Outerra forum

Anteworld - Outerra Game => Terrain & terrain data issues => Topic started by: ktroy on June 14, 2012, 01:36:23 am

Title: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: ktroy on June 14, 2012, 01:36:23 am
Fun little game so far! Just wondering if there will be a terrain detail improvement at some point or if it is final. It is impressive and fun as it is, but compared to google earth it is lacking the sharp cliffs and proper elevation.

Below is a screenshot of the exact same location for comparison. It was taken in the Southeast USA, which may or may not even be ready.
Thanks for all your hard work on this game!


Google Earth
(http://wm58.inbox.com/thumbs/56_1060d2_997c1e95_oJ.jpg.thumb)



Anteworld
(http://wm58.inbox.com/thumbs/57_1060d1_aae828b7_oJ.jpg.thumb)
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: Spudly on June 14, 2012, 01:48:59 am
I think Google uses a higher resolution data set, which Outerra could use, but it would be like 500gb.  Also, if you change your field of view in your graphics settings, it will make them look taller and sharper.
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: cameni on June 14, 2012, 02:56:33 am
It would be best to complement it with a real world photo. Time of day is important as well. Google does several things - exaggerating heights because without the detail and in wide FOV they look small, sharper lighting, lack of ambient skylight .. plus it uses 30m data, while OT has 90m.
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: ZeosPantera on June 14, 2012, 03:52:15 am
How dare it. We should just sue them. Them and their 30m dataset.
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: ktroy on June 14, 2012, 10:30:24 am
Google may do a lot of things, but whatever they do it matches the real world almost perfectly. I'm talking terrain height map here not textures or lighting.

 I actually do have a real world picture on hand of that spot, from a different location farther down the canyon. I can retake the in game picture of that spot but I am not on my computer now.

so, the 30m data is the culprit? It would be cool if you could download 30m in areas that you plan on spending a lot of time in Anteworld. Obviously not worldwide though.

(http://wm58.inbox.com/thumbs/55_1060d3_25c78ea_tn.jpg.thumb)
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: ZeosPantera on June 14, 2012, 02:04:52 pm
It would be cool if you could download 30m in areas that you plan on spending a lot of time in Anteworld. Obviously not worldwide though.


Well if everyone is going to use the streaming download of terrain why not just do 30m. OR have it do the 90M and then the 30M if bandwidth is an issue.

I would just download the full terrain dataset regardless. I think 100 Gigs is worth it for the entire earth.
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: ktroy on June 14, 2012, 02:24:28 pm
I agree 100%. Make it an option for 90m if bandwidth is an issue. A world at 30m would be unbelievable.
Any way this could happen? :D
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: ktroy on June 14, 2012, 02:29:00 pm
Also, where does Outera get it's information of where trees and rocks go. Sometimes it's very accurate, having a patch of rocks on a mountain side, where I know there is in real life. Other times its not accurate at all.
Interesting.
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: cameni on June 14, 2012, 03:34:16 pm
Quote
I agree 100%. Make it an option for 90m if bandwidth is an issue. A world at 30m would be unbelievable.
Any way this could happen? :D
Yes. The way of patience :D
A few more runs of satellite scans and maybe the global 30m ASTER dataset will become usable.

Quote
Also, where does Outera get it's information of where trees and rocks go. Sometimes it's very accurate, having a patch of rocks on a mountain side, where I know there is in real life. Other times its not accurate at all.
Interesting.
Mathematical probabilistic model, only taking the topology into account. Later it will use available data for forests to adjust the probabilities.
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: foxfiles on June 15, 2012, 06:15:06 am
Quote
Yes. The way of patience :D
A few more runs of satellite scans and maybe the global 30m ASTER dataset will become usable.

30m ASTER does not cover the whole Earth, especially near the poles, does it?
I see that it stops at 83° North and 83° South?
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: cameni on June 15, 2012, 06:23:35 am
Given that SRTM provides only up to 60° and had to be combined with other sources, ASTER is pretty good. But it contains lots of noise, that can be removed by averaging a couple of scans, a process when the noise gets cancelled out and the signal stands out.
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: foxfiles on June 15, 2012, 06:52:00 am
Ok I see...  quality problems : errors, holes, artefacts...
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: foxfiles on June 15, 2012, 09:45:58 am
Dear Cameni, we could write an algorithm (another one  :D ) for OT need,
that adjusts the missing ASTER gDEM gaps seamlessly 
with data from the SRTM XSAR. Since both data sets are very similar 
(i.e. 16bit, signed integer, and accuracies), it is the best possible 
way to get a seamless and no gapped surface topography or DTM...

It is said that it will still take the ASTER science community around 
4-5 years to fully process the ASTER data from stereo paired imagery, 
so the above methodology is what we all have to work with...

Or we find a kind of partnership with European Space Agency to get "for free"
their 30m Elevation datas (or even better resolution for some parts of the world, SvK, LU? to play a bit)  ;D
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: cameni on June 15, 2012, 10:26:34 am
The algorithm exists already (http://outerra.blogspot.sk/2011/04/new-terrain-mapper-tool.html) :)

OT tool that processes terrain data works with layers of source data, in the order as they are registered. If it can't find the data in the first layer, it continues looking for it in further layers. For example, you could register a 30m tileset, followed by a 90m and 1km bathymetry layers (the last two are used now). It's a hybrid CPU-GPU algorithm and it is very fast.

However, the problem with ASTER data is not with the holes and missing data. Problem are the artifacts on the available data. Various worm-like structures in valleys and on flatter areas. That cannot be repaired.
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: foxfiles on June 15, 2012, 10:38:10 am
Wahooo, you had already referred me to this link, but I had not catched your ability to work with multi terrain grids and layers" !
so let's go to ESA to "steal" them full 30m, and 10m DTM on an HD drive...
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: foxfiles on June 15, 2012, 10:48:48 am
Quote
Various worm-like structures in valleys and on flatter areas. That cannot be repaired.

Let's turn defects into advantages = use these worm-like stuff as wormholes that would instantly translocate to another place or in space..., the "poor" player(s) going to close.  ;D
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: ktroy on June 15, 2012, 10:25:38 pm
Yes, any way to get higher detail terrain would be awesome. Having to wait 5 years is not as awesome. :( Getting some sort of partnership with European Space Agency like foxfiles said sounds difficult but maybe plausible?

How did google get their 30m data?
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: cameni on June 16, 2012, 12:23:56 am
For some parts of the world there are 30m data publicly available, I think for whole USA. For rest of the world they can be bought commercially, and that's what Google can do.

And for us it's not just a question of price, but also of US export regulations.
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: foxfiles on June 16, 2012, 10:00:22 am
I wonder if Google is using 30m everywhere? should be something to check... I assume that for Europe they're still at 90m? are they?

For the USA coverage, as USGS is providing their NED (National Elevation Dataset) for free at 30m and 10m for all the US except Alaska (Alaska being at 60m),
and they also have, in limited areas, resolution at 1/9 arc-second (about 3 meters).
Google is surely using NED 1 at approx 30m, and maybe NED 1/3 (10m) on specific areas?

I know Google is using Spot imagery, but I do not think they are using any ESA_Astrium DEM? is there any export regulations for European Astrium DEM or imagery? I don't think so,
USA protects very well various things for no-export, we in Europe, I wonder?
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: lookastdu on June 16, 2012, 10:11:48 am
Btw. I'm trying to image how awesome could look 10m elevation data of Hawaii in Outerra. :D
Also 3m would be absolutely awesome! :D http://seamless.usgs.gov/data_availability.php?serviceid=Dataset_19 (http://seamless.usgs.gov/data_availability.php?serviceid=Dataset_19)
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: ktroy on June 16, 2012, 10:36:12 am
10m Hawaii in Outerra would be redonkulous. Seriously though, Google definitely uses 30m or even 10m in Europe, check out the alps, they are very detailed and can spot match a photo almost perfect.

So, if 30m and 10m is publicly available through NED for the USA, any hope that it can be implemented in Outerra? :D In time of course... :) please Cameni? haha

This is getting exciting, I had no idea 10m was publicly available for free in some countries!
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: lookastdu on June 16, 2012, 10:59:57 am
I'm sure that 10m for Hawaii was available for everyone 2 years ago (so it shuould be still available), because I downloaded it on my HDD... :P But 10m is 81 times more data than 90m (9x9 more). However, if you want to have Hawaii who cares about 1GB more? :P
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: foxfiles on June 16, 2012, 11:06:23 am
One is wanting Hawai, another one Tahiti, another one... should you pay to have Hawai at 10m ?
 this could enter in a biz model, where users pay depending on the resolution and geography that they use...

I looked at the Alps seen from France and Switzerland, I should check more but I'm not sure they're at 30m, be carefull because the imagery mapped on the terrain gives the impression that the 3D is very accurate, when it is  not.
Anyway, GoogleEarth is using various sources, depending on where you are, for example, where you're above France they seem to use IGN's images (Institut Géographique national = French USGS, I'm French LOL), then if you go a bit further, crossing the Swiss border, there the images seem to come from a Swiss source...
If someone does search a bit, I am sure you can find out at which terrain resolution is GGearth for specific places...but it is useless : they can buy and stream what they want so...

Also let's be careful with our wishes of better resolution : going to 30 or 10m is a question of dealing with source of hundreds of Gb, even Teras for the whole planet at High res.
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: cameni on June 16, 2012, 12:01:22 pm
For non-global datasets we need to implement some filtering into the mapressor tool to handle transitions between the layers of different resolution. Some time ago we tested 30m data that were available for some mountainous regions (I think they were Alps), but they were rather buggy, with many linear artifacts and not fitting the surrounding 90m areas. It will be quite a lot of work to get these errors fixed.

You must also realize that we are here in Anteworld game section, that doesn't aim to be a realistic earth viewer, but a first demo game of the technology. It would be sure nice to have 30m and even 10m world data, but the effort it requires is not negligible, and it would affect the development of other areas.
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: SpaceFlight on June 16, 2012, 12:16:15 pm
I know Google is using Spot imagery, but I do not think they are using any ESA_Astrium DEM? is there any export regulations for European Astrium DEM or imagery? I don't think so,
USA protects very well various things for no-export, we in Europe, I wonder?

Astrium is the company that built the "TerraSAR-X" and "TanDEM-X" satellites and they sell their satellite imagery, whereas the ESA controls the satellites and executes the mission. The two satellites have completed their first pass in mapping the entire planet in January 2012 (http://www.dlr.de/dlr/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10081/151_read-2451/year-2012/ (http://www.dlr.de/dlr/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10081/151_read-2451/year-2012/)). They have to do multiple passes to get the Digital Elevation Model more accurate.
In 2014 a 10m DEM of the earth should be available (http://www.astrium-geo.com/en/168-tandem-x-global-dem (http://www.astrium-geo.com/en/168-tandem-x-global-dem)).
I wonder how much it will cost and if it can be used for projects such as Outerra from a legal standpoint.

@Cameni
If in theory you would be able to get a 10m DEM for the entire earth (like the one from Astrium), would it be easier to put that into OT (as it could replace the 90m areas completely and you would not have to worry about 10m and 90m DEMs bordering or overlapping each other)? Or is the implementation of a DEM in general difficult to do?
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: foxfiles on June 16, 2012, 12:34:03 pm
Yes thank you SpaceFlight, you are right, I should had put the link here too
as it was me who posted about TanDEM-X previously, at the end of this thread here :
http://www.outerra.com/forum/index.php?topic=960.msg11936#msg11936 (http://www.outerra.com/forum/index.php?topic=960.msg11936#msg11936)

ToCameni : mapressor = clever terminology  :)
I agree that it is not something you should put on your short time priority roadmap.

Note : that a DTM at one specific resolution cannot stich properly to another res. model seems quite normal, but a buggy quality after acquisition is much more problematic... just for curiosity, can you remember who was the source? ASTER or SwissTopo? or another?

Back to ASTRIUM : they can right now, if you get enough money for, produce DTM at 1 meter resolution or better   ;D    --- nothing is impossible as long as you get the means  :)

Another important comment : DEM is different than DTM, generally DEM means also DSM, Digital Surface Model, where you get the tree tops, the building roofs, if we target quality, then DTM is what we need, bare ground earth terrain -->  so let's dream, we need the whole Earth's DTM at 10m with full quality. So on monday I call EADS Head Quarters to require a free Elevation10 DTM of the whole planet   ;D ;D
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: SpaceFlight on June 16, 2012, 12:54:04 pm
@foxfiles
No problem, it reminded me of this discussion about DEMs (http://www.outerra.com/forum/index.php?topic=277.30 (http://www.outerra.com/forum/index.php?topic=277.30)) some time ago, back then Astrium was still Infoterra (it is still part of EADS though).
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: cameni on June 16, 2012, 12:56:20 pm
If in theory you would be able to get a 10m DEM for the entire earth (like the one from Astrium), would it be easier to put that into OT (as it could replace the 90m areas completely and you would not have to worry about 10m and 90m DEMs bordering or overlapping each other)? Or is the implementation of a DEM in general difficult to do?
Yes it would be much easier, there's practically nothing needed to be done in that case. Also making reduced quality datasets would be trivial - in fact the files generated by mapressor are already partitioned by the level, so it would be just a matter of telling the app the maximum level of data it should download, generating everything below it procedurally.

Note : that a DTM at one specific resolution cannot stich properly to another res. model seems quite normal, but a buggy quality after acquisition is much more problematic... just for curiosity, can you remember who was the source? ASTER or SwissTopo? or another?
ASTER was buggy on flatter areas, we didn't try SwissTopo but used DEMs from viewfinder panorams (http://www.viewfinderpanoramas.org/dem3.html), for some parts of Austrian Alps I think. Now I remember the author telling me he was going to rework them ...

But generally, using these data in FSX is more forgiving than in OT, so there may be many bugs. It would be indeed better and much simpler to use ASTER. I was also thinking about combining ASTER and SRTM - using ASTER for areas with high relief where the bugs aren't that apparent, and smoothly falling back to SRTM for low relief.
I need to make a few tests when I get close to the mapressor code again.
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: ktroy on June 16, 2012, 10:05:31 pm
One is wanting Hawai, another one Tahiti, another one... should you pay to have Hawai at 10m ?
 this could enter in a biz model, where users pay depending on the resolution and geography that they use...

I would hands down pay for 10m data in my state. Even the whole US as a package deal would be awesome. For those who have little bandwidth you could mail them a discs to install. Like VA and NC for 30 bucks... I would pay that right now even though the game is still in test phase, wouldn't matter. It would be spectacular buggy borders or not.


You must also realize that we are here in Anteworld game section, that doesn't aim to be a realistic earth viewer, but a first demo game of the technology.

This actually sounds interesting in itself. Where would one look for a realistic earth viewer besides google earth?
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: Jagerbomber on June 17, 2012, 12:25:29 am
What about trees, buildings and other stuff effecting the higher resolution data?
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: foxfiles on June 17, 2012, 05:39:50 am
@SpaceFlight,following your link, I see tha we are 1 year late here... sorry to make Cameni and you waste your time on a subject that was very well approached last year by you ???

This is just a lesson on How we should always use the Search function prior to writing anything...
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: SpaceFlight on June 17, 2012, 06:17:05 am
@SpaceFlight,following your link, I see tha we are 1 year late here... sorry to make Cameni and you waste your time on a subject that was very well approached last year by you ???

This is just a lesson on How we should always use the Search function prior to writing anything...

I don't think a thread that talks about DEMs that could be used in OT is a waste of time. The other thread was mainly about integrating a middle earth DEM into OT.
I did not find an other thread that talked about this topic at that time, and I did not want to make a new one. This will sureley come up again in the future, as more detailed DEMs become available.
So a thread like this one ("Terrain detail versus google earth") is surely informative in this regard.  ;)
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: foxfiles on June 17, 2012, 06:30:33 am
I agree, I took the time to read this 2011 thread now , sure it is useful to recall things that interest us about DEM...

Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: SpaceFlight on June 17, 2012, 07:26:08 am
What about trees, buildings and other stuff effecting the higher resolution data?

A Digital Elevation Model and a Digital Terrain Model represent the bare earth surface, while the DEM is unmodified and the DTM is modified and corrected for artifacts and other errors.
A Digital Surface Model represents the earth's surface with everything on it, like buildings, trees etc. (http://bloglidar.com/2010/12/06/dem-dsm-dtm/ (http://bloglidar.com/2010/12/06/dem-dsm-dtm/)).
So in order to get a DEM or DTM, the DSM has to go through a filtering process ("It can be said that a DSM is filtered to produce a DTM or a DEM. Objects and surface variability are removed in this filtering process." http://www.helsinki.fi/~korpela/y196/y196.htm (http://www.helsinki.fi/~korpela/y196/y196.htm)).
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: Jagerbomber on June 17, 2012, 11:32:14 am
Well I'm thinking that even after this "filtering" process, Forests and locations with a lot of obstacles would still effect the elevation data.
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: lookastdu on July 08, 2012, 09:43:09 am
One is wanting Hawai, another one Tahiti, another one... should you pay to have Hawai at 10m ?
 this could enter in a biz model, where users pay depending on the resolution and geography that they use...
[...]
Also let's be careful with our wishes of better resolution : going to 30 or 10m is a question of dealing with source of hundreds of Gb, even Teras for the whole planet at High res.

Sorry, I have shorted my idea too much writing that words. I was thinking about possibility to import to Outerra for example your own heightmaps in .dem or other format which contain data coordinates. Then everyone who needs detailed fragment of map will be able to achieve it. :) Yes, I know it would be additional work to do by developers, but maybe in farther future?
Ofc I wasn't thinking about giving everyone detailed Hawaii and 1GB+ to download. ;)
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: Allan Davidson on May 16, 2013, 08:43:12 pm
Necromancer here!

And how about use a data compression and real-time decompression method (OpenCL?) to reduce the size of the terrain files? This could help if you guys manage to obtain 30m/10m elevation data to some areas. :)
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: cameni on May 17, 2013, 03:24:17 am
Terrain is already compressed with wavelet compression, otherwise the dataset would be 10 times larger :)
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: ktroy on June 02, 2013, 11:12:54 pm
So what's the possibility of downloadable 30m/10m terrain data for parts of the US? :D
Even remotely close?
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: cameni on June 03, 2013, 01:05:58 am
It's planned for testing, I guess there will be some issues with blending with the surrounding terrain of lower resolution that will have to be addressed.
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: foxfiles on June 03, 2013, 05:38:52 am
 :P we look forward to seeing such a terrain insertion... even if there would be bad stitching with surroundings, it is worth it
for having an idea of the performance in high res. DEM
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: eyeandeye on September 03, 2013, 06:52:40 am
Hi guys(and gals?)

Has anyone been keeping up with WorldDEM? It's a German (I think) project that launched two satellites, TerraSAR-X and TanDEM-X to make a global DEM at 10 or 12 meter resolution. Supposedly will be finished in 2014. I'm guessing it isn't free, but...would resolution like that be possible in Outerra eventually?

From their website:
Vertical accuracy: 2m (relative) / 10m (absolute)
12m x 12m raster
Global homogeneity

Until two days ago I didn't even know what a DEM was. I recently became interested in mapping a real life location into Cryengine 3 SDK, and decided a heightmap from a DEM was the way to go (previous attempts mostly revolved around Google Earth data but I was disappointed by the level of detail).

During my quest to find something better than SRTM 90, I stumbled upon National Map Viewer that uses the National Elevation Dataset. In addition to 1 arc-second data for the U.S., they have 1/3 and I was lucky enough that they even had 1/9 for my area. However it was packaged in a .IMG format that I haven't figured out how to open in Microdem. Incidentally any advice on free tools that would help my project would be appreciated.

Fun stuff! My next goal is to get the heightmap to my liking, import it to cryengine, and overlay it with satellite imagery from Google to give me a reference to build off of.
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: rndmplyr on January 25, 2014, 04:02:21 pm
I just stumbled upon this thread. If you (or anyone else) is still interested in using the USGS DEMs, this http://www.massgate.net/read.php?77960,111959 (http://www.massgate.net/read.php?77960,111959) is a World in Conflict forums post (based upon a Supreme Commander forums post) on how to extract the elevations for map making. Maybe it's useful for you; if not, I am sorry for the necromancy :)
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: eyeandeye on January 27, 2014, 02:58:43 am
Thanks rndmplyr, I'll check that out at some point. I'm kind of in limbo right now as I wait for Crytek to implement their new Segmented Worlds feature, to see how that will affect large-map creation.

In regards to my previous post, I eventually got my DEM open in Microdem but ran into problems converting it to grayscale. For some reason the grayscale heightmap Microdem produced always resulted in a huge loss of quality in the elevation data; all the finer terrain details were missing. I had a long back and forth with Microdem's creator about how to make it work, and apparently it was impossible because Microdem only does 8-bit grayscale. I feel like we never quite got on the same page but I also think I was just too ignorant about the subject matter to understand why I couldn't do what I was wanting to do. Here's the full thread for fellow newbs trying to learn this stuff:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/microdem/messages?msg=1460.19 (http://forums.delphiforums.com/microdem/messages?msg=1460.19)

Eventually I came up with a different solution, thanks to the assistance of a helpful person at crydev.net:
1. Load .IMG file in Microdem
2. Choose desired subset of data and save that subset to a new file in the Microdem format (.dem).
3. Convert the .dem file to .asc (Arc Grid)
4. Import the .asc file into VTBuilder and export it as .bt
5. Load the .bt file into Terresculptor, tweak elevations if necessary, and export to .r16 (.r16 and .raw are the same, but Cryengine likes the .r16 file extension)
6. Import the .r16 into Cryengine (I never actually did this step because I was also struggling to find a way to crop an exact 8km x 8km square out of my DEM, and wasn't satisfied with my eyeballed attempts.)
The full crydev thread is here:
http://www.crydev.net/viewtopic.php?f=321&t=115998 (http://www.crydev.net/viewtopic.php?f=321&t=115998)

Someone also recently recommended I use World Machine. I looked into it once, and recently downloaded the demo to check it out but I can't find any indication that World Machine is capable of importing a DEM. Actually, the only import function I can find seems to be for World Machine's proprietary files. If anyone happens to know more about that program and if it can help me that would be great. It would also be great if you could do me the favor of posting said knowledge in this thread for me to see.

Last thing: did my previous post get merged into another thread? I usually read threads before posting, especially short ones, and my post looks stupid since Astrium and their WorldDEM project were mentioned several times already. I can't imagine I skipped over all that. I'm just curious
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: cameni on January 27, 2014, 04:13:16 am
Last thing: did my previous post get merged into another thread? I usually read threads before posting, especially short ones, and my post looks stupid since Astrium and their WorldDEM project were mentioned several times already. I can't imagine I skipped over all that. I'm just curious
Nobody knows anymore :)

Quote
Has anyone been keeping up with WorldDEM? It's a German (I think) project that launched two satellites, TerraSAR-X and TanDEM-X to make a global DEM at 10 or 12 meter resolution. Supposedly will be finished in 2014. I'm guessing it isn't free, but...would resolution like that be possible in Outerra eventually?

From their website:
Vertical accuracy: 2m (relative) / 10m (absolute)
12m x 12m raster
Global homogeneity
Generally the finer source, the better it will look in OT, provided the source is a DTM and not a DSM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_elevation_model#DEM.2C_DSM_or_DTM).
Title: Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
Post by: masterpyro295 on April 06, 2014, 02:06:32 pm
Just a picture I took in Outtera and compared it to Google earth, The place is Oregon around Ecola state park. This is what I got.
(http://i.imgur.com/lz2sVbU.png) (Google earth)
 (http://i.imgur.com/q6zagtq.png) (Outerra)