Tiles from highest res sat map, makes this sence?
-
Earlybite,
for a correct scaling I would land there and park next to a car. Look from above and 4 and a half car should be the length of the F16.
Being too far from an object (like flying over the building is not precise because of the FOV dependency).
Perhaps someone has a better idea?On which highway?
-
Higher detail terrain would really help that one.
I noted that FSX has a good sense of altitude and speed, so I did a flight from Kunsan to Seosan twice - once in FSX flying an Evektor Sportstar, and once in BMS flying a block 40.
FSX had a good sense of altitude, and speed. My god the Sportstar is slow compared to the Viper! It took me 53 minutes to do it in FSX… it took 7 in BMS, and I was NOT in a hurry either!
Flying it in BMS, I could see SOME of the terrain details from FSX, but not very many… FSX has a lot of small hills along the coast between the two bases. The weather was also a lot more interesting.
BMS was a lot flatter obviously, and with less terrain detail.
The thing that surprised me the most was the airbases though! BMS kicks the shit out of FSX’ default airbases it seems. Kunsan had a couple buildings, but mostly it was just flat taxiways, mostly in the right spot.
Haemi on the other hand, was two parallel runways… and NOTHING ELSE. No taxiways, no buildings, nothing…
The real sense of altitude is missing even in FSX and Prepar3D. Maybe X-plane 10 has better (never tested myself). What I can see is google earth, try the option “Use photorealistic rendering”.
-
Bing maps do not have brackets for the range (e.g. 20m, 50m, etc.). But Google maps has and also Here maps. And especially Here maps has great brackets. When I take the pixels (e.g. 40px = 10m) I do not know if I get the px from inside the bracket, or from outside.
The reason is, that I still do not know from which map I shall take the pictures, Bing, Google, Here (, any others?).
In my understanding I could use all of them, because it will not be a commercial using, even by sharing here…sat maps are not accurate enough in their positioning for you to be able to make a pixels to meters conversion that holds true. The bracket is considered to have a width of 0 px by the software.
Pretty sure Googles data specifically, you may not use at all.
If the data is under a CC-BY-NC license (googles is not) then so long as you are not making money from it, and so long as you provide attribution, you can use the stuff.
Googles data is under a MUCH more restrictive license. The guy making GMap kept getting cease and desist letters from Google, and he was not making any money out of it.
-
The real sense of altitude is missing even in FSX and Prepar3D.
Well, it seemed fine to me. 1000 ft feels like a thousand feet.
-
Arty, scale IS resolution.
Whether you are talking resolution of meters to tiles, or pixels to tiles… its resolution.
That’s what i’m saying… and why I talked for resolution in the first place.
-
Earlybite the trick is find a building you know the exact dimensions.
This would be your reference the rest are known so no need to scale or not. I mean 1 tile is 1km. Then u just do the math regarding to the resolution you will choose.
Next best thing you can do is measure in full zoom with Google earth pro and the ruler tool. U will not be exact but pretty close to real.
If you want it for low alt then high resolution is a must for you… even 2048 might be little.
The thing is I don’t think you will be able to find in the internet free sat images for this resolution.
IIRC unity with world composer and bing provide 2048 and they look great.Not to say with this process u have the tiles in 2048 ready cut. u just have to blend - mix the surrounding area with the rest of the tiles around the area you work on, then convert to dds and then pop them to falcon with Terrain editor.
Done. -
In falcon you can land anywhere if you are carefull enough - should be plain though.
Also what Arty said about a known building and it’s dimensions. I think both way include a lot of work.
Then again it might not be so important at all because (I might be wrong about this)
IIRC the falcon world is a little too small or big since the original falcon 4.0 - this has been discussed a lot of times already. -
In falcon you can land anywhere if you are carefull enough - should be plain though.
Also what Arty said about a known building and it’s dimensions. I think both way include a lot of work.
Then again it might not be so important at all because (I might be wrong about this)
IIRC the falcon world is a little too small or big since the original falcon 4.0 - this has been discussed a lot of times already.Well, its not real hard to determine if a scaling error exists.
Fixing one is a little harder, but still not an immovable object.
-
IMHO the biggest problem is, that all Korea sat maps are (nearly) crap. If you have good colors, it is winter, if it is summer it is too bright, if this is well you do not have a good from above, if you have this too, then there are clouds, and so on.
The only part which is usable for great cities (with a good view from the top, a good color) is a little part beneath Kimpo. (Google maps, Bing maps, Here maps.)
And I really want to have several crossings, which avoids a repetition better.
Momentary I’m using Bing maps, but Here maps is a great temptation. But with Here maps you can only use a very small area to get a picture because of all the symbols, and that is little horror with a 10m map! Also, I do not know to disable labels…and I think that the contrast of Bing maps is better2048 dds-file is good enough IMHO, and…have you already made a 4096 dds-file? This takes time, even with i5-3450 and 8 GB RAM and a AMD HD-7770.
I must now make a decision, and I think it will be Bing maps, 20m map, 50005000 picture, 2048*2048 dds-file.EDIT:
Just tried 4096*4096, took several secs saving, and is big ~11MB. Only city tiles = ~1,7GB.
Happy tiling!