Arguments for and against photo scenery

[ATAG_Dutch]

You aren't!

If you watch the clip, you'll gather that I'm not a fan myself.

Of either the looks or the cost.

[Liz Lemon]

Plus scenery from satellite photos will make implementing proper HDR very hard.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Liz Lemon

Plus scenery from satellite photos will make implementing proper HDR very hard.

Indeed. This photo scenery stuff is ok in its place, such as flying at 15,000ft from London to Edinburgh in a Learjet.

As far as I'm concerned it has no place in a combat flight sim.

Not yet at any rate.

[Codex]

I get what they're trying to do but using satellite images for the land scape "looks" fake anyway. The problem is not that it's a photo, the problem is that its a static image, i.e. the lighting and colour doesn't change when the camera changes position.

A somewhat better approach might be to use photos of objects and use those images as textures, but you'd need to run some pretty intensive pixel shaders to make even these look realistic as you'll always have the lighting of the object to content with when the image was taken.

To recreate photo realistic images is the holy grail of the games industry, and from what I've learned the only real solution is ray tracing but we're a long way off from that being a real time possibility.

Originally Posted by Codex

To recreate photo realistic images is the holy grail of the games industry, and from what I've learned the only real solution is ray tracing but we're a long way off from that being a real time possibility.

5 years ! thats what the head of nvidia stated not so long ago.


its funny all these topical debates. because in the end theres somthing we dont like about Clod scenery, but it beats all other sceneries out there for flightsims. its marvelous in its construction imo.

[Codex]

Originally Posted by Ali Fish

5 years ! thats what the head of nvidia stated not so long ago.

If he was referring to OptiX it's still only a software engine at the moment (I think) using the GPU, and even with 3 Fermi cores in SLI, displaying one model, you get a slide show at best. Maybe in 5 years you might get it smooth enough, but to use it in a sim, even after 5 years from now, I doubt it. It would need to be hardware implemented meaning part of the graphics pipeline and that would mean a HUGE video card, like an Octo GPU solution or something crazy like with an equally crazy power supply ... lol. It is promising though. I'd give it 10 years

[Rattlehead]

Originally Posted by Codex

but using satellite images for the land scape "looks" fake anyway.

In my eyes it does too. Not a fan of it myself.

[Redroach]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

You aren't!

If you watch the clip, you'll gather that I'm not a fan myself.

Of either the looks or the cost.

I'm confused. Why do you bring it up again then? People will jump on the bandwagon again

Btw: The first one to destroy a house with bombs or cannons in this photo scenery thingy gets a cookie!

Red,
born and raised on a lime green field!

[Doc_uk]

Originally Posted by Redroach

I'm confused. Why do you bring it up again then? People will jump on the bandwagon again

Btw: The first one to destroy a house with bombs or cannons in this photo scenery thingy gets a cookie!

Red,
born and raised on a lime green field!

My words as well, why bring it up again, pointless,
you fail, goodbye, And have a nice day

The amount of new content has reached such a low point that threads like this are popping up.

I think that it's now official!

Maddox Games, 1C, and Ubisoft have carefully calculated exactly the worst possible decisions to make, and have executed them perfectly. There is no other explanation for this. You have a brand new sim, little to no included content, and then you stonewall everyone so that the community starts to get stale and people lose interest in it.

Bravo MG/1C/Ubi, you are master trolls!