Low level / terrains following flying > Vanilla tiles vs. photorealistic
-
Hi!
No, not the beauty is meant. What I’m asḱing for is, if you can better fly low level (terrain following) with the vanilla tiles, or with photorealistic?
IMO I can do better with the vanilla tiles, because it is more contrast. Esp. over forrest… (pr-tiles in my case Tom’s korea-2015).
Greeting
Earlybite -
To me, it is not a question of photo realistic or “baked” type terrain. It it about elevations and realistic terrain @ altitude. For instance, at low level, everything from trees to telephone poles are different at altitudes, either way you have to adjust for different elevations at low level flight.
Since fbms does not model vlt (very low terrain) we do not have to worry about low level flying. Modeling low level terrain would take a very powerful computer to produce with fps. But the future could provide a means of producing such terrain detail. Its about elevations and what fbms can handle.
-
Well I understand the point your trying to make, but I cant say I have done a lot on the enhanced tiles.
The only comment I can make is I seem to be able to judge reasonable well over default water tiles, probably because of their consistency & definition.
It would help if there was a better implementation of shadows I think.
-
It would help if there was a better implementation of shadows I think.
We have enough shadows around……LOL
C9