CFS2 mesh LODs

[rhumbaflappy]

Hi all.

Here's an animated GIF to demonstrate the differences between LOD7, LOD8 and LOD9 in the sim. The picture is of the Alps near Interlaken. The animation delay is 5 seconds between frames.

Look at the foreground and background mountains... note how LOD9 doesn't even show up in the background. Whilr LOD7 seems a bit simplified in the foreground, LOD8 may be quite acceptable, and give a better framerate as well as using about a quarter of disk space. Some of LOD9 CST ( LOD2 sized areas ) will take 500 MB or more. This is why I'm leaning towards an LOD8 mesh, ocean-coast trimmed to reduce flattens.

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=76247&stc=1&d=1234981918


Also, while this mesh and the derived watermasking are good, they could be improved upon with better sources, or hand editing. So why not leave LOD9 for smaller areas ( LOD8 to LOD5 sized areas ) that can override the newer masking and mesh?


Dick

[Jean Bomber]

Thanks Dicks
We can see clearly what we talk about

"Also, while this mesh and the derived watermasking are good, they could be improved upon with better sources, or hand editing. So why not leave LOD9 for smaller areas ( LOD8 to LOD5 sized areas ) that can override the newer masking and mesh?"

The sceneries can (will) have as the mesh several LOD ,with some lod9 for some particulary scenery sites,and the choice of the mesh level will depend of each user and his computer.The hand edit stay surely the most accurate way for the scenery design at a "airfield" level of detail .....but if some more quick way exist to suit the lwm and the mesh on a on large scale,fs lod5, this will surely the greatest enhancement that could happen to cfs2 ,but we can get some surprise about some existing sceneries...that's the price of the progess


Thanks again

JP

[xavierb]

LOD8 seems quite good for me. Yes, it is worth doing it. I agree that LOD9 should be for small specific areas.

[Wulf190]

LOD8 seems quite good for me. Yes, it is worth doing it. I agree that LOD9 should be for small specific areas.

:amen:

I totally agree. Its nice to have extreme detail, but there is a point when the use of such detail is not needed, or the performance hit for it, is not wanted.

[rhumbaflappy]

The mountains in the distance are too far away to benefit from the LOD9, but clearly benefit from LOD8.

I didn't want to turn the sim into a pretty slideshow, but wanted clearer terrain markings for VFR flight... so we could follow a mapped flightplan or target path with some verification from outside the cockpit.

Dogfighting has little need for detailed terrain, but escort and bombruns would benefit.

The watermasking I'm making is unaffected by the mesh, other than to delineate the coastal areas for Jim Keir's Slartibartfast program. LOD makes no difference.

There will be no beaches or roads, as those should be drawn for smaller areas; LOD5 like SDC's stuff, or even LOD8 sized for target areas, or airfield areas.

This is all just to rough in the world that the Aces should have done originally, had they the time and resources, or had they the desire to map Europe as well.

Dick