England & Wales Photo Scenery for FSX

Paul Saunders

I know some might consider this off-topic, but I'm not discussing the flight
sim per se, I'm discussing the photo scenery, in the context of using it as
an aid for planning walking trips by helping to familiarise yourself with
the terrain before your trip. Currently (IMO) it's a better option than any
of the alternatives, namely the 3D aerial photo views in Anquet, Memory Map,
Google Earth etc.

Myself and Terry Pinnell have been discussing this in the Active 10 GPS
thread, but since it's gone OT there I thought it would be more appropriate
to start a new thread, particularly for the benefit of anyone who may be
interested in buying this scenery but weren't following the other thread. If
so, I recommend you check myself and Terry's post in that thread for the
last couple of days.

Anyway, the big issue is whether to get the Just Flight scenery or the
Horizon scenery. I've installed both demos for the Snowdonia area and have
just taken some comparative screenshots so that you can see the difference
between them. So that you can compare the scenery on its own merits I've
turned weather off and set the time to midday, so as to prevent weather and
lighting affecting the look of the scenery. Usually there'd be a least a
light level of haze which tends to mute the colours somewhat.

I've saved the jpegs at 90% quality so as not to introduce any new artifacts
which will affect the comparisons. This was important because the Just
Flight scenery suffers from jpeg artifacts. So what you're seeing isn't my
fault! The screenshots are completely unretouched. All I've done is
converted the bitmaps to jpegs. (The -ho suffix stands for Horizon, the -jf
suffix for Just Flight.)

MOEL EILIO
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/eilio-ho.jpg
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/eilio-jf.jpg

Let's start by looking at two annoying problems I've noticed in the Just
Flight scenery. The first can clearly be seen on the bottom left of the
picture, jpeg artifacts! It seems that Just Flight have seen fit to
over-compress their scenery. This probably makes it load faster but it looks
quite nasty close up. It typically affects smooth grassy areas. The Horizon
scenery looks much better, not pin sharp (you wouldn't expect it to be sharp
this close to the ground), but a lot more detail can be seen in it.

The second problem is the stepped effect that you can see clearly in the
cliffs, which doesn't occur in the Horizon scenery. It's possibly caused by
Just Flight using a 10m mesh as opposed to Horizon's 5m mesh. It doesn't
occur everywhere, but it does in some places, and not just on cliffs.

YR ELEN
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...r/yrelen-jf.jpg
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...r/yrelen-ho.jpg

Another example of JF's jpeg artifacts and terrain "stepping" (background
slope on right).

MOEL Y DYNIEWYD
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...dyniewyd-ho.jpg
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...dyniewyd-jf.jpg

This is a good example of the colour differences. The Horizon scenery is
bright, saturated and contrasty, while the JF scenery is dull and flat with
a greenish hue. The Horizon scenery does look somewhat garish in comparison,
but remember that there's usually a certain amount of haze present in the
flight sim which mutes the colours, so it doesn't usually look this bright.

To be fair, many differences in the two sceneries are probably down to
seasonal conditions. The JF scenery looks like it was photographed in summer
(probably with haze present) while the Horizon scenery seems to have been
photographed in autumn, probably September, in much clearer light. This
helps to explain why the heather stands out so much more clearly. I chose
this view specifically because the area is covered in heather.

MOELWYNS SCENERY
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...moelwyns-ho.jpg
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...moelwyns-jf.jpg

Here's another scene that illustrates the dramatic colour differences, again
no doubt due to seasonal differences. You can see that the shadows are
longer in the Horizon scenery, a disadvantage with shooting later in the
year. The shadows are very dark too unfortunately.

PEN YR OLE WEN
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...yrolewen-ho.jpg
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...yrolewen-jf.jpg

Here's a good example of the advantages of Horizon's colour. Not only does
it look better IMO, but you can see details more clearly. In particular,
bogs stand out much more clearly. Notice the brownish areas in the bottom
right of the image. This is very useful information when planning walks.

Also notice the wall running across the face of Pen yr Ole Wen. It stands
out clearly with Horizon but is barely visible in the JF version.

FOEL GRON
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...foelgron-ho.jpg
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...foelgron-jf.jpg

This shot shows a colour mismatch in the Horizon scenery. People have
complained about this sort of thing in the JF scenery. The Horizon
mismatches are more localised but they do occur.

SNOWDON SUMMIT
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m.../snowdon-ho.jpg
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m.../snowdon-jf.jpg

Now this one is nasty! The Horizon image is fine, but the JF scenery is
awful. The summit image hasn't been properly aligned with the terrain mesh,
so that the railway and the cafe have slid down the mountainside! The
scenery over Crib y Ddysgl in the background is mis-aligned too. Not only
that but the JF slopes suffer from terrible jpeg artifacts and stepping.
Switch back and fore between the two images to compare what it should look
like. JF should be embarrased to release this in a demo!

Finally, I've installed both sceneries on top of one another, so here are
some "split" shots where the two terrains meet:

A general view:
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/split1.jpg

Mynydd Mawr:
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/split2.jpg

A close up of the slopes of Mynydd Mawr, showing the jpeg artifacts and
stepping of the Just Flight scenery, and the very dark shadows of the
Horizon scenery.
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/split3.jpg

The upper Pennant Valley. This shows the seasonal differences very well.
Notice how well the valley bogs stand out in the Horizon scenery, which they
don't in JF.
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/split4.jpg

A closer view. Again see how well the Horizon bogs stand out, and how naff
the JF scenery looks with the jpeg artifacts.
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/split5.jpg

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/

Terry Pinnell

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>I know some might consider this off-topic, but I'm not discussing the flight
>sim per se, I'm discussing the photo scenery, in the context of using it as
>an aid for planning walking trips by helping to familiarise yourself with
>the terrain before your trip. Currently (IMO) it's a better option than any
>of the alternatives, namely the 3D aerial photo views in Anquet, Memory Map,
>Google Earth etc.
>
>Myself and Terry Pinnell have been discussing this in the Active 10 GPS
>thread, but since it's gone OT there I thought it would be more appropriate
>to start a new thread, particularly for the benefit of anyone who may be
>interested in buying this scenery but weren't following the other thread. If
>so, I recommend you check myself and Terry's post in that thread for the
>last couple of days.
>
>Anyway, the big issue is whether to get the Just Flight scenery or the
>Horizon scenery. I've installed both demos for the Snowdonia area and have
>just taken some comparative screenshots so that you can see the difference
>between them. So that you can compare the scenery on its own merits I've
>turned weather off and set the time to midday, so as to prevent weather and
>lighting affecting the look of the scenery. Usually there'd be a least a
>light level of haze which tends to mute the colours somewhat.
>
>I've saved the jpegs at 90% quality so as not to introduce any new artifacts
>which will affect the comparisons. This was important because the Just
>Flight scenery suffers from jpeg artifacts. So what you're seeing isn't my
>fault! The screenshots are completely unretouched. All I've done is
>converted the bitmaps to jpegs. (The -ho suffix stands for Horizon, the -jf
>suffix for Just Flight.)
>
>MOEL EILIO
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/eilio-ho.jpg
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/eilio-jf.jpg
>
>Let's start by looking at two annoying problems I've noticed in the Just
>Flight scenery. The first can clearly be seen on the bottom left of the
>picture, jpeg artifacts! It seems that Just Flight have seen fit to
>over-compress their scenery. This probably makes it load faster but it looks
>quite nasty close up. It typically affects smooth grassy areas. The Horizon
>scenery looks much better, not pin sharp (you wouldn't expect it to be sharp
>this close to the ground), but a lot more detail can be seen in it.
>
>The second problem is the stepped effect that you can see clearly in the
>cliffs, which doesn't occur in the Horizon scenery. It's possibly caused by
>Just Flight using a 10m mesh as opposed to Horizon's 5m mesh. It doesn't
>occur everywhere, but it does in some places, and not just on cliffs.
>
>YR ELEN
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...r/yrelen-jf.jpg
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...r/yrelen-ho.jpg
>
>Another example of JF's jpeg artifacts and terrain "stepping" (background
>slope on right).
>
>MOEL Y DYNIEWYD
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...dyniewyd-ho.jpg
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...dyniewyd-jf.jpg
>
>This is a good example of the colour differences. The Horizon scenery is
>bright, saturated and contrasty, while the JF scenery is dull and flat with
>a greenish hue. The Horizon scenery does look somewhat garish in comparison,
>but remember that there's usually a certain amount of haze present in the
>flight sim which mutes the colours, so it doesn't usually look this bright.
>
>To be fair, many differences in the two sceneries are probably down to
>seasonal conditions. The JF scenery looks like it was photographed in summer
>(probably with haze present) while the Horizon scenery seems to have been
>photographed in autumn, probably September, in much clearer light. This
>helps to explain why the heather stands out so much more clearly. I chose
>this view specifically because the area is covered in heather.
>
>MOELWYNS SCENERY
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...moelwyns-ho.jpg
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...moelwyns-jf.jpg
>
>Here's another scene that illustrates the dramatic colour differences, again
>no doubt due to seasonal differences. You can see that the shadows are
>longer in the Horizon scenery, a disadvantage with shooting later in the
>year. The shadows are very dark too unfortunately.
>
>PEN YR OLE WEN
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...yrolewen-ho.jpg
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...yrolewen-jf.jpg
>
>Here's a good example of the advantages of Horizon's colour. Not only does
>it look better IMO, but you can see details more clearly. In particular,
>bogs stand out much more clearly. Notice the brownish areas in the bottom
>right of the image. This is very useful information when planning walks.
>
>Also notice the wall running across the face of Pen yr Ole Wen. It stands
>out clearly with Horizon but is barely visible in the JF version.
>
>FOEL GRON
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...foelgron-ho.jpg
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...foelgron-jf.jpg
>
>This shot shows a colour mismatch in the Horizon scenery. People have
>complained about this sort of thing in the JF scenery. The Horizon
>mismatches are more localised but they do occur.
>
>SNOWDON SUMMIT
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m.../snowdon-ho.jpg
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m.../snowdon-jf.jpg
>
>Now this one is nasty! The Horizon image is fine, but the JF scenery is
>awful. The summit image hasn't been properly aligned with the terrain mesh,
>so that the railway and the cafe have slid down the mountainside! The
>scenery over Crib y Ddysgl in the background is mis-aligned too. Not only
>that but the JF slopes suffer from terrible jpeg artifacts and stepping.
>Switch back and fore between the two images to compare what it should look
>like. JF should be embarrased to release this in a demo!
>
>Finally, I've installed both sceneries on top of one another, so here are
>some "split" shots where the two terrains meet:
>
>A general view:
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/split1.jpg
>
>Mynydd Mawr:
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/split2.jpg
>
>A close up of the slopes of Mynydd Mawr, showing the jpeg artifacts and
>stepping of the Just Flight scenery, and the very dark shadows of the
>Horizon scenery.
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/split3.jpg
>
>The upper Pennant Valley. This shows the seasonal differences very well.
>Notice how well the valley bogs stand out in the Horizon scenery, which they
>don't in JF.
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/split4.jpg
>
>A closer view. Again see how well the Horizon bogs stand out, and how naff
>the JF scenery looks with the jpeg artifacts.
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/split5.jpg
>
>Paul

No contest - Horizon's scenery is distinctly sharper and more
detailed. Partly due to those JPEG artifacts but presumably mainly the
different 'mesh' rating you mentioned before? The issue of colours is
not so clearcut, although again my personal preference is Horizon.
However, I could imagine some favouring Just Flight's more muted look.
And perhaps Horizon are a shade on the dark side? I'd also like to
know what colour the lakes appear in reality? Given a choice, I rather
like water to be blue!

This exercise got me looking at Memory-Map's 3D feature again. I'm not
yet comfortable with its navigation etc, but some initial comments
are:

- For 'walking assessment' I suppose it has the potential merit of
offering a strictly ground-based view. I can add a track and then fly
through it, to simulate what I'd see when walking that track. (Except
that my first trial was your Snowdon summit (snowdon-ho.jpg and
snowdon-jf.jpg) and inevitably it proved hopeless trying to emulate
your plane's viewpoint!)

- Using just the 3D World button, with no track previously added, I
can apparently fly around. (With restrictions that may be inherent or
due to my poor navigation skills.)

- On my PC at least, the quality of close scenery is awful, but
surprisingly more distant views look pretty good.
http://www.speedyshare.com/526631491.html

I also took a quick look at Google Earth in some of the areas covered
by your excellent screenshots. But generally the resolution was very
poor.
http://www.speedyshare.com/569772134.html

In contrast, of course, many areas of the UK do now have high res in
GE, and make it a useful tool in the present context.

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Terry Pinnell

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>I know some might consider this off-topic, but I'm not discussing the flight
>sim per se, I'm discussing the photo scenery, in the context of using it as
>an aid for planning walking trips by helping to familiarise yourself with
>the terrain before your trip. Currently (IMO) it's a better option than any
>of the alternatives, namely the 3D aerial photo views in Anquet, Memory Map,
>Google Earth etc.
>
>Myself and Terry Pinnell have been discussing this in the Active 10 GPS
>thread, but since it's gone OT there I thought it would be more appropriate
>to start a new thread, particularly for the benefit of anyone who may be
>interested in buying this scenery but weren't following the other thread. If
>so, I recommend you check myself and Terry's post in that thread for the
>last couple of days.
>
>Anyway, the big issue is whether to get the Just Flight scenery or the
>Horizon scenery. I've installed both demos for the Snowdonia area and have
>just taken some comparative screenshots so that you can see the difference
>between them. So that you can compare the scenery on its own merits I've
>turned weather off and set the time to midday, so as to prevent weather and
>lighting affecting the look of the scenery. Usually there'd be a least a
>light level of haze which tends to mute the colours somewhat.
>
>I've saved the jpegs at 90% quality so as not to introduce any new artifacts
>which will affect the comparisons. This was important because the Just
>Flight scenery suffers from jpeg artifacts. So what you're seeing isn't my
>fault! The screenshots are completely unretouched. All I've done is
>converted the bitmaps to jpegs. (The -ho suffix stands for Horizon, the -jf
>suffix for Just Flight.)
>
>MOEL EILIO
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/eilio-ho.jpg
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/eilio-jf.jpg
>
>Let's start by looking at two annoying problems I've noticed in the Just
>Flight scenery. The first can clearly be seen on the bottom left of the
>picture, jpeg artifacts! It seems that Just Flight have seen fit to
>over-compress their scenery. This probably makes it load faster but it looks
>quite nasty close up. It typically affects smooth grassy areas. The Horizon
>scenery looks much better, not pin sharp (you wouldn't expect it to be sharp
>this close to the ground), but a lot more detail can be seen in it.
>
>The second problem is the stepped effect that you can see clearly in the
>cliffs, which doesn't occur in the Horizon scenery. It's possibly caused by
>Just Flight using a 10m mesh as opposed to Horizon's 5m mesh. It doesn't
>occur everywhere, but it does in some places, and not just on cliffs.
>
>YR ELEN
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...r/yrelen-jf.jpg
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...r/yrelen-ho.jpg
>
>Another example of JF's jpeg artifacts and terrain "stepping" (background
>slope on right).
>
>MOEL Y DYNIEWYD
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...dyniewyd-ho.jpg
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...dyniewyd-jf.jpg
>
>This is a good example of the colour differences. The Horizon scenery is
>bright, saturated and contrasty, while the JF scenery is dull and flat with
>a greenish hue. The Horizon scenery does look somewhat garish in comparison,
>but remember that there's usually a certain amount of haze present in the
>flight sim which mutes the colours, so it doesn't usually look this bright.
>
>To be fair, many differences in the two sceneries are probably down to
>seasonal conditions. The JF scenery looks like it was photographed in summer
>(probably with haze present) while the Horizon scenery seems to have been
>photographed in autumn, probably September, in much clearer light. This
>helps to explain why the heather stands out so much more clearly. I chose
>this view specifically because the area is covered in heather.
>
>MOELWYNS SCENERY
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...moelwyns-ho.jpg
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...moelwyns-jf.jpg
>
>Here's another scene that illustrates the dramatic colour differences, again
>no doubt due to seasonal differences. You can see that the shadows are
>longer in the Horizon scenery, a disadvantage with shooting later in the
>year. The shadows are very dark too unfortunately.
>
>PEN YR OLE WEN
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...yrolewen-ho.jpg
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...yrolewen-jf.jpg
>
>Here's a good example of the advantages of Horizon's colour. Not only does
>it look better IMO, but you can see details more clearly. In particular,
>bogs stand out much more clearly. Notice the brownish areas in the bottom
>right of the image. This is very useful information when planning walks.
>
>Also notice the wall running across the face of Pen yr Ole Wen. It stands
>out clearly with Horizon but is barely visible in the JF version.
>
>FOEL GRON
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...foelgron-ho.jpg
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...foelgron-jf.jpg
>
>This shot shows a colour mismatch in the Horizon scenery. People have
>complained about this sort of thing in the JF scenery. The Horizon
>mismatches are more localised but they do occur.
>
>SNOWDON SUMMIT
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m.../snowdon-ho.jpg
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m.../snowdon-jf.jpg
>
>Now this one is nasty! The Horizon image is fine, but the JF scenery is
>awful. The summit image hasn't been properly aligned with the terrain mesh,
>so that the railway and the cafe have slid down the mountainside! The
>scenery over Crib y Ddysgl in the background is mis-aligned too. Not only
>that but the JF slopes suffer from terrible jpeg artifacts and stepping.
>Switch back and fore between the two images to compare what it should look
>like. JF should be embarrased to release this in a demo!
>
>Finally, I've installed both sceneries on top of one another, so here are
>some "split" shots where the two terrains meet:
>
>A general view:
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/split1.jpg
>
>Mynydd Mawr:
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/split2.jpg
>
>A close up of the slopes of Mynydd Mawr, showing the jpeg artifacts and
>stepping of the Just Flight scenery, and the very dark shadows of the
>Horizon scenery.
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/split3.jpg
>
>The upper Pennant Valley. This shows the seasonal differences very well.
>Notice how well the valley bogs stand out in the Horizon scenery, which they
>don't in JF.
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/split4.jpg
>
>A closer view. Again see how well the Horizon bogs stand out, and how naff
>the JF scenery looks with the jpeg artifacts.
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/split5.jpg
>
>Paul

No contest - Horizon's scenery is distinctly sharper and more
detailed. Partly due to those JPEG artifacts but presumably mainly the
different 'mesh' rating you mentioned before? The issue of colours is
not so clearcut, although again my personal preference is Horizon.
However, I could imagine some favouring Just Flight's more muted look.
And perhaps Horizon are a shade on the dark side? I'd also like to
know what colour the lakes appear in reality? Given a choice, I rather
like water to be blue!

This exercise got me looking at Memory-Map's 3D feature again. I'm not
yet comfortable with its navigation etc, but some initial comments
are:

- For 'walking assessment' I suppose it has the potential merit of
offering a strictly ground-based view. I can add a track and then fly
through it, to simulate what I'd see when walking that track. (Except
that my first trial was your Snowdon summit (snowdon-ho.jpg and
snowdon-jf.jpg) and inevitably it proved hopeless trying to emulate
your plane's viewpoint!)

- Using just the 3D World button, with no track previously added, I
can apparently fly around. (With restrictions that may be inherent or
due to my poor navigation skills.)

- On my PC at least, the quality of close scenery is awful, but
surprisingly more distant views look pretty good.
http://www.speedyshare.com/526631491.html

I also took a quick look at Google Earth in some of the areas covered
by your excellent screenshots. But generally the resolution was very
poor.
http://www.speedyshare.com/569772134.html

In contrast, of course, many areas of the UK do now have high res in
GE, and make it a useful tool in the present context.

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Terry Pinnell

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>I know some might consider this off-topic, but I'm not discussing the flight
>sim per se, I'm discussing the photo scenery, in the context of using it as
>an aid for planning walking trips by helping to familiarise yourself with
>the terrain before your trip. Currently (IMO) it's a better option than any
>of the alternatives, namely the 3D aerial photo views in Anquet, Memory Map,
>Google Earth etc.
>
>Myself and Terry Pinnell have been discussing this in the Active 10 GPS
>thread, but since it's gone OT there I thought it would be more appropriate
>to start a new thread, particularly for the benefit of anyone who may be
>interested in buying this scenery but weren't following the other thread. If
>so, I recommend you check myself and Terry's post in that thread for the
>last couple of days.
>
>Anyway, the big issue is whether to get the Just Flight scenery or the
>Horizon scenery. I've installed both demos for the Snowdonia area and have
>just taken some comparative screenshots so that you can see the difference
>between them. So that you can compare the scenery on its own merits I've
>turned weather off and set the time to midday, so as to prevent weather and
>lighting affecting the look of the scenery. Usually there'd be a least a
>light level of haze which tends to mute the colours somewhat.
>
>I've saved the jpegs at 90% quality so as not to introduce any new artifacts
>which will affect the comparisons. This was important because the Just
>Flight scenery suffers from jpeg artifacts. So what you're seeing isn't my
>fault! The screenshots are completely unretouched. All I've done is
>converted the bitmaps to jpegs. (The -ho suffix stands for Horizon, the -jf
>suffix for Just Flight.)
>
>MOEL EILIO
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/eilio-ho.jpg
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/eilio-jf.jpg
>
>Let's start by looking at two annoying problems I've noticed in the Just
>Flight scenery. The first can clearly be seen on the bottom left of the
>picture, jpeg artifacts! It seems that Just Flight have seen fit to
>over-compress their scenery. This probably makes it load faster but it looks
>quite nasty close up. It typically affects smooth grassy areas. The Horizon
>scenery looks much better, not pin sharp (you wouldn't expect it to be sharp
>this close to the ground), but a lot more detail can be seen in it.
>
>The second problem is the stepped effect that you can see clearly in the
>cliffs, which doesn't occur in the Horizon scenery. It's possibly caused by
>Just Flight using a 10m mesh as opposed to Horizon's 5m mesh. It doesn't
>occur everywhere, but it does in some places, and not just on cliffs.
>
>YR ELEN
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...r/yrelen-jf.jpg
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...r/yrelen-ho.jpg
>
>Another example of JF's jpeg artifacts and terrain "stepping" (background
>slope on right).
>
>MOEL Y DYNIEWYD
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...dyniewyd-ho.jpg
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...dyniewyd-jf.jpg
>
>This is a good example of the colour differences. The Horizon scenery is
>bright, saturated and contrasty, while the JF scenery is dull and flat with
>a greenish hue. The Horizon scenery does look somewhat garish in comparison,
>but remember that there's usually a certain amount of haze present in the
>flight sim which mutes the colours, so it doesn't usually look this bright.
>
>To be fair, many differences in the two sceneries are probably down to
>seasonal conditions. The JF scenery looks like it was photographed in summer
>(probably with haze present) while the Horizon scenery seems to have been
>photographed in autumn, probably September, in much clearer light. This
>helps to explain why the heather stands out so much more clearly. I chose
>this view specifically because the area is covered in heather.
>
>MOELWYNS SCENERY
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...moelwyns-ho.jpg
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...moelwyns-jf.jpg
>
>Here's another scene that illustrates the dramatic colour differences, again
>no doubt due to seasonal differences. You can see that the shadows are
>longer in the Horizon scenery, a disadvantage with shooting later in the
>year. The shadows are very dark too unfortunately.
>
>PEN YR OLE WEN
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...yrolewen-ho.jpg
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...yrolewen-jf.jpg
>
>Here's a good example of the advantages of Horizon's colour. Not only does
>it look better IMO, but you can see details more clearly. In particular,
>bogs stand out much more clearly. Notice the brownish areas in the bottom
>right of the image. This is very useful information when planning walks.
>
>Also notice the wall running across the face of Pen yr Ole Wen. It stands
>out clearly with Horizon but is barely visible in the JF version.
>
>FOEL GRON
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...foelgron-ho.jpg
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...foelgron-jf.jpg
>
>This shot shows a colour mismatch in the Horizon scenery. People have
>complained about this sort of thing in the JF scenery. The Horizon
>mismatches are more localised but they do occur.
>
>SNOWDON SUMMIT
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m.../snowdon-ho.jpg
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m.../snowdon-jf.jpg
>
>Now this one is nasty! The Horizon image is fine, but the JF scenery is
>awful. The summit image hasn't been properly aligned with the terrain mesh,
>so that the railway and the cafe have slid down the mountainside! The
>scenery over Crib y Ddysgl in the background is mis-aligned too. Not only
>that but the JF slopes suffer from terrible jpeg artifacts and stepping.
>Switch back and fore between the two images to compare what it should look
>like. JF should be embarrased to release this in a demo!
>
>Finally, I've installed both sceneries on top of one another, so here are
>some "split" shots where the two terrains meet:
>
>A general view:
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/split1.jpg
>
>Mynydd Mawr:
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/split2.jpg
>
>A close up of the slopes of Mynydd Mawr, showing the jpeg artifacts and
>stepping of the Just Flight scenery, and the very dark shadows of the
>Horizon scenery.
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/split3.jpg
>
>The upper Pennant Valley. This shows the seasonal differences very well.
>Notice how well the valley bogs stand out in the Horizon scenery, which they
>don't in JF.
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/split4.jpg
>
>A closer view. Again see how well the Horizon bogs stand out, and how naff
>the JF scenery looks with the jpeg artifacts.
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/split5.jpg
>
>Paul

No contest - Horizon's scenery is distinctly sharper and more
detailed. Partly due to those JPEG artifacts but presumably mainly the
different 'mesh' rating you mentioned before? The issue of colours is
not so clearcut, although again my personal preference is Horizon.
However, I could imagine some favouring Just Flight's more muted look.
And perhaps Horizon are a shade on the dark side? I'd also like to
know what colour the lakes appear in reality? Given a choice, I rather
like water to be blue!

This exercise got me looking at Memory-Map's 3D feature again. I'm not
yet comfortable with its navigation etc, but some initial comments
are:

- For 'walking assessment' I suppose it has the potential merit of
offering a strictly ground-based view. I can add a track and then fly
through it, to simulate what I'd see when walking that track. (Except
that my first trial was your Snowdon summit (snowdon-ho.jpg and
snowdon-jf.jpg) and inevitably it proved hopeless trying to emulate
your plane's viewpoint!)

- Using just the 3D World button, with no track previously added, I
can apparently fly around. (With restrictions that may be inherent or
due to my poor navigation skills.)

- On my PC at least, the quality of close scenery is awful, but
surprisingly more distant views look pretty good.
http://www.speedyshare.com/526631491.html

I also took a quick look at Google Earth in some of the areas covered
by your excellent screenshots. But generally the resolution was very
poor.
http://www.speedyshare.com/569772134.html

In contrast, of course, many areas of the UK do now have high res in
GE, and make it a useful tool in the present context.

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Terry Pinnell

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>I know some might consider this off-topic, but I'm not discussing the flight
>sim per se, I'm discussing the photo scenery, in the context of using it as
>an aid for planning walking trips by helping to familiarise yourself with
>the terrain before your trip. Currently (IMO) it's a better option than any
>of the alternatives, namely the 3D aerial photo views in Anquet, Memory Map,
>Google Earth etc.
>
>Myself and Terry Pinnell have been discussing this in the Active 10 GPS
>thread, but since it's gone OT there I thought it would be more appropriate
>to start a new thread, particularly for the benefit of anyone who may be
>interested in buying this scenery but weren't following the other thread. If
>so, I recommend you check myself and Terry's post in that thread for the
>last couple of days.
>
>Anyway, the big issue is whether to get the Just Flight scenery or the
>Horizon scenery. I've installed both demos for the Snowdonia area and have
>just taken some comparative screenshots so that you can see the difference
>between them. So that you can compare the scenery on its own merits I've
>turned weather off and set the time to midday, so as to prevent weather and
>lighting affecting the look of the scenery. Usually there'd be a least a
>light level of haze which tends to mute the colours somewhat.
>
>I've saved the jpegs at 90% quality so as not to introduce any new artifacts
>which will affect the comparisons. This was important because the Just
>Flight scenery suffers from jpeg artifacts. So what you're seeing isn't my
>fault! The screenshots are completely unretouched. All I've done is
>converted the bitmaps to jpegs. (The -ho suffix stands for Horizon, the -jf
>suffix for Just Flight.)
>
>MOEL EILIO
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/eilio-ho.jpg
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/eilio-jf.jpg
>
>Let's start by looking at two annoying problems I've noticed in the Just
>Flight scenery. The first can clearly be seen on the bottom left of the
>picture, jpeg artifacts! It seems that Just Flight have seen fit to
>over-compress their scenery. This probably makes it load faster but it looks
>quite nasty close up. It typically affects smooth grassy areas. The Horizon
>scenery looks much better, not pin sharp (you wouldn't expect it to be sharp
>this close to the ground), but a lot more detail can be seen in it.
>
>The second problem is the stepped effect that you can see clearly in the
>cliffs, which doesn't occur in the Horizon scenery. It's possibly caused by
>Just Flight using a 10m mesh as opposed to Horizon's 5m mesh. It doesn't
>occur everywhere, but it does in some places, and not just on cliffs.
>
>YR ELEN
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...r/yrelen-jf.jpg
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...r/yrelen-ho.jpg
>
>Another example of JF's jpeg artifacts and terrain "stepping" (background
>slope on right).
>
>MOEL Y DYNIEWYD
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...dyniewyd-ho.jpg
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...dyniewyd-jf.jpg
>
>This is a good example of the colour differences. The Horizon scenery is
>bright, saturated and contrasty, while the JF scenery is dull and flat with
>a greenish hue. The Horizon scenery does look somewhat garish in comparison,
>but remember that there's usually a certain amount of haze present in the
>flight sim which mutes the colours, so it doesn't usually look this bright.
>
>To be fair, many differences in the two sceneries are probably down to
>seasonal conditions. The JF scenery looks like it was photographed in summer
>(probably with haze present) while the Horizon scenery seems to have been
>photographed in autumn, probably September, in much clearer light. This
>helps to explain why the heather stands out so much more clearly. I chose
>this view specifically because the area is covered in heather.
>
>MOELWYNS SCENERY
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...moelwyns-ho.jpg
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...moelwyns-jf.jpg
>
>Here's another scene that illustrates the dramatic colour differences, again
>no doubt due to seasonal differences. You can see that the shadows are
>longer in the Horizon scenery, a disadvantage with shooting later in the
>year. The shadows are very dark too unfortunately.
>
>PEN YR OLE WEN
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...yrolewen-ho.jpg
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...yrolewen-jf.jpg
>
>Here's a good example of the advantages of Horizon's colour. Not only does
>it look better IMO, but you can see details more clearly. In particular,
>bogs stand out much more clearly. Notice the brownish areas in the bottom
>right of the image. This is very useful information when planning walks.
>
>Also notice the wall running across the face of Pen yr Ole Wen. It stands
>out clearly with Horizon but is barely visible in the JF version.
>
>FOEL GRON
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...foelgron-ho.jpg
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m...foelgron-jf.jpg
>
>This shot shows a colour mismatch in the Horizon scenery. People have
>complained about this sort of thing in the JF scenery. The Horizon
>mismatches are more localised but they do occur.
>
>SNOWDON SUMMIT
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m.../snowdon-ho.jpg
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/m.../snowdon-jf.jpg
>
>Now this one is nasty! The Horizon image is fine, but the JF scenery is
>awful. The summit image hasn't been properly aligned with the terrain mesh,
>so that the railway and the cafe have slid down the mountainside! The
>scenery over Crib y Ddysgl in the background is mis-aligned too. Not only
>that but the JF slopes suffer from terrible jpeg artifacts and stepping.
>Switch back and fore between the two images to compare what it should look
>like. JF should be embarrased to release this in a demo!
>
>Finally, I've installed both sceneries on top of one another, so here are
>some "split" shots where the two terrains meet:
>
>A general view:
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/split1.jpg
>
>Mynydd Mawr:
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/split2.jpg
>
>A close up of the slopes of Mynydd Mawr, showing the jpeg artifacts and
>stepping of the Just Flight scenery, and the very dark shadows of the
>Horizon scenery.
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/split3.jpg
>
>The upper Pennant Valley. This shows the seasonal differences very well.
>Notice how well the valley bogs stand out in the Horizon scenery, which they
>don't in JF.
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/split4.jpg
>
>A closer view. Again see how well the Horizon bogs stand out, and how naff
>the JF scenery looks with the jpeg artifacts.
>http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/vfr/split5.jpg
>
>Paul

No contest - Horizon's scenery is distinctly sharper and more
detailed. Partly due to those JPEG artifacts but presumably mainly the
different 'mesh' rating you mentioned before? The issue of colours is
not so clearcut, although again my personal preference is Horizon.
However, I could imagine some favouring Just Flight's more muted look.
And perhaps Horizon are a shade on the dark side? I'd also like to
know what colour the lakes appear in reality? Given a choice, I rather
like water to be blue!

This exercise got me looking at Memory-Map's 3D feature again. I'm not
yet comfortable with its navigation etc, but some initial comments
are:

- For 'walking assessment' I suppose it has the potential merit of
offering a strictly ground-based view. I can add a track and then fly
through it, to simulate what I'd see when walking that track. (Except
that my first trial was your Snowdon summit (snowdon-ho.jpg and
snowdon-jf.jpg) and inevitably it proved hopeless trying to emulate
your plane's viewpoint!)

- Using just the 3D World button, with no track previously added, I
can apparently fly around. (With restrictions that may be inherent or
due to my poor navigation skills.)

- On my PC at least, the quality of close scenery is awful, but
surprisingly more distant views look pretty good.
http://www.speedyshare.com/526631491.html

I also took a quick look at Google Earth in some of the areas covered
by your excellent screenshots. But generally the resolution was very
poor.
http://www.speedyshare.com/569772134.html

In contrast, of course, many areas of the UK do now have high res in
GE, and make it a useful tool in the present context.

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Paul Saunders

Terry Pinnell wrote:

> No contest - Horizon's scenery is distinctly sharper and more
> detailed. Partly due to those JPEG artifacts but presumably mainly the
> different 'mesh' rating you mentioned before?

Actually, I'm not sure if the mesh is causing that "stepping" effect after
all. I've got lower res meshes that don't exhibit that effect. Maybe the
terrain mesh came from lower res data and was upsampled, creating the
stepping through bad interpolation?

> The issue of colours is
> not so clearcut, although again my personal preference is Horizon.
> However, I could imagine some favouring Just Flight's more muted look.

As I've said, the weather effects tend to mute the Horizon scenery and makes
JF look even worse. I was flying around the JF demo areas yesterday in
cloudy/hazy weather and the look of the bland scenery got boring very
quickly.

> And perhaps Horizon are a shade on the dark side?

On the whole I'd say no, except for the dark shadows. Some cliff sides, like
on Crib Goch, are pure black so they lose all detail. But that's the
exception rather than the rule so I can live with that.

> I'd also like to
> know what colour the lakes appear in reality? Given a choice, I rather
> like water to be blue!

Don't forget, the JF scenery is using the new "real water" effects, but they
aren't included in the Horizon demo. They'll be added later though. The
colour of the water changes depending on the weather type. It tends to be
grey on overcast days, which it should be (although another of my addons may
be responsible for that),

> This exercise got me looking at Memory-Map's 3D feature again. I'm not
> yet comfortable with its navigation etc, but some initial comments
> are:
>
> - For 'walking assessment' I suppose it has the potential merit of
> offering a strictly ground-based view. I can add a track and then fly
> through it, to simulate what I'd see when walking that track.

Yes, that's a good feature.

> (Except
> that my first trial was your Snowdon summit (snowdon-ho.jpg and
> snowdon-jf.jpg) and inevitably it proved hopeless trying to emulate
> your plane's viewpoint!)
>
> - Using just the 3D World button, with no track previously added, I
> can apparently fly around. (With restrictions that may be inherent or
> due to my poor navigation skills.)

I think you can get close to my plane's viewpoint, but it's fiddly.

> - On my PC at least, the quality of close scenery is awful, but
> surprisingly more distant views look pretty good.
> http://www.speedyshare.com/526631491.html

Yeah, but as you say, the close up scenery is awful. That's the advantage of
high res scenery, for checking the existence of paths that are not shown on
the map and so on.

By the way, I think you've got vertical exaggeration switched on in that
screenshot.

> I also took a quick look at Google Earth in some of the areas covered
> by your excellent screenshots. But generally the resolution was very
> poor.
> http://www.speedyshare.com/569772134.html

Yeah, but the terrain mesh looks better than I remember.

> In contrast, of course, many areas of the UK do now have high res in
> GE, and make it a useful tool in the present context.

Yes some areas are excellent, the high res is good for finding spots to park
the car where nothing is indicated on the map.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/

Paul Saunders

Terry Pinnell wrote:

> No contest - Horizon's scenery is distinctly sharper and more
> detailed. Partly due to those JPEG artifacts but presumably mainly the
> different 'mesh' rating you mentioned before?

Actually, I'm not sure if the mesh is causing that "stepping" effect after
all. I've got lower res meshes that don't exhibit that effect. Maybe the
terrain mesh came from lower res data and was upsampled, creating the
stepping through bad interpolation?

> The issue of colours is
> not so clearcut, although again my personal preference is Horizon.
> However, I could imagine some favouring Just Flight's more muted look.

As I've said, the weather effects tend to mute the Horizon scenery and makes
JF look even worse. I was flying around the JF demo areas yesterday in
cloudy/hazy weather and the look of the bland scenery got boring very
quickly.

> And perhaps Horizon are a shade on the dark side?

On the whole I'd say no, except for the dark shadows. Some cliff sides, like
on Crib Goch, are pure black so they lose all detail. But that's the
exception rather than the rule so I can live with that.

> I'd also like to
> know what colour the lakes appear in reality? Given a choice, I rather
> like water to be blue!

Don't forget, the JF scenery is using the new "real water" effects, but they
aren't included in the Horizon demo. They'll be added later though. The
colour of the water changes depending on the weather type. It tends to be
grey on overcast days, which it should be (although another of my addons may
be responsible for that),

> This exercise got me looking at Memory-Map's 3D feature again. I'm not
> yet comfortable with its navigation etc, but some initial comments
> are:
>
> - For 'walking assessment' I suppose it has the potential merit of
> offering a strictly ground-based view. I can add a track and then fly
> through it, to simulate what I'd see when walking that track.

Yes, that's a good feature.

> (Except
> that my first trial was your Snowdon summit (snowdon-ho.jpg and
> snowdon-jf.jpg) and inevitably it proved hopeless trying to emulate
> your plane's viewpoint!)
>
> - Using just the 3D World button, with no track previously added, I
> can apparently fly around. (With restrictions that may be inherent or
> due to my poor navigation skills.)

I think you can get close to my plane's viewpoint, but it's fiddly.

> - On my PC at least, the quality of close scenery is awful, but
> surprisingly more distant views look pretty good.
> http://www.speedyshare.com/526631491.html

Yeah, but as you say, the close up scenery is awful. That's the advantage of
high res scenery, for checking the existence of paths that are not shown on
the map and so on.

By the way, I think you've got vertical exaggeration switched on in that
screenshot.

> I also took a quick look at Google Earth in some of the areas covered
> by your excellent screenshots. But generally the resolution was very
> poor.
> http://www.speedyshare.com/569772134.html

Yeah, but the terrain mesh looks better than I remember.

> In contrast, of course, many areas of the UK do now have high res in
> GE, and make it a useful tool in the present context.

Yes some areas are excellent, the high res is good for finding spots to park
the car where nothing is indicated on the map.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/

Paul Saunders

Terry Pinnell wrote:

> No contest - Horizon's scenery is distinctly sharper and more
> detailed. Partly due to those JPEG artifacts but presumably mainly the
> different 'mesh' rating you mentioned before?

Actually, I'm not sure if the mesh is causing that "stepping" effect after
all. I've got lower res meshes that don't exhibit that effect. Maybe the
terrain mesh came from lower res data and was upsampled, creating the
stepping through bad interpolation?

> The issue of colours is
> not so clearcut, although again my personal preference is Horizon.
> However, I could imagine some favouring Just Flight's more muted look.

As I've said, the weather effects tend to mute the Horizon scenery and makes
JF look even worse. I was flying around the JF demo areas yesterday in
cloudy/hazy weather and the look of the bland scenery got boring very
quickly.

> And perhaps Horizon are a shade on the dark side?

On the whole I'd say no, except for the dark shadows. Some cliff sides, like
on Crib Goch, are pure black so they lose all detail. But that's the
exception rather than the rule so I can live with that.

> I'd also like to
> know what colour the lakes appear in reality? Given a choice, I rather
> like water to be blue!

Don't forget, the JF scenery is using the new "real water" effects, but they
aren't included in the Horizon demo. They'll be added later though. The
colour of the water changes depending on the weather type. It tends to be
grey on overcast days, which it should be (although another of my addons may
be responsible for that),

> This exercise got me looking at Memory-Map's 3D feature again. I'm not
> yet comfortable with its navigation etc, but some initial comments
> are:
>
> - For 'walking assessment' I suppose it has the potential merit of
> offering a strictly ground-based view. I can add a track and then fly
> through it, to simulate what I'd see when walking that track.

Yes, that's a good feature.

> (Except
> that my first trial was your Snowdon summit (snowdon-ho.jpg and
> snowdon-jf.jpg) and inevitably it proved hopeless trying to emulate
> your plane's viewpoint!)
>
> - Using just the 3D World button, with no track previously added, I
> can apparently fly around. (With restrictions that may be inherent or
> due to my poor navigation skills.)

I think you can get close to my plane's viewpoint, but it's fiddly.

> - On my PC at least, the quality of close scenery is awful, but
> surprisingly more distant views look pretty good.
> http://www.speedyshare.com/526631491.html

Yeah, but as you say, the close up scenery is awful. That's the advantage of
high res scenery, for checking the existence of paths that are not shown on
the map and so on.

By the way, I think you've got vertical exaggeration switched on in that
screenshot.

> I also took a quick look at Google Earth in some of the areas covered
> by your excellent screenshots. But generally the resolution was very
> poor.
> http://www.speedyshare.com/569772134.html

Yeah, but the terrain mesh looks better than I remember.

> In contrast, of course, many areas of the UK do now have high res in
> GE, and make it a useful tool in the present context.

Yes some areas are excellent, the high res is good for finding spots to park
the car where nothing is indicated on the map.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/

Paul Saunders

Terry Pinnell wrote:

> No contest - Horizon's scenery is distinctly sharper and more
> detailed. Partly due to those JPEG artifacts but presumably mainly the
> different 'mesh' rating you mentioned before?

Actually, I'm not sure if the mesh is causing that "stepping" effect after
all. I've got lower res meshes that don't exhibit that effect. Maybe the
terrain mesh came from lower res data and was upsampled, creating the
stepping through bad interpolation?

> The issue of colours is
> not so clearcut, although again my personal preference is Horizon.
> However, I could imagine some favouring Just Flight's more muted look.

As I've said, the weather effects tend to mute the Horizon scenery and makes
JF look even worse. I was flying around the JF demo areas yesterday in
cloudy/hazy weather and the look of the bland scenery got boring very
quickly.

> And perhaps Horizon are a shade on the dark side?

On the whole I'd say no, except for the dark shadows. Some cliff sides, like
on Crib Goch, are pure black so they lose all detail. But that's the
exception rather than the rule so I can live with that.

> I'd also like to
> know what colour the lakes appear in reality? Given a choice, I rather
> like water to be blue!

Don't forget, the JF scenery is using the new "real water" effects, but they
aren't included in the Horizon demo. They'll be added later though. The
colour of the water changes depending on the weather type. It tends to be
grey on overcast days, which it should be (although another of my addons may
be responsible for that),

> This exercise got me looking at Memory-Map's 3D feature again. I'm not
> yet comfortable with its navigation etc, but some initial comments
> are:
>
> - For 'walking assessment' I suppose it has the potential merit of
> offering a strictly ground-based view. I can add a track and then fly
> through it, to simulate what I'd see when walking that track.

Yes, that's a good feature.

> (Except
> that my first trial was your Snowdon summit (snowdon-ho.jpg and
> snowdon-jf.jpg) and inevitably it proved hopeless trying to emulate
> your plane's viewpoint!)
>
> - Using just the 3D World button, with no track previously added, I
> can apparently fly around. (With restrictions that may be inherent or
> due to my poor navigation skills.)

I think you can get close to my plane's viewpoint, but it's fiddly.

> - On my PC at least, the quality of close scenery is awful, but
> surprisingly more distant views look pretty good.
> http://www.speedyshare.com/526631491.html

Yeah, but as you say, the close up scenery is awful. That's the advantage of
high res scenery, for checking the existence of paths that are not shown on
the map and so on.

By the way, I think you've got vertical exaggeration switched on in that
screenshot.

> I also took a quick look at Google Earth in some of the areas covered
> by your excellent screenshots. But generally the resolution was very
> poor.
> http://www.speedyshare.com/569772134.html

Yeah, but the terrain mesh looks better than I remember.

> In contrast, of course, many areas of the UK do now have high res in
> GE, and make it a useful tool in the present context.

Yes some areas are excellent, the high res is good for finding spots to park
the car where nothing is indicated on the map.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/

Terry Pinnell

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>Terry Pinnell wrote:
>
>> No contest - Horizon's scenery is distinctly sharper and more
>> detailed. Partly due to those JPEG artifacts but presumably mainly the
>> different 'mesh' rating you mentioned before?
>
>Actually, I'm not sure if the mesh is causing that "stepping" effect after
>all. I've got lower res meshes that don't exhibit that effect. Maybe the
>terrain mesh came from lower res data and was upsampled, creating the
>stepping through bad interpolation?
>
>> The issue of colours is
>> not so clearcut, although again my personal preference is Horizon.
>> However, I could imagine some favouring Just Flight's more muted look.
>
>As I've said, the weather effects tend to mute the Horizon scenery and makes
>JF look even worse. I was flying around the JF demo areas yesterday in
>cloudy/hazy weather and the look of the bland scenery got boring very
>quickly.
>
>> And perhaps Horizon are a shade on the dark side?
>
>On the whole I'd say no, except for the dark shadows. Some cliff sides, like
>on Crib Goch, are pure black so they lose all detail. But that's the
>exception rather than the rule so I can live with that.
>
>> I'd also like to
>> know what colour the lakes appear in reality? Given a choice, I rather
>> like water to be blue!
>
>Don't forget, the JF scenery is using the new "real water" effects, but they
>aren't included in the Horizon demo. They'll be added later though. The
>colour of the water changes depending on the weather type. It tends to be
>grey on overcast days, which it should be (although another of my addons may
>be responsible for that),
>
>> This exercise got me looking at Memory-Map's 3D feature again. I'm not
>> yet comfortable with its navigation etc, but some initial comments
>> are:
>>
>> - For 'walking assessment' I suppose it has the potential merit of
>> offering a strictly ground-based view. I can add a track and then fly
>> through it, to simulate what I'd see when walking that track.
>
>Yes, that's a good feature.
>
>> (Except
>> that my first trial was your Snowdon summit (snowdon-ho.jpg and
>> snowdon-jf.jpg) and inevitably it proved hopeless trying to emulate
>> your plane's viewpoint!)
>>
>> - Using just the 3D World button, with no track previously added, I
>> can apparently fly around. (With restrictions that may be inherent or
>> due to my poor navigation skills.)
>
>I think you can get close to my plane's viewpoint, but it's fiddly.

This is the best I've managed from Memory-Map:
http://www.speedyshare.com/640828567.html


>> - On my PC at least, the quality of close scenery is awful, but
>> surprisingly more distant views look pretty good.
>> http://www.speedyshare.com/526631491.html
>
>Yeah, but as you say, the close up scenery is awful. That's the advantage of
>high res scenery, for checking the existence of paths that are not shown on
>the map and so on.
>
>By the way, I think you've got vertical exaggeration switched on in that
>screenshot.

Yes, well spotted, I realised afterwards that it was set at 2.0.

>> I also took a quick look at Google Earth in some of the areas covered
>> by your excellent screenshots. But generally the resolution was very
>> poor.
>> http://www.speedyshare.com/569772134.html
>
>Yeah, but the terrain mesh looks better than I remember.

It's very good overall, but occasionally you get a shock, like the
Colorado flowing up the walls of the Grand Canyon!

>> In contrast, of course, many areas of the UK do now have high res in
>> GE, and make it a useful tool in the present context.
>
>Yes some areas are excellent, the high res is good for finding spots to park
>the car where nothing is indicated on the map.
>
>Paul

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Terry Pinnell

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>Terry Pinnell wrote:
>
>> No contest - Horizon's scenery is distinctly sharper and more
>> detailed. Partly due to those JPEG artifacts but presumably mainly the
>> different 'mesh' rating you mentioned before?
>
>Actually, I'm not sure if the mesh is causing that "stepping" effect after
>all. I've got lower res meshes that don't exhibit that effect. Maybe the
>terrain mesh came from lower res data and was upsampled, creating the
>stepping through bad interpolation?
>
>> The issue of colours is
>> not so clearcut, although again my personal preference is Horizon.
>> However, I could imagine some favouring Just Flight's more muted look.
>
>As I've said, the weather effects tend to mute the Horizon scenery and makes
>JF look even worse. I was flying around the JF demo areas yesterday in
>cloudy/hazy weather and the look of the bland scenery got boring very
>quickly.
>
>> And perhaps Horizon are a shade on the dark side?
>
>On the whole I'd say no, except for the dark shadows. Some cliff sides, like
>on Crib Goch, are pure black so they lose all detail. But that's the
>exception rather than the rule so I can live with that.
>
>> I'd also like to
>> know what colour the lakes appear in reality? Given a choice, I rather
>> like water to be blue!
>
>Don't forget, the JF scenery is using the new "real water" effects, but they
>aren't included in the Horizon demo. They'll be added later though. The
>colour of the water changes depending on the weather type. It tends to be
>grey on overcast days, which it should be (although another of my addons may
>be responsible for that),
>
>> This exercise got me looking at Memory-Map's 3D feature again. I'm not
>> yet comfortable with its navigation etc, but some initial comments
>> are:
>>
>> - For 'walking assessment' I suppose it has the potential merit of
>> offering a strictly ground-based view. I can add a track and then fly
>> through it, to simulate what I'd see when walking that track.
>
>Yes, that's a good feature.
>
>> (Except
>> that my first trial was your Snowdon summit (snowdon-ho.jpg and
>> snowdon-jf.jpg) and inevitably it proved hopeless trying to emulate
>> your plane's viewpoint!)
>>
>> - Using just the 3D World button, with no track previously added, I
>> can apparently fly around. (With restrictions that may be inherent or
>> due to my poor navigation skills.)
>
>I think you can get close to my plane's viewpoint, but it's fiddly.

This is the best I've managed from Memory-Map:
http://www.speedyshare.com/640828567.html


>> - On my PC at least, the quality of close scenery is awful, but
>> surprisingly more distant views look pretty good.
>> http://www.speedyshare.com/526631491.html
>
>Yeah, but as you say, the close up scenery is awful. That's the advantage of
>high res scenery, for checking the existence of paths that are not shown on
>the map and so on.
>
>By the way, I think you've got vertical exaggeration switched on in that
>screenshot.

Yes, well spotted, I realised afterwards that it was set at 2.0.

>> I also took a quick look at Google Earth in some of the areas covered
>> by your excellent screenshots. But generally the resolution was very
>> poor.
>> http://www.speedyshare.com/569772134.html
>
>Yeah, but the terrain mesh looks better than I remember.

It's very good overall, but occasionally you get a shock, like the
Colorado flowing up the walls of the Grand Canyon!

>> In contrast, of course, many areas of the UK do now have high res in
>> GE, and make it a useful tool in the present context.
>
>Yes some areas are excellent, the high res is good for finding spots to park
>the car where nothing is indicated on the map.
>
>Paul

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Terry Pinnell

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>Terry Pinnell wrote:
>
>> No contest - Horizon's scenery is distinctly sharper and more
>> detailed. Partly due to those JPEG artifacts but presumably mainly the
>> different 'mesh' rating you mentioned before?
>
>Actually, I'm not sure if the mesh is causing that "stepping" effect after
>all. I've got lower res meshes that don't exhibit that effect. Maybe the
>terrain mesh came from lower res data and was upsampled, creating the
>stepping through bad interpolation?
>
>> The issue of colours is
>> not so clearcut, although again my personal preference is Horizon.
>> However, I could imagine some favouring Just Flight's more muted look.
>
>As I've said, the weather effects tend to mute the Horizon scenery and makes
>JF look even worse. I was flying around the JF demo areas yesterday in
>cloudy/hazy weather and the look of the bland scenery got boring very
>quickly.
>
>> And perhaps Horizon are a shade on the dark side?
>
>On the whole I'd say no, except for the dark shadows. Some cliff sides, like
>on Crib Goch, are pure black so they lose all detail. But that's the
>exception rather than the rule so I can live with that.
>
>> I'd also like to
>> know what colour the lakes appear in reality? Given a choice, I rather
>> like water to be blue!
>
>Don't forget, the JF scenery is using the new "real water" effects, but they
>aren't included in the Horizon demo. They'll be added later though. The
>colour of the water changes depending on the weather type. It tends to be
>grey on overcast days, which it should be (although another of my addons may
>be responsible for that),
>
>> This exercise got me looking at Memory-Map's 3D feature again. I'm not
>> yet comfortable with its navigation etc, but some initial comments
>> are:
>>
>> - For 'walking assessment' I suppose it has the potential merit of
>> offering a strictly ground-based view. I can add a track and then fly
>> through it, to simulate what I'd see when walking that track.
>
>Yes, that's a good feature.
>
>> (Except
>> that my first trial was your Snowdon summit (snowdon-ho.jpg and
>> snowdon-jf.jpg) and inevitably it proved hopeless trying to emulate
>> your plane's viewpoint!)
>>
>> - Using just the 3D World button, with no track previously added, I
>> can apparently fly around. (With restrictions that may be inherent or
>> due to my poor navigation skills.)
>
>I think you can get close to my plane's viewpoint, but it's fiddly.

This is the best I've managed from Memory-Map:
http://www.speedyshare.com/640828567.html


>> - On my PC at least, the quality of close scenery is awful, but
>> surprisingly more distant views look pretty good.
>> http://www.speedyshare.com/526631491.html
>
>Yeah, but as you say, the close up scenery is awful. That's the advantage of
>high res scenery, for checking the existence of paths that are not shown on
>the map and so on.
>
>By the way, I think you've got vertical exaggeration switched on in that
>screenshot.

Yes, well spotted, I realised afterwards that it was set at 2.0.

>> I also took a quick look at Google Earth in some of the areas covered
>> by your excellent screenshots. But generally the resolution was very
>> poor.
>> http://www.speedyshare.com/569772134.html
>
>Yeah, but the terrain mesh looks better than I remember.

It's very good overall, but occasionally you get a shock, like the
Colorado flowing up the walls of the Grand Canyon!

>> In contrast, of course, many areas of the UK do now have high res in
>> GE, and make it a useful tool in the present context.
>
>Yes some areas are excellent, the high res is good for finding spots to park
>the car where nothing is indicated on the map.
>
>Paul

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK