Resolution of Orthophotos

Can the Dev Team improve resolution of Global Scnery(Orthophotos) just a little bit? or is it not possible?

It’s certainly possible but it’s not so simple.

Exhibit A: You need to source the imagery from all the back at square one. Rolling out the current 15m satellite imagery throughout the entire world took (if I’m correct) roughly two years. For many reasons this would take a lot longer.

Exhibit B: The cost of this is almost certainly going to increase exponentially. Of course, that includes paying for a curated source of satellite imagery again and at an even more extortionate price for a higher resolution as well as IF’s ability to stream all of the data at a large scale.

While I get that you don’t mind a small improvement, it still applies in the sense that you start from the very beginning of rolling out Global. At that point, it’s more worthwhile to make a much larger improvement.

8 Likes

The problem is that if we go with A then it will firstly take too long and it will also cause some regions with better graphics to be flown into so much less often.

1 Like

I possibly understood this topic as some dental thing hence “Ortho”, but well B is a good sign this is not the first or really a good idea. Pricing can effect a company’s or profit organization’s finance greatly. This is also why some other flight sims (such as X-Plane, RFS) have 3D buildings and terminals but have satellite images in lower quality. X-Plane just has the city buildings and terminals, RFS has just terminals and trees along with some unrealistic buildings, and IF just has terminals. This is good enough, as we are to simulate a flight, not create an identical copy of one.

After all, this is a MOBILE simulator. We might start having storage or performance issues if the game gets too high quality, especially with the satellite scenery

I don’t really need Satellite Scenery with all buildings just saying can we get little better or is it not possible

Even with the increase of quality, that alone can ruin the experience heavily for the majority of players, especially those like me who do long haul flights. Our devices would crash, no doubt about it.

Honestly, I can deal with the textures right now, it’s not terrible once your up in the air,
needs improvement? Absolutely. Is it a serious concern? No. However, the one thing I’m wondering about is when the team will do stuff to the terrain north of 60°. Even some minimal progress towards a future goal of terrain until 70° would be great.

I understand at least a little bit about GIS products… Can’t say I know enough detail about what the IF staff would have to do. But in general…

Changing the existing terrain in any significant way basically would involve an expensive transaction to get the imagery in the first place, there’s no way around that no matter what sort of ‘partial’ improvement is intended.

Then the storage of the new imagery has to be factored in.

Processing the received imagery into IF’s database format and system is not a trivial thing, so that would take more time and processing away from Metal based and other core improvements.

If only some parts of the world get high res imagery, the extra complication of serving different levels of detail comes into play, that’s a chunk of more complicated code for the staff to get into place.

Lastly, how many lower end phone users would wind up crashing far more often due to storage limitations, gpu overload, etc…

IF could code the graphic engine to flush the most distant imagery from the cache more aggressively but that then increases the cache thrashing and would sharply increase the amount of scenery downloads. Which would have to be paid for, as well.

Asking for better quality is not a bad thing, but the costs need to be understood along with the possible benefits.

I suggest doing something like in rfs, trees and buildings near airports

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.