![best scenery in flightgear best scenery in flightgear](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TDtBR_vovmg/XSvV7HogaDI/AAAAAAAAJWM/W8F7DiRaMnUnDJtvt_S1bsVQ5JQP3KDvwCLcBGAs/s1600/Screenshot%2B1.png)
There's no law that states that forest in desert regions must have a high contrast dark needle forest texture. I don't doubt that the polygons are often a problem, but in many prominent cases they're actually fairly close to reality - certainly in Innsbruck - and in other cases they're chiefly a problem because our texture hues haven't been blended properly. (there's at least ten different landclasses on this shot - how many can you spot?) If you look at a similar mediterranean view of FG, you're hard-pressed to identify the polygons: In such situations, FG also looks quite compelling - especially if you can keep an overlay texturing layer continuous across the polygon boundaries. All landclasses have more or less the same hue. I notice in particular that, quite unlike for the Innsbruck shot, there are no sharp contrasts between, say, dark forest and bright grass. Its textures aren't in very high resolution, but note how they smoothly transit from one landclass to another, from forest to grass to sand, from desert to grass.
![best scenery in flightgear best scenery in flightgear](http://fr.flightgear.tuxfamily.org/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php?cache=&w=822&h=552&media=flightgear:scenery..11.png)
This is one of the reasons I really like to fly in winter, as the uniformity of the textures can really mask better these borders, e.g.: But my point is that there is a fundamental difference in the way our scenery is constructed, and IMO no amount of resolution would make it look as natural as that X-Plane shot above.
![best scenery in flightgear best scenery in flightgear](https://betanews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/flightgear.jpg)
The same is true for the landclasses resolution. It gives a much more natural look.Īs Johan mentioned, the elevation resolution available for FlightGear is limited, particularly when it comes to regions outside Europe. this is LOWI:īelow is an image from X-Plane 10 with what I believe is the default scenery. Here is an example of an ugly looking area:īut as I wrote, even our best scenery suffers of this, e.g. There are tricks to cover these up using procedural texturing, but even our best scenery still suffers from this IMO. FlightGear's landclasses are made out of polygons, and the borders of these polygons are extremely evident. The main difference I see when it comes to our scenery when comparing with the other sims is the way we use landclasses. To sum it up: Nope, it can not be done in the current FlightGear, but. However, I do feel that those waves and reflections look fake, though I can not really put my finger on why. Those water reflections would require rendering the whole scene first and then the water, if it would not even require ray tracing, which can probably not be done in realtime yet for a while, at least from altitude). That amount of trees can already be used in FlightGear (on more powerful machines). Something like it is kind of available in FlightGear through DDS textures, but only when using proprietary drivers. Those hills are also texture mapped and most probably mipmapped (in essence having several resolutions, in effect having a LOD scheme) something that can not be done on some graphics drivers due to software patents. If I have correctly understood what is going on in relation to the scenery development, some kind of LOD (Level of Detail) scheme is being worked on that will help alleviating some of that together with work on draping the landclasses instead of having the scenery polygons being encoded with landclass data. TIST* - King, St.Those hills have higher resolution elevation model than currently available in FlightGear, but unfortunately the elevation model is built in into the scenery together with the landclasses and is a huge resource hog and in many cases responsible for most of the memory and GPU load. LFSB -ĞuroAirport, Mulhouse, France and Basel, Switzerland KVUO - Pearson Field, Vancouver, Washington, USA KNUQ - Moffatt Field, Sunnyvale, California, USA KMTN - Martin State, Baltimore, Maryland, USA KLSV - Nellis AFB, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA KDCA - Reagan National, Washington, DC, USA Previous update: August 29 New airports: EGKK, EDKB, KLAS, KIND, KFHR, LILQ, LILV, LFRJ, LOWIĮDDI - Tempelhof, Berlin, Germany (Closed)ĮHVK - Volkel Air Base, Uden, Netherlands Previous update: September 12 New airports: KRNO, EETN, EETU Previous update: September 27 New airports: LSZB, EGGP, LSGS, PANC, LIME Previous update: November 18 New airports: EGFF, EIDW, ENAL, ENSD Last update: December 31: New airports: LIDA, LIDT, LIRJ, ULLI Airports with an asterisk only contain basic improvements, such as a single building, or untextured buildings.Īirports in italics are confirmed in development. Improved means the addition of building scenery in the vicinity of the airport and an accurate taxiway layout. Here are a list of airports by my count which are improved in FlightGear AND represented in the Scenery Model Database.