Comments on: 100 Mile Visibility

By: Ben Supnik

Ben Supnik — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 23:34:13 +0000

In reply to Patrick Oberlin. We looked at that but it sets the minimum hardware spec just a bit too high for v10. :-(

By: Patrick Oberlin

Patrick Oberlin — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 23:24:13 +0000

Hey, Ben,

Nice to see you have a bit of time to comment. Seems like you’re completely engrossed in development right now — a good thing, to be sure. Anyway, regarding my post on 3d/2.5d, I understand the nature of rasterization and I could have said it better. What I am waiting for (and probably will be for a long time 🙂 ) is volumetric clouds on the level of the best smoke and fog systems. Particles to the tune of inches or mm, really. So many small particles that they have virtually no billboarding effect. I realize that isn’t possible at decent perf. levels with everything going on in the engine, and just wanted to put in my request for X-Plane… Oh, 18? Have a great week!

Blessings, Patrick Oberlin

By: Ben Supnik

Ben Supnik — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:19:49 +0000

In reply to Deane. Right - the problem is that our mesh tech comes from v8.0 (now 5+ years old?) and is optimized for a different kind of machine. It will take a few more refactorings to improve the LOD for far view, although there already is some now.

By: Deane

Deane — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 04:50:59 +0000

It seems also that terrain features that are far away don’t need to be drawn with the same resolution as terrain features that are close by. If you read terrain data nearby with a high resolution, and terrain data far away at a lesser resolution, you would more efficiently be able to increase the distance with which you can draw the terrain.

For example (put simplistically), a radius of 20 km you can read every point of data and use it to draw terrain. Then, terrain that is farther away you can use every third data-point to define geometry. Terrain that is far off in the distance can be drawn by using every fifth pixel for example.

That way, the DSFs that you load can adopt that “bucket” concept where objects/weather/terrain farther away has less resolution with just as high an impact on the scenery render final image.

By: Benjamin Supnik

Benjamin Supnik — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:47:15 +0000

Yep – that's one of the things I was thinking: since DSFs are layered we could pull in the mesh immediately for "outer" DSFs and the 3-d overlays later as they scroll in.

By: Willzah

Willzah — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:43:23 +0000

Hi there! Just thought I had, what if you combined the normal 6 Dsf files with an algorithm that reads more dsf files for just basic mesh data and then combines with the "need to add elevation displacement planet render" idea. It could utilize the blend of the Planet render to the dsf pretty well, perhaps with a LOD system. Could that happen?

By: robin

robin — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 20:22:55 +0000

So … I will be reproduce being able to sit on runway 13R at KBFI(Boeing Field, Seattle) and see Mount Rainier (about 60 miles away)? Great!

– Robin

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 07:56:49 +0000

Hi Ben,

1. Could you consider loading:
-between the equator and 30Lat: 6DSF's (as at present)
-between 30 and 45Lat: 8 DSF's
-between 45 and 60Lat: 10 DSF's
-between 60 and 75Lat: 12 DSF's
-between 75Lat and the poles --if any-- 14 DSF's
This way we would always have a "playground" of 120NM X (about) 180NM.

2. Right now DSF's get loaded anytime you fly between sealevel and 100,000ft; from 100,000ft to infinity earth-1 and -2 get loaded. Would it make sense to have something inbetween? For example:
-from sealevel to 60,000ft: DSF's
-from 60,000ft to 150,000ft: some intermediate textures, less resolution than the DSF's but better than earth-1
-from 150,000ft and up: earth-1.

Better even, would be if in
"Rendering Options" we could select the lower edge of the intermediate textures between 10,000ft AGL to 80,000ft MSL.

Don't know if any of this makes sense. Just some ideas that have been stewing around in my head. Some people take their sightseeing very serious; others want to be able to do VFR cross-countries; and some could not care less about eyecandy.

Best regards,

Guy

By: alloycowboy

alloycowboy — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 01:25:20 +0000

Wow great news Ben! Any news on getting a more accurate night sky with accurate levels of light pollution? "Hint: google light pollution and light pollution maps."

By: Benjamin Supnik

Benjamin Supnik — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 11:44:28 +0000

What exactly do you mean by a '3-d cloud'? NOTHING in computer graphics is ever truly 3-d. Everything starts as 3-d data and becomes 2-d as it goes through the graphics pipeline. By rasterization time it's 2-d polygons with a depth attribute attached. So I'm not sure I agree with your labels of 3d and 2.5d.

The new system is:
- A 3-d weather physics simulation.
- 3-d visualization using billboarded particles.