Below threshold altitude
Above
Below threshold altitude
Above
US Army, Major, Ret.
Service To The Line,
On The Line,
On Time
US Army Ordnance Corps.
Thanks!
This is exactly what I thought.
Those edges are there even with default settings, but they normally appear too far to be noticeable.
But looks like I need to download the add-on and see it myself now, because I still don't understand why it happens.
I'll see what can be done, but the resolution or altitude levels are likely hardcoded in the dll.
Based on all the parameters I've adjusted to no effect I agree that it seems to be hard coded.
Two things that make that a bit odd are the hysteresis of the surface rendering change happening at a lower altitude when you're descending than when climbing, and that it only is visible when the shaders are enabled. Using the Numpad0Switch to turn them off, the surface rendering is smooth at all altitudes.
US Army, Major, Ret.
Service To The Line,
On The Line,
On Time
US Army Ordnance Corps.
What are all the stick like things?
Cato said "Carthaginem esse delendam"
I say "Carthago iam diu deleta,sed enim Bellum Alium adhuc aedificandum est"
Palm Trees. That's in PTO over Henderson Field.
In this case the altitude seems to correspond to 2500 m going up, and 2100 m going down.
US Army, Major, Ret.
Service To The Line,
On The Line,
On Time
US Army Ordnance Corps.
So, looked at the code, no straightforward solution here. That terrain "smoothing" code in my shaders is one of the oldest pieces, probably from 2014, and since then I figured out a way to use the data directly calculated by CFS3 instead. Those have worse quality in some cases, but at least they always works. So maybe I will look into it.
However, this mod has an issue with limited terrain "render" distance. The terrain is actually there, just without height variation.
I can't figure out how to add an image, just try my favorite testing location: France, Barcelonnette at 40K feet and you'll see
Attachment 88884
Attachment 88884
Attachment 88884
Hmm, can't see the attachments and can't test anything right now, but it does seem that only a single ring is defined in the budget file, which might explain the issue.
Yes only a single ring as modelled on Charlie's original file. I must say for 95% of the time I'm quite happy with it but perfectly plausible that with a bit of ring smoothing a better result can be achieved.
I have not been able to make very much sense of how the meshbuilder budget works, but if the ring is only defining mesh detail within a certain radius, everything left undefined may be left with no detail at all. For some view distances this may not be a problem, and even desirable since resources aren't being wasted providing detail to areas behind the fog wall. In my more recent experiments with expanding the visible area, it would be important to make sure that the full area has one or more rings defining it.
Bookmarks