Outerra forum
Outerra Engine => Development screen shots and videos => Topic started by: cameni on May 27, 2015, 04:05:21 pm
-
Blog post: http://outerra.blogspot.com/2015/05/evaluation-of-30m-elevation-data-in.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLFYVGvPVR4
-
I know just the place to test this!
(After reading the post, it doesn`t seem all that usefull...)
-
Great news, Brano! That is the fact that the coastal segments will be exact a little bit,
or now am I mistaken? ::)
-
fantastic. a breakthrough high detail.
Chief ... you're always flying tests should be nudist beaches. :)
-
For me the differences are big. Coverall if i see the 90m Pics and 30m Pics in the Blog. The shape of the mountains change drastically, like when you have the 30 M result you are seeing is more of the real life shape, and 90 add other science fiction shapes changing the real morphology (this actually you can see when you isit known places).
But for see better those effects we all users should see our known places in 30m. Then we can compare to Real, better.
What i would do is a experimental version paralell to the normal version, where you can run outerra in 30m or 90m. So we can test all the areas in those months and see how real looks the mountains shapes compared with 90m. And report all the bugs for make the corrections.
Maybe with the time you also change or refine the algorithms a bit for the 30m, because with double resolution are not needing overreact in slopes as with 90 m.
We can have a torrent download and as i suggested time ago, control the folder where those data are. We can open our torrent program for share the data and at same time use the data for play.
I say that for avoid your servers from saturation. I dont know if they are prepared for on the fly downloads for each part of the earth you are visiting, while the data now is 4 times higher.
IF its not a problem you can keep this posibility. Just the user will wait a bit more for download while surfing the earth.. With this posibility people can download just the parts of the earth they play or live, so they dont need so much hard drive space for enjoy the higher resolution. (my case, i would download the entire 40 Gb for sure).
-
Really interesting, it seems like it also makes a lot of difference in the areas with small and flat hills (visible in the beginning of the video). These areas are completely flat in the current dataset.
Nice work :D
-
Really interesting, it seems like it also makes a lot of difference in the areas with small and flat hills (visible in the beginning of the video). These areas are completely flat in the current dataset.
Nice work :D
I agree. Change drastically. the detail added is huge. And more important. What we see is surelly closer to real life. Your Sceneries will look almost real :p
note for people: See differences between the stairs mountains formation in the left in second 14, and after when is covered with 30m.. How natural looks.. awesome.
Casuality. Those days i was checking the 30m SRTM status.
http://www.digital-geography.com/announcement-realease-worldwide-high-resultion-srtm-data-30m/#.VWYwFc_tlBc
I was seeing we have almost all. And thinking maybe outerra can check a lot of parts. (it seems those guys are always silently in the action, and they was already doing that) xD.
In July will come also China and Japan, and in septembre Northeast africa.
We can actually enjoy and check almost all the earth.
-
Nice. When it comes, first thing I am going to do is wander the world to catalog any interesting Anomalies and explore out of the way areas!
Will also be interesting to see if there are any effects on road placement . .....
-
Watched video in 0.5x to explore the extent of changes to the fullest 8)
That's really awesome, keep it up!
-
Yeh but what do the white cliffs of Dover look like...
-
Nice. When it comes, first thing I am going to do is wander the world to catalog any interesting Anomalies and explore out of the way areas!
Will also be interesting to see if there are any effects on road placement . .....
I could be wrong, but I'd assume they haven't implemented the auto-adjust to terrain yet, so it might end up a bit weird. But it'll still be a while before we actually get it anyways, I think.
(and omg we have a delete post button now... :o)
-
I was wondering how other sims overcome the smoothing issue, and it seems maybe they don't. There were some pictures shown of DCS Nevada, with their new engine, and I was surprised to see noticeable smoothing of the type once described as "melted Ice Cream"
Outerra seems to have it even worse if the engine is over-fractalizing. (Hey! A new word I just made up!)
Is Outerra exclusively using free data sources? I would be surprised if there were not cleaned up commercial versions of a lot of this data out there, though it may cost an arm and a leg........
Anyway........ I would still like to see how the higher resolution data handles very recognizable places like Devils Tower Wyoming (of close encounters of the third kind fame)
Or some of the locations I posted in my thread about unusual places to visit.
-
The 30 dataset enhance drastically the feeling you are seeing actual mountains. And that is from the distance: upclose should look fantastic.
"30m sources can definitely serve to make a better 76m OT base world dataset, but I'm not certain if the increased detail alone justifies the threefold increase in size, compared to the 76/30 compilation (not to the original 76/90 one)".
Future proof:
I would bet for the 30m data. All we know, each year hard disk space and bandwidth is less a problem. For example, when I contracted my current internet supplier, I had 2 Megas. After just five years my speed have been increased to 20, without paying any more. I know it may not be the case for everyone, but is a tendency.
If you can have them both, you could offer the 76/30 as an alternative.
-
Perhaps one of the other options once discussed would work. The higher resolution set(s) only available as a torrent, while the lower(s) remain for streaming use.........?
-
Just leave an option in the menu. CHECK HERE TO USE 30m DATASET. I mean I presume most people and most games/mods that come out of the final product of outerra will not require the whole earth. Even Cameni and AngryPig combined probably only covered 5% of the land masses at full resolution in all their time developing OT. The world is HUGE. The 12gb 90m dataset is enough for most and when the option for 30 is available it can stream in in the background and correct whereever you are in a few seconds. I believe Cameni said from any one spot on earth it was about 40MB of data to generate 360° around the user all the way to the visible horizon at ground level. We have to up that quite a bit but that is where the built in torrent protocol can come in. Many servers all sharing bits of data to fill every need in small chunks. 160MB vs 40MB for as far as the eye can see seems reasonable.
-
Since each refinement level is in separate wad files, we can easily have the demo mode using only 76m data (that's how I created the 76/30 screens), and have the 38m refinement as a downloadable option.
Even 152/30 dataset is quite usable, some types of games might use that to get even smaller data size.
Point is, the real resolution of 30m SRTM data is lower than 30m because of the smoothing, it seems to be somewhere much closer to 76m and therefore it's not as big improvement as I had hoped. I focused on 90m vs 30m comparison in the videos and screenshots, but most of the added detail is visible in 76/30 data. It's a big enhancement compared to 76/90 data, as the 90m sources were heavily filtered, washing out the detail at resampled 76m. If they were "true" 90m data, it would look like what you saw in 76/30 screenshot.
-
You know, I've always had a nagging feeling that the Middle earth demo was somehow more detailed and naturalistic than regular Outerra, but I didn't understand how that could be. Now I wonder it its because their elevation data was "pure" with less artificial smoothing built in. Peaks and sharp edges always seemed more clear, there.
It's all very interesting, and even more interesting how you will choose to at least partially "correct" the data, if thats possible.
-
The Middle earth data is also more extreme. There are quite a few cliff faces that make real world cliff faces pee their pants.
-
The Middle earth data is also more extreme. There are quite a few cliff faces that make real world cliff faces pee their pants.
Yup! I think the main thing is that there are far more "sharp" areas like ridgelines, and less of a "smoothed" feeling. Its a subtle difference, but you can feel it. I think a lot of us waiting on the new dataset were probably hoping for sharper definition like in this picture of Middle earth ridges. I hope there is a good middle ground.
(http://i1287.photobucket.com/albums/a625/Multitesseract/screen_1432827325_zpsj7cvfjgb.jpg)
-
Have you downloaded the data from earthexplorer.usgs.gov?
I don't understand why they would bother in scanning a higher resolution, and then smooth it.
- Could be in the site you downloaded the data (or other site), another untouched-non-smoothed version?
- Would some subtle sharpening filter, help to enhance de data?
- Converting the data from 16 bits to 8 (or increasing the contrast) would result in sharper steps and thus, in sharper forms?
If the answer is "no" to previous questions, I guess is clear you should go for the 76/30.
-
For example, just a small adjust in Gimp (render in Blender, exactly same settings for both):
NOTE: It is just a picture from internet, not data used in OT.
ORIGINAL / CONTRAST ENHANCED:
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t31.0-8/s2048x2048/11164617_1473033186321994_4222496798512044029_o.jpg)
ORIGINAL:
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/11111044_1473050682986911_5651159547020253059_n.jpg?oh=b7f0a68074ad6814b6ebcb98b9db19d6&oe=5601F368)
ENHANCED:
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/11269783_1473032969655349_8874126810494207546_n.jpg?oh=2c240bbf74ed457cd130ff627a07cc91&oe=560565E3)
EDIT: ENHANCED LESS CONTRAST
(https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/11011549_1473052182986761_8931686739688337994_n.jpg?oh=e4750d69c6720ae3b77abc442acc322c&oe=55BF75B7)
-
The question is, does that make it more realistic? Or just artificially more irregular?
-
The question is, does that make it more realistic? Or just artificially more irregular?
Is just a bit of contrast in the image. The adjust could be even smaller (see edited images), and, of course, this renders lack the fractal detail.
-
I think the less contrast images look better, but other peoples milage may vary. Outerra straddles a fine dividing line. I'm just worried that things don't become too "fractally" and cross the line into over-detail.
-
Well, I'm a bit dissapointed with the outcome from socalled 30m data. Had higher hopes regarding this. Sharpness of cliffs and ridgelines and more detailed erosive patterns would help to make terrain look more realistic.
Mabe there is a way to refine your procedural/fractal engine without extra data input (at the expense of world fidelity).
-
Well, I'm a bit dissapointed with the outcome from socalled 30m data. Had higher hopes regarding this. Sharpness of cliffs and ridgelines and more detailed erosive patterns would help to make terrain look more realistic.
Mabe there is a way to refine your procedural/fractal engine without extra data input (at the expense of world fidelity).
... well, ill say, in mountains, 1 m resolution would still be not enough :D (seriously, 10 meter wide 90-depressions cant be taken out from a 30-m resolution) .... i doubt that even 10 meter would be any totally significant change - you just wont have them in such detail to walk the path like in real tourist-track matching them as perfectly. But, personally, im quite ok whyte how they are, even if those hill-tops aren't as "flash-backs" invoking as i have some of them in memory. General shapes are pretty good compared to the real world ....
-
... well, ill say, in mountains, 1 m resolution would still be not enough :D (seriously, 10 meter wide 90-depressions cant be taken out from a 30-m resolution) .... i doubt that even 10 meter would be any totally significant change - you just wont have them in such detail to walk the path like in real tourist-track matching them as perfectly. But, personally, im quite ok with how they are, even if those hill-tops aren't as "flash-backs" invoking as i have some of them in memory. General shapes are pretty good compared to the real world ....
+1
-
Well, I'm a bit dissapointed with the outcome from socalled 30m data. Had higher hopes regarding this. Sharpness of cliffs and ridgelines and more detailed erosive patterns would help to make terrain look more realistic.
Mabe there is a way to refine your procedural/fractal engine without extra data input (at the expense of world fidelity).
... well, ill say, in mountains, 1 m resolution would still be not enough :D (seriously, 10 meter wide 90-depressions cant be taken out from a 30-m resolution) .... i doubt that even 10 meter would be any totally significant change - you just wont have them in such detail to walk the path like in real tourist-track matching them as perfectly. But, personally, im quite ok with how they are, even if those hill-tops aren't as "flash-backs" invoking as i have some of them in memory. General shapes are pretty good compared to the real world ....
I remember myself, testing 5m resolution in my region, in FSX almost one decade ago.
I would say, the fidelity of the shapes was nice. Some small peaks was there while they was not in the original 90m or even 25m. So result was closer to real life.
But i agree. The result is great comparing the video posted here. Its a big Step in how terrain look. Coverall Avoid a lack of details in the flat places. And make mountains better, even visible with the shadows generated. Now when you look the terrain in the side of 30m, is much more realistic.
I dont know what should be necesary to get more real shapes compared to real life. Maybe there is some way to get more raw data from the 30m SRTM. OR some filter can be added.
In 2020 we will be playing Outerra in 5m. Or maybe it will have a way to add certain places (as in Fsx) with really accurate data.
And maybe in the near future from now, with the tools for retouch the terrain and layers (rocks, etc), we can create accurate places. making a extrusion here and there, or a smooth. Changing some rock patterns, etc.
I still need to see the 30m in the places i visually know. I still think it will be more accurate data compared to 90M. we have much more points in the middle.
Still vote for have a experimental 30m version to explore and refine data.
KW71 solution is not looking bad. I preffer his last image compared to the original.
-
Cameni, are you using the full 16 bits for height resolution?
I guess eight bits is enough for current database
Mariana trench: 10,809 m + Everest: 8,848m = 19,657 m / 256 = 76.78m
But 30m database would benefit from more bits.
-
You are confusing vertical resolution with the horizontal one. Vertical is in meters and world would look pretty ugly if we quantized it into 8 bits.
Horizontal spacing is around 30m, which gets resampled into ~38m OT dataset.
-
A question I would ask is how much does the increased resolution affect framerate, if at all?
-
I haven't measured it precisely (needs to be a dynamic perf measurement), but it doesn't seem to be affecting anything. It's just that one terrain level is now loaded instead of being generated, but there isn't a big difference, performance-wise.
-
Just a thought... if FSX, a sim made in 2006 can use 10m DEM the size of North America (FTX PNW) , why can't Outerra?
-
PNW isn' t the size of North America, and it's not a 10m mesh. It's LOD10, meaning a 38m mesh.
I see even ORBX is advertising it as 10m, even though the mesh author himself wondered where that misinformation came from.
-
PNW isn' t the size of North America, and it's not a 10m mesh. It's LOD10, meaning a 38m mesh.
I see even ORBX is advertising it as 10m, even though the mesh author himself wondered where that misinformation came from.
Now that is interesting! Anyway, whatever orbx uses, it look very good. If it is 38m then things are even better. I think a big part of how orbx scenery looks is due to textures. Is there a way to base the textures in Outerra to satellite photos? I'm not saying to overlay the photos on the terrain but color it based on them instead.
-
Actually scratch the above comment. The problem here is that we need more definition. Especially regarding, banks coastlines, etc... Sometime I don't even know why I'm looking for something to fix in things that ain't broken!
-
Problem is of how to convert data elevation into Outerra ?
Thx
-
Is ther ea Download link for the 30 M data yet?
-
Is ther ea Download link for the 30 M data yet?
http://forum.outerra.com/index.php?topic=2396.0
-
Bug in the film 01:16 out midle screen.... Mesh is spiking
Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk