Outerra Engine > Development screen shots and videos

Evaluation of 30m elevation data in Outerra

<< < (4/8) > >>

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.


--- Quote from: ZeosPantera on May 28, 2015, 11:14:18 am ---The Middle earth data is also more extreme. There are quite a few cliff faces that make real world cliff faces pee their pants.

--- End quote ---

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.

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.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version