"Smoother" 9M mesh For USA?

[dboley]

While mesh resolution beyond 9m per point might be nice for some limited areas, all seem to agree that the size and processor load would cause grief for many customers. However, the "other" mesh using an algorithm to enhance the straight line transitions between mesh points might be a nice thing to have. The value, which is obvious in mountainous areas, would also benefit airports which suffer from ragged edging between mesh points. Filling between the points intelligently should reduce the ragged airport property edge.

Dick

[fsfilmworks]

Actually before SP1, 2m Mesh data really didn't have many issues, especially flying at GA/Helo speeds...

I'm not too sure about 256mb videocards and above, but the LOD modelling on the terrain really helps make sure there's not a huge impact on the FS engine...

I did start to notice issues with SP1 and haven't been able to test with SP2/Xpack yet, but basically from what I understand with probably a 512mb card or higher high res mesh really shouldn't be an issue...

By the time anyone is able to complete rendering Sub 10m data (I believe VFR UK X - sorry if I butchered the name), has 5m DEM data for the whole of the UK...

I'm not sure who all are in 'all would seem to agree' as my experience on a P4 2.4GHz 533fsb with 128mb Radeon 9800 pro did nicely at rendering 2m DEM with 60cm photoimagery...  Again it comes down to the way the terrain engine works.  Adam at ACES has a nice presentation on it at fsinsider.com...

The only real issue, and I'm suspecting it's why developers are not really getting into anything sub 10m, is because of data size and distribution costs would be very very high...

The other issue is that below 10m the data starts to show roads and building foundations etc which really look strange in sim without photoscenery over the top of it...  That leads to a bigger problem with file sizes...

There is one location I know of tho that 1m dem is available (actually can be sourced at 10cm) and yet it has to be hand coded...

Around airports though I'd have to agree sub 10m dem would probably help, and I'm sure Justin would concur...

[dboley]

Yes, the airports would be the primary beneficiaries. There may be other areas such as Monument Valley, etc. The transition from 9m to better mesh would probably not be noticeable at the demarcation. I believe that a product that fixed the airport issues would be welcomed by the market. However, finding source data may be the issue.

I can mitigate the sawtooth edging by using sloping polygons. However, this is not practical for the thousands of airports in use.

I wonder if "fake mesh" that is generated from airport and flatten info might be possible. It would be applied by the customer to each airport by choice. It could mitigate downward and upward slopes within a selectable range of the extents of the airport boundary. The degree of mitigation and the range would be selectable. Just a thought to fix the target issue without relying on "real" mesh".