Outerra forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Outerra Tech Demo download. Help with graphics driver issues

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic: Terrain detail versus google earth  (Read 26940 times)

foxfiles

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 215
  • Reality is merely an illusion
Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
« Reply #15 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
Logged
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - A. Einstein

ktroy

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 8
  • newbie
Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
« Reply #16 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?
Logged

cameni

  • Brano Kemen
  • Outerra Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6651
  • Pegs is clever, but tae hain’t a touch sentimental
    • outerra.com
Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
« Reply #17 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.
Logged

foxfiles

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 215
  • Reality is merely an illusion
Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
« Reply #18 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?
Logged
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - A. Einstein

lookastdu

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 74
  • cars <3
Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
« Reply #19 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
Logged

ktroy

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 8
  • newbie
Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
« Reply #20 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!
Logged

lookastdu

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 74
  • cars <3
Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
« Reply #21 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
Logged

foxfiles

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 215
  • Reality is merely an illusion
Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
« Reply #22 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.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 11:35:46 am by foxfiles »
Logged
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - A. Einstein

cameni

  • Brano Kemen
  • Outerra Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6651
  • Pegs is clever, but tae hain’t a touch sentimental
    • outerra.com
Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
« Reply #23 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.
Logged

SpaceFlight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
« Reply #24 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/). 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).
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?
« Last Edit: June 17, 2012, 03:54:21 am by SpaceFlight »
Logged
"You see, Killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them, until they reached their limit and shut down."
Zapp Brannigan

foxfiles

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 215
  • Reality is merely an illusion
Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
« Reply #25 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

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
« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 12:44:42 pm by foxfiles »
Logged
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - A. Einstein

SpaceFlight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
« Reply #26 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) some time ago, back then Astrium was still Infoterra (it is still part of EADS though).
« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 01:08:04 pm by SpaceFlight »
Logged
"You see, Killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them, until they reached their limit and shut down."
Zapp Brannigan

cameni

  • Brano Kemen
  • Outerra Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6651
  • Pegs is clever, but tae hain’t a touch sentimental
    • outerra.com
Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
« Reply #27 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, 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.
Logged

ktroy

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 8
  • newbie
Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
« Reply #28 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?
« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 10:11:26 pm by ktroy »
Logged

Jagerbomber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1495
Re: Terrain detail versus google earth
« Reply #29 on: June 17, 2012, 12:25:29 am »

What about trees, buildings and other stuff effecting the higher resolution data?
Logged
"Perhaps this speaks to some larger trend within society today...  A prevailing desire on the part of indie developers to recreate the entire world into one where you can charge more than $15 for your game design degree coursework." - Yahtzee ;) :P
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4