NZFF

I anoticed a few major problems with the Landclass in a recent flight:
This is FSX's rendition of Port Nelson:


And here is the Real Port Nelson:
http://www.portnelson.co.nz/assets/harb ... on2003.jpg

Not much of a green meadowy housing area, is it?

In this picture I captured Haulashore Island and the Boulder Bank:


Here is the real Boulder bank:
http://www.nzca.ac.nz/images/contribute ... thouse.JPG

And Haulashore Island:
http://www.nzine.co.nz/images/nelson/nelson1_sml.jpg

So as you can see, the FSX landclass leaves much to be desired.

I think its generally agreed the land class in FSX has alot to be desired, the amount of desert to be found is testament to that. You may have seen the landclass update released by MS to address some issues, however we are still a long way from having accurate data displayed, the examples you have shown are a case in point.

Does anyone have any knowledge/links about where they get their landclass data from? Its an automated process based on satellite data im guessing?

Capturing landcover (as opposed to capturing 'landclass') is pretty involved. Environment Bay of Plenty bought some satellite captured, algorithm processed landcover data a few years back and that wasnt particularly accurate either....and that was only for the BOP region! Its a huge task to generate that data for the WHOLE world, in many cases with no local knowledge of what the area 'should' look like.

The majority of the Landcover capture we do is digitised on screen in reference to aerial photos with multiple people capturing and it still takes months to complete a project (ie The Rotorua Lakes which we have done recently)....

From a Geospatial professional's point of view, what Microsoft has achieved in teh base product is pretty damn impressive IMHO......and downloading/making all the addons is half the fun isnt it?

this is my little test with and without rbe landclass
this is what it lookslike in nelson with rbe landclass

and without and just default ...

i like the default for now but will still have to test it out in other places
but intersting how the look changes

Hmmm....well i just bought and installed FSX and...yeah....i agree. The landclass is pretty average especially in its classification of small towns (ie Whakatane doesnt exist!- The roads are all there obviously but the ground textures dont reflect the fact that there should be urban areas).....

Not even the autogen objects show any buildings in whakatane??.....

Is it just a case of placing the FS9 updated (freeware) landclass files to replace the default ones?

natas2003 wrote: this is my little test with and without rbe landclass
this is what it lookslike in nelson with rbe landclass

and without and just default ...

i like the default for now but will still have to test it out in other places
but intersting how the look changes

Hmm, I fly often in the areas you posted in Real life. I'm mogin flying this weekend with any luck, so I'll remember your shots and see.

Anyway, one good thing I can comment on with the FSX landlcass is the actual topography. In Natas's shot you can see an island with a few sewage ponds on them. This is Bells Island. in FS9 this didn't exist, along with many of the other topographical features around Nelson that I personally use for reference (there's a small atoll-style island that is a good reference for turning base, for example.)

From: http://windowlight.co.nz/nzfsx.html

the folder with the 20 metre mesh also includes the Red Baron Landclass file, so the difference I'm seeing is the new landclass. Good to see it works well in FSX.

The RBE fs2004 landclass should work fine in FSX!

hmm that is assuming people have the 20m mesh installed....Is it possible to just use the landclass files?

Actually, as an aside: Does anyone know what the default mesh is in FSX? It looks pretty good! I havent put the 75m mesh in to compare (that is the only one i have) but it looks at least as good as that....