NZFF

People may be wondering what I've been up to scenery wise. A few months ago, I was introduced to some city models that are simply amazing - so I had to try to get them into FSX. I'm well on the way for Melbourne. The good news is that New Zealand cities may follow.

The following shots are still in development but start to show the detail of the city - think individual air conditioners boxes on the roofs!

Christian wrote:

QUOTE (Christian @ Apr 21 2010, 12:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

People may be wondering what I've been up to scenery wise. A few months ago, I was introduced to some city models that are simply amazing - so I had to try to get them into FSX. I'm well on the way for Melbourne. The good news is that New Zealand cities may follow.

The following shots are still in development but start to show the detail of the city - think individual air conditioners boxes on the roofs!

NZ cities *may* follow??? Go boys ... go GET HIM!

It seems people are pushing the FSX scenery limits in so many ways now we're spoiled for choice! Great!!

BTW - is that some bizarre form of camouflage those buildings are sporting - or is it a GFX anomaly? I get something similar when I have the "scenery casts shadows" option turned on.

Woowee they are brilliant Christian we need all the NZ cities like those and Robins Real NZ cities we could do with Christchurch Dunedin and Nelson for starters

Jeepers Christian , i recall seeing box art for FS5 showing a complete city , install it ... it really missed the point , this on the other hand ' Your Home Town ' bloody beautyfull!

Its funny, a few years back I looked at FS9 with its new Autogen and thought that it was incredibly realistic. But already, it just fades into history when you look at those screenshots! That IS the future!

That looks like alot of work to do one by one ,pretty cool software to pull a city outta the ground ,is there a way to make the side textures cleaner ? and whats the source images or do you need tiffs layer like we have now before we build our models and it digs that info out of the tiff or something ..
are the frame rates also as bad as you shots show in the counter or is that just paused ,i know systems are getting better these days and can handle the draw call ,even my single core 3.0 ghz does well at a amazing amount of complex objects .
this would really be cool if it was quicker than by hand anyway nice work ..

I'm feelin' homesick. Can spot Flinders St. Station, St. Paul's, the Art Gallery, the MCG, the Cenotaph, Boys Grammer ... sob!!!

Yep, it's as real as it gets ...

I'm not liking the fps up in the top left corner of the screenines

Other than that, they look great.

FSX was a bit of a late bloomer, but now we're beginning to see the difference a couple of years makes -- both in actual sim development, and other new technology which can be adapted. In another year we won't recognise it as the same sim:)

FSX development began in the doldrums, but now we're seeing things start to appear which just take your breath away.

I think this is what I considered for Auckland -- this place does have 'Pictometry' coverage of Auckland and Wellington, so I assume that a 3D model will eventually follow.

Ah Pictometry answers most of my questions cheers ..

Some answers to questions:

- the models are built via new technology. What you're seeing here are about 2000 buildings with real textures. The difference to conventional models is that these aren't build from scratch. Classic FS scenery always reminds me a bit like painted cardboard boxes that are stacked together. This scenery is the real deal - if the building exists it is in the scenery. Flying over the CBD is just amazing with all the detail in this scenery.

- NZ cities: the company I got this data from has built a model for Wellington and they have flown and are building Auckland and Christchurch. How does it fit with RealNZ? The area covered is smaller and excludes airports, but the detail is several degrees more realistic.

- textures: not sure what you are referring to. There is of course a "problem" with reflective buildings as the survey aircraft take pictures including reflections. Since the reflections are static they look a bit odd, but on the other hand you do get these reflections from the air and it looks better than the synthetic textures you get in normal city models. One of my next tasks will be to try dynamic reflections.

- frame rates: the frame rates are low, but my system is old and default Melbourne runs single digits on my system. This is a problem with FSX as all bigger cities don't run well on my system. New Zealand cities actually run better. Having said that, the fps drop I get when I have the city enabled is from somewhere like 9 fps to maybe 7 fps on average - not too shabby!

Hope that answers some questions.

I like it ,thanks the texture question was more along the lines of the res ,but this would all depend on the res of the data i guess ..

I've seen demos of this in K2Vi and it certainly is impressive- I always have questions around the efficiency of the models though? Are they just a mess of triangles or are the cleaning algorithms pretty good now?

Christian wrote:

QUOTE (Christian @ Apr 21 2010, 04:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

- textures: not sure what you are referring to. There is of course a "problem" with reflective buildings as the survey aircraft take pictures including reflections. Since the reflections are static they look a bit odd, but on the other hand you do get these reflections from the air and it looks better than the synthetic textures you get in normal city models. One of my next tasks will be to try dynamic reflections.

Thanks for the explanations, Christian. With respect to the "problem" - I didn't realise these were reflections. I think there's something wrong with them as they are - as most of them seem to be picking up something dark - and not the expected sky colours <?>. I suspect dynamic reflections would solve this - but at what [framerate] cost <?>.

Talking of cost - is using this data in re-marketed FSX add-ons prohibitively expensive?

creator2003 wrote:

QUOTE (creator2003 @ Apr 26 2010, 04:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I like it ,thanks the texture question was more along the lines of the res ,but this would all depend on the res of the data i guess ..

The texture resolution is about the same as what the autogen and other default models use. The source models are crisper, but I needed to down sample because the original resolution was too much. Now the texture weight is about 200MB which a graphic card can handle. Without resampling the texture size (of the buildings only) was bigger than my graphics card memory! The ground texture is 30 cm which again is a performance compromise. 7 cm didn't work well...

Using the original resolution looks great, but in the end we still need to be able to fly in the scenery.

Timmo wrote:

QUOTE (Timmo @ Apr 26 2010, 05:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've seen demos of this in K2Vi and it certainly is impressive- I always have questions around the efficiency of the models though? Are they just a mess of triangles or are the cleaning algorithms pretty good now?

Maybe it's not the most effective, but I found optimising textures had a much bigger impact on performance. I had to do some magic in 3ds max, but got the conversion pretty well sorted out now.

Adamski wrote:

QUOTE (Adamski @ Apr 26 2010, 06:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the explanations, Christian. With respect to the "problem" - I didn't realise these were reflections. I think there's something wrong with them as they are - as most of them seem to be picking up something dark - and not the expected sky colours <?>. I suspect dynamic reflections would solve this - but at what [framerate] cost <?>.

Talking of cost - is using this data in re-marketed FSX add-ons prohibitively expensive?

The dark stripes are the original colour - the lighter bits are the reflections. You can see this well closer up.

About cost, I'll be able to sell Melbourne around the $50 mark. Depending on sales other city models will follow.

I do like the more photographic textures here, but that's my taste -- some developers spend hours making their own textures, or tidying up photos, but I think this just turns the sim into a flash 3D modeller, rather than as close to real as you can get.

One thing's for sure, the best FSX we can get in a year's time is probably going to mean a computer upgrade for most of us...