Having read about Scenery and Mesh in Payware Heads Up and having used FS9 since its' release I never really thought about using Mesh or its' importance until this was posted.
Have to thank Dan for all his help and advice in getting it installed (had not realised that when creating a folder for mesh to add to World/Scenery that a subfolder had also to be created)
Anyway the results as far as I am concerned are worthwhile. GE2006 provides textures.
Flying North of Glasgow along Loch Lommond. Screenshots taken more or less same positions.
Without Mesh
With Mesh
Without Mesh
With Mesh
Many thanks for the HU on Mesh guys.
Regards
Nigel.
I used to be an optimist but with age I am now a grumpy old pessimist.
It does indeed, but its only 70m at best and 90m in places. I found one recently that was 30 something metre, but buggered if I can find it now. :roll:
Imagine the Netherlands ... (or Denmark for that sake)
what would you think the differnce was betwwen a 79 or a 19 m mesh ....? Yes ... nothing at all!
Only places it's worth messing with mesh'es is in mountain areas or in very "hilly" areas .... so only replace/add meshes in these areas in order to see a change, no need for extra processing in areas where it is not needed ;-)
Nice shots Nigel, glad to be able to help you out.
Best Rgds
Dan
Who's General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?
DanKH wrote:You wouldn't need 30 or 19 m for that sake.
Imagine the Netherlands ... (or Denmark for that sake)
what would you think the differnce was betwwen a 79 or a 19 m mesh ....? Yes ... nothing at all!
Only places it's worth messing with mesh'es is in mountain areas or in very "hilly" areas .... so only replace/add meshes in these areas in order to see a change, no need for extra processing in areas where it is not needed ;-)
Nice shots Nigel, glad to be able to help you out.
I know mate, I was meaning for Scotland, sorry, I didn't make that clear
Please allow me to write some theory for those that do not quite understand the thing about meshes....
I'm a God given civil engineer, and therefore I do tend to have a more practical than theoretical view upon various things, so please bear with me. Ok here goes:
Find yourself a nice open field and place four sticks, one in each corner of a square with the sides 76x76 meters, and place yourself in the middle of the square.
Now you have a good understanding of the default mesh size in FS9.
Imagine you are standing on top a column, and the whole landscape (scenery) around you is build up of similar columns, all covered by a carpet representing the surface (texture). In order to follow the contours of the landscape you have to either raise or sink the columns in order to give an average picture of the landscape. The height within the square will stay the same, thus leveling out smaller variations. Yes a small creek or hill will be "flattened out" but over all it will stay the same.
Place yourself in The Netherlands in a similar setup. I doesn't take too much imagination to see that raising or sinking the various columns won't change the overall look of the landscape. Making smaller or larger columns won't do much either. But then move yourself to the Alps instead, and you will soon find that "leveling" out the alps in 76x76 squares/columns doesn't really do the beautiful landscape much credit. Even if you raise or sink the columns considerably it doesn't quite "fit". So you reduce the size of your columns to half the size/area: 36x36, now its easier to follow the contour, but you still have a feeling that it could be better. Continue halving in size until you reach approx 11x11 (which I think is the most detailed mesh you can get at the moment). You will find that the smaller the area of the columns the better the fit. But then again, nothing for nothing; you need more columns (processing time). But horses for causes, and what you would like here is a beautiful view, and you are not too concerned of the more costly amount of columns (in matter of processing time)....
So much for why and where you might want more detailed mesh, and where you don't need it.
For part two of this you have to go back to your original square in the open field. You are standing in the middle of a square about half the size of a football field (give or take a few). Your eye-point is about 1.8 m above the ground (in my case about 2.0 m, but thats beside the point here). Now place yourself on one of the sides, half the distance from the two corners.
Now you can see that at the height of approx. 2 meter, you have to actually pan to be able see both sides of the square.....: The angle in the triangle between your eye and the two corners is pretty large, (but you would be able to see if the line was devided into smaller bits in different heights). Climb up an imaginary ladder till you reach approx. 12 meters. You will find that the angle is now smaller, and you are almost able to see both corners at the same time .... (you are now at the height more or less where the Pilot in command of a DC10 sits)...
The higher you get the smaller the angel (you could also see it like the length of the actual 76 meters line seems to be shrunk). When you reach FL330 the angle between your eye and the two corners is actually very sharp (or the 76 m line seems to be only a few mm or inches long now) ....
Now you have to ask your self: "At which height(s) am I likely to find myself in during my FS sessions? FL10 or FL400 ?"
If you are mostly low flying, it would be a good idea to have a mesh that is more detailed (the line is built up of smaller lines or the landscabe is built from smaller but more columns).
If you are mostly at high levels, it doesn't really matter if the line of 76 meter is one siingle line or divided into 2 or 4 or 8 for that instance. There will not be much difference in the looks at that height.
Now reconsider which meshes you need and where you need them, in order to approve your FS-experience and still keeping the processor time down (thus keeping the FPS's up)
Has a nice mess, and I hope I didn't bore you all.
Btw. In your Addon Scenery folder you will see that the various sub folder each have their own two subfolders ("Texture" and "Scenery"). In case of a "scenery" addon of either landclass or mesh, the "Texture" folder isn't needed, but ALL scenery folders have to have a "Scenery" subfolder wherein you place your bgl's: ..\<Sceneryname>\Scenery
And before you ask: The "Texture" folder is where you place your bmp's ;-) ... as neither landclass nor mesh'es have any associated bmp's the "Texture" folder is not needed. Is that clear as ink?
Last edited by DanKH on 05 Feb 2009, 00:31, edited 2 times in total.
Best Rgds
Dan
Who's General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?
... or do we have to guess
