like FS5 on a 486?

or like FS2004 on a 486?.....

You dont get something for nothing....better visuals = more 0's and 1's = faster processers and more RAM needed

I'll agree with Timmo here, and give my opinion at the risk of hijacking the thread:)
My current computer was put together as a budget FS2004 system. When I bought it, though, not a lot of high-end PC games ran on it. Half Life 2 was one example -- I could play it, but only on the minimum settings. Most games released since then are well beyond the capabilities of this system. Somehow, though, people expect FS to be an exception to the normal range of high-end games. Even though it models a much larger area than other games. Even though it models a huge range of weather and atmospheric conditions, not just a few 'hard-wired' scenarios. Even though it simulates the intricacies of modern flight. Even though it is eminently expandable.
I'm amazed that (post-SP1) it runs so well on my system. Sure, I don't get marvellous performance, but then again I don't get good performance from any game produced in the last two years.

Im sure hicjacking your own thread is ok?

yep...take just a small slice of what was improved and ask yourself 'how can this possibly run as fast on the same system when there is simply more data to process'

I.e. Ground texture resolution: from 420cm (?) to 7 cm.... that is (potentially) 60 times more pixels in each dimension as there is a squared relationship for 2d textures...in other words if you had a 42m^2 area to represent in FS2004 it would take 10*10 pixels = 100 pixels. In FSX, due to the resolution increase that same area can now be represented by 60*60 pixels = 3600 pixels, 36 times the amount of data that needs to be processed....but not neccessarily 36 times 'better' looking...the law of diminishing returns at work.

Similarly, terrain: Now down to 1m pixel size....using a 100m^2 area: In Fs2004 only around 25 pixels were able to be used to try and model that amd generate a virtual reality...in FSX it can use 10,000 pixels. Even our best data is only around this spatial resolution....many gigabytes of data in its raw form and only covering a tiny portion of the earths surface. The move to a round earth system consists of some pretty complex calculations in itself.....

All the autogen trees, buildings etc etc follow this same pattern: n^2 more pixels....as well as supporting bump maps, environment maps and other goodies which are subtle but important visual tools to trick the eye into seeing a better 'virtual reality'

The vector data, in NZ at least has gone from 1:250 000 data down to 1:50 000 based data....for FS2004 you had to pay $100 to get that data and its default in FSX

etc etc....In in all, i think FSX is a fantastic product and i think some people forget just how much work goes into modelling the world at this scale (as well chucking simulation of flight, AI, boats, traffic animals etc etc in there)...certainly when i compare it to other software that ive used in my profession, which costs a hundred times more, is 20 times as buggy, 5 times as hard to install, 10 times more difficult to use and generate results 20 times worse.....