Outerra Engine > Development screen shots and videos
Evaluation of 30m elevation data in Outerra
PytonPago:
--- Quote from: 2eyed on May 28, 2015, 02:43:25 pm ---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).
--- End quote ---
... 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 ....
KW71:
--- Quote from: PytonPago on May 28, 2015, 02:58:07 pm --- ... 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 ....
--- End quote ---
+1
josem75:
--- Quote from: PytonPago on May 28, 2015, 02:58:07 pm ---
--- Quote from: 2eyed on May 28, 2015, 02:43:25 pm ---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).
--- End quote ---
... 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 ....
--- End quote ---
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.
KW71:
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.
cameni:
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version