England & Wales Photo Scenery for FSX

Theo

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> schreef in bericht
news:_bKdnSdE-J9NGa7anZ2dnUVZ8sijnZ2d@pipex.net...
>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.

Is there a Scotland Photo Scenery ?

--
"Beannachd leibh"

Theo
www.theosphotos.fotopic.net

Theo

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> schreef in bericht
news:_bKdnSdE-J9NGa7anZ2dnUVZ8sijnZ2d@pipex.net...
>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.

Is there a Scotland Photo Scenery ?

--
"Beannachd leibh"

Theo
www.theosphotos.fotopic.net

Terry Pinnell

"Theo" <TheoGeenSpam@planet.nl> wrote:

>
>"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> schreef in bericht
>news:_bKdnSdE-J9NGa7anZ2dnUVZ8sijnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>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.
>
>Is there a Scotland Photo Scenery ?

Apparently not. In his post
news:zNidnZeVNONxZ6zanZ2dnUVZ8selnZ2d@pipex.net
Paul said "Only England and Wales are covered unfortunately, not
Scotland."

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Terry Pinnell

"Theo" <TheoGeenSpam@planet.nl> wrote:

>
>"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> schreef in bericht
>news:_bKdnSdE-J9NGa7anZ2dnUVZ8sijnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>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.
>
>Is there a Scotland Photo Scenery ?

Apparently not. In his post
news:zNidnZeVNONxZ6zanZ2dnUVZ8selnZ2d@pipex.net
Paul said "Only England and Wales are covered unfortunately, not
Scotland."

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Terry Pinnell

"Theo" <TheoGeenSpam@planet.nl> wrote:

>
>"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> schreef in bericht
>news:_bKdnSdE-J9NGa7anZ2dnUVZ8sijnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>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.
>
>Is there a Scotland Photo Scenery ?

Apparently not. In his post
news:zNidnZeVNONxZ6zanZ2dnUVZ8selnZ2d@pipex.net
Paul said "Only England and Wales are covered unfortunately, not
Scotland."

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Terry Pinnell

"Theo" <TheoGeenSpam@planet.nl> wrote:

>
>"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> schreef in bericht
>news:_bKdnSdE-J9NGa7anZ2dnUVZ8sijnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>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.
>
>Is there a Scotland Photo Scenery ?

Apparently not. In his post
news:zNidnZeVNONxZ6zanZ2dnUVZ8selnZ2d@pipex.net
Paul said "Only England and Wales are covered unfortunately, not
Scotland."

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Paul Saunders

Terry Pinnell wrote:

>>> 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.

A quote from the manual, which confirms what I previously said about the
haze muting the colours:

"Also of important note is that the colouration of the photographic scenery
provided with VFR Generation X is optimised for visibility settings
appropriate to the UK. Therefore, using unlimited visibility, as well as
adversely affecting frame rates, will make the colouration of the
photographic scenery unrealistically rich and bright."

However, their assertion that "visibility will rarely exceed 20 miles in
this part of the world" is way off! I can usually see the whole of Gower
from Fan Brycheiniog, which is about 40 miles, and I can often see Lundy
Island from there on a clear day, which must be at least 60 miles away.

However, they are correct in saying that lowering the visiblity improves
frame rates, since it doesn't have to load in so much scenery at a time.
It's not a problem with my new computer, but sometimes I do enjoy flying in
very low visibility, sometimes as low as 5 miles.

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

Yeah, that's not bad at all. You can see the horrible pixelisation though.
You get a similar effect in the flight sim (although not nearly as bad) with
anti-aliasing turned off, but when it's turned on it smooths out the jaggies
nicely, especially in the distance.

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

Yeah, that's a common effect with poor terrain meshes, you see that with
lower res meshes in flight sim.

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:
>
>>>> 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.
>
>A quote from the manual, which confirms what I previously said about the
>haze muting the colours:
>
>"Also of important note is that the colouration of the photographic scenery
>provided with VFR Generation X is optimised for visibility settings
>appropriate to the UK. Therefore, using unlimited visibility, as well as
>adversely affecting frame rates, will make the colouration of the
>photographic scenery unrealistically rich and bright."
>
>However, their assertion that "visibility will rarely exceed 20 miles in
>this part of the world" is way off! I can usually see the whole of Gower
>from Fan Brycheiniog, which is about 40 miles, and I can often see Lundy
>Island from there on a clear day, which must be at least 60 miles away.
>
>However, they are correct in saying that lowering the visiblity improves
>frame rates, since it doesn't have to load in so much scenery at a time.
>It's not a problem with my new computer, but sometimes I do enjoy flying in
>very low visibility, sometimes as low as 5 miles.
>
>> This is the best I've managed from Memory-Map:
>> http://www.speedyshare.com/640828567.html
>
>Yeah, that's not bad at all. You can see the horrible pixelisation though.
>You get a similar effect in the flight sim (although not nearly as bad) with
>anti-aliasing turned off, but when it's turned on it smooths out the jaggies
>nicely, especially in the distance.
>
>> It's very good overall, but occasionally you get a shock, like the
>> Colorado flowing up the walls of the Grand Canyon!
>
>Yeah, that's a common effect with poor terrain meshes, you see that with
>lower res meshes in flight sim.

I find this whole subject of using the PC to preview and (post-view)
walks engrossing. From your examples, I think FSX looks brilliant in
that context. However, I'm guessing it's OTT for many. Unless you're
already into gaming (I'm not) and have a very powerful gaming PC (with
top notch graphics card and some 400+ GB HD), I suspect FSX might
disappoint.

At a more modest level, there's a lot to be said for both Google Earth
and Memory-Map's facilities for this application. I assume Anquet,
Tracklogs, and others, none of which I have, may be similar?

I've been experimenting with this and have a few more examples. But
before I upload/describe them I'm wondering if I'd better start a new
thread? What do you think? Actually, I'm also wondering if there's any
wider interest in the subject anyway, as this thread so far seems
pretty quiet.

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Paul Saunders

Terry Pinnell wrote:

> I find this whole subject of using the PC to preview and (post-view)
> walks engrossing. From your examples, I think FSX looks brilliant in
> that context. However, I'm guessing it's OTT for many.

Quite possibly.

> Unless you're already into gaming (I'm not)

Technically it's not a game, it's a proper simulation. You can learn a lot
about real flying from it, and many trainee pilots use it for just that
purpose. I've heard that a helicopter search and rescue team in New Zealand
use it for getting to know the terrain before setting off on missions. In
fact, it's even got me interested in taking flying lessons, when I can
afford it.

> and have a very powerful gaming PC (with
> top notch graphics card and some 400+ GB HD), I suspect FSX might
> disappoint.

Probably. Powerful PCs aren't that expensive nowadays though, mine only cost
just over £500 and FSX runs great on it. It's the people who are still using
5 year old computers that will have the problems!

> At a more modest level, there's a lot to be said for both Google Earth
> and Memory-Map's facilities for this application. I assume Anquet,
> Tracklogs, and others, none of which I have, may be similar?

I've never been impressed with Google earth for accurate 3D topography, but
it may have improved since I last used it. Also, the areas that interest me
most, i.e. Wales, has very poor resolution at the moment.

Yes Anquet and others are similar to Memory Map. I find Anquet's 3D
navigation much easier to use, but the resolution isn't very good up close.
For an overview of an area, MM and Anquet are great, but it's the fine
detail that lets them down. That's where FSX wins. I can now search for
faint paths, identify bogs and rocky outcrops, and even use it to search for
potential camp sites. I was flying over a horrible boggy area in the
Moelwyns recently, trying to figure out the best route across or around it,
but the jury's still out on that one.

> I've been experimenting with this and have a few more examples. But
> before I upload/describe them I'm wondering if I'd better start a new
> thread? What do you think? Actually, I'm also wondering if there's any
> wider interest in the subject anyway, as this thread so far seems
> pretty quiet.

Up to you if you want to start a new thread. I suspect many people are
ignoring it because they think we're talking about a flight sim.

I'm sure a lot of people here are interested in MM, Anquet etc, but from
previous discussions it seems that many think the whole 3D thing is a
gimmick and they don't use it. If you want to start a wider discussion,
don't mention FSX in the title of the thread! Start with MM and slip FSX in
later...

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

Paul Saunders

Theo wrote:

> Is there a Scotland Photo Scenery ?

Unfortunately no. You'd think that in a country as technologically advanced
as the UK, with such a large population and such excellent maps, that
there'd be photo scenery of Scotland available by now. I'm baffled as to why
there isn't. And it's not just the flight sim, it's not available at all.

Yet they use aerial photos to make the maps don't they?

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

Paul Saunders

One more thing. The scenery includes night lighting (lights from buildings
and cars). I only recently tried flying at night with it. With the previous
photo scenery night flights were awful since the scenery was pure black, no
reference points at all. However this new scenery is highly flyable at
night. You have to fly quite low to see the lights clearly, higher up they
fade away, but I suppose that's realistic.

If anything though, I think the night scenery may be a little too bright and
the night lights too dim, you'd be able to see the night lighting more
clearly if the scenery were darker. I suppose it's comparable to a very
bright moonlit night, but I was flying with no moon! At least night flying
is practical now though, which is a big improvement.

The placement of the lights is a bit strange though. There are some lights
in very odd places. For example, there are some lights scattered around the
mountain edges near roads. In some cases this might be a farmhouse or
something, but I've seen some on cliff edges! Are these the head torches of
benighted climbers?

There's a large cluster of lights around Pen y Gwryd, are they having a big
party there?

Also, there are loads of lights heading up the bottom of the Watking path on
Snowdon. At first I thought it might be hordes of walkers making a really
early start on the Three Peaks Challenge! But then I noticed quite a few
lights in the river nearby, so perhaps it's a huge MRT rescue mission to get
to the walkers who've fallen in the river! ;-)

In spite of these oddities, the night lighting is still pretty cool. Of
course, you wouldn't normally fly at night if you just want to look at the
scenery, but I often fly at sunset, partly because the sunset effects are so
cool, partly also because as a photographer I like to see which bits of the
scenery are lit up and which are in shadow at that time of day, so that I
can plan my own sunset photos there. But it was always a big disappointment
when the sun went below the horizon and the scenery went completely black.
But not any more, it's still viewable and enjoyable after sunset now.

Another thing, FSX has introduced moving traffic on motorways. Okay it's a
bit gimmicky, but it does look pretty cool. More to the point, at night the
traffic has lights, making it easy to follow the M4 at night! (There's
another addon which puts cars on all major roads, and it works with the
photo scenery too, so that will be cool, if not strictly necessary.)

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

Terry Pinnell

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

>One more thing. The scenery includes night lighting (lights from buildings
>and cars). I only recently tried flying at night with it. With the previous
>photo scenery night flights were awful since the scenery was pure black, no
>reference points at all. However this new scenery is highly flyable at
>night. You have to fly quite low to see the lights clearly, higher up they
>fade away, but I suppose that's realistic.
>
>If anything though, I think the night scenery may be a little too bright and
>the night lights too dim, you'd be able to see the night lighting more
>clearly if the scenery were darker. I suppose it's comparable to a very
>bright moonlit night, but I was flying with no moon! At least night flying
>is practical now though, which is a big improvement.
>
>The placement of the lights is a bit strange though. There are some lights
>in very odd places. For example, there are some lights scattered around the
>mountain edges near roads. In some cases this might be a farmhouse or
>something, but I've seen some on cliff edges! Are these the head torches of
>benighted climbers?
>
>There's a large cluster of lights around Pen y Gwryd, are they having a big
>party there?
>
>Also, there are loads of lights heading up the bottom of the Watking path on
>Snowdon. At first I thought it might be hordes of walkers making a really
>early start on the Three Peaks Challenge! But then I noticed quite a few
>lights in the river nearby, so perhaps it's a huge MRT rescue mission to get
>to the walkers who've fallen in the river! ;-)
>
>In spite of these oddities, the night lighting is still pretty cool. Of
>course, you wouldn't normally fly at night if you just want to look at the
>scenery, but I often fly at sunset, partly because the sunset effects are so
>cool, partly also because as a photographer I like to see which bits of the
>scenery are lit up and which are in shadow at that time of day, so that I
>can plan my own sunset photos there. But it was always a big disappointment
>when the sun went below the horizon and the scenery went completely black.
>But not any more, it's still viewable and enjoyable after sunset now.
>
>Another thing, FSX has introduced moving traffic on motorways. Okay it's a
>bit gimmicky, but it does look pretty cool. More to the point, at night the
>traffic has lights, making it easy to follow the M4 at night! (There's
>another addon which puts cars on all major roads, and it works with the
>photo scenery too, so that will be cool, if not strictly necessary.)
>

I think both night views and 'active' scenery would be great fun. They
were two of the main features that attracted me in the demos.

Can you fly to a point in daylight, view the scenery from there (with
no plane and no cockpit), and *then* switch to night mode to see what
the view looks like at night? Or must you get there by moonlight?

--
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Bill Grey

In message <igrgj3tfgma1urd5lqkebdh4jq1pkbump4@4ax.com>, Terry Pinnell
<terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> writes
>I find this whole subject of using the PC to preview and (post-view)
>walks engrossing.

......but for some it is far cosier than actually getting out :-)
--
Bill Grey

Paul Saunders

Terry Pinnell wrote:

> I think both night views and 'active' scenery would be great fun. They
> were two of the main features that attracted me in the demos.

Did it run okay on your computer?

> Can you fly to a point in daylight, view the scenery from there (with
> no plane and no cockpit), and *then* switch to night mode to see what
> the view looks like at night? Or must you get there by moonlight?

You can change the time of day at any time. That's handy if you park your
plane (or helicopter) on top of a summit or other viewpoint, then want to
check what it looks like at different times of day. You can change the
weather in an instant too.

Also, although you have to start every flight from an airport, you can
switch to the map screen at any time and move your plane to a different
location, which is the quick way to get somewhere which is a long way from
any airports.

Another useful option is that you can change the speed of the simulation, so
you can increase the speed to turn your microlight into a high speed jet, or
alternatively, decrease the speed of your jet to savour an interesting bit
of scenery. Or you can just pause it of course.

I like the spot view best (behind the plane) because when you use the hat
control you can pan around and look in any direction. One good way of doing
it is to put the plane on autopilot and forget about the flying completely,
while you pan around and look at the scenery. Of course, you are limited to
a single direction if you do that, or to the flight plan if you've created
one and locked the nav to the GPS.

I'll mention FSDiscover! again. With normal flight planning you are
restricted to using airports and fixed navigation points, which is fine for
normal flying but a bit limited for scenic viewing. But with FSDiscover you
can create flight plans to visit any named point. So with a UK summit list
loaded (if anyone wants a copy of mine, email me) you can set the plane to
fly to any peaks you like, and just use the spot view to pan around while
the plane flies itself.

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